CHAPTER FOUR: ISLAM
REVELATION AND REASON
The relationship between revelation and reason became a subject of debate as a result of exposure to foreign thought in the 'Abbāsid period. Only at this time did Persian and Greek influence have a major impact on Muslim thinking.
4.1 Persian influence
During the Umayyad period the Arabs maintained a position of supremacy, but the growing number of non-Arab converts, called Mawālī, particularly of Persian extraction, could not long be ignored, and by their support the 'Abbāsids came to power. Large numbers of educated Persian Zoroastrians, who were the backbone of the pre-Islamic Sasanian administration and the custodians of Persian culture, entered Islam. Educated converts were few in the Greek cultural zone, either because many cultured people fled before the invaders or because those who remained were more strongly attached to Christianity. The 'Abbāsids were not only obliged to compensate the Malwālī by giving them equal status with the Arabs, but also had to depend on the persian Mawālī for the administration of the Islamic empire, particularly as secretaries or civil servants.
Persian political traditions changed the style of government, making the caliph more regal, aloof and inclined to absolutism. This change was fostered by translations, especially those by Ibn-al-Muqaffa', of Persian literature and books concerning government. Persian history also was absorbed into Islamic historical tradition at this time, while Greek and Roman history remained largely ignored, because comparatively few educated Greek speakers became Muslim.
A more threatening aspect of Persian influence was the fact that many of the educated Persians were more attached to their traditional culture than to Islam. They were accused of zandaqa, or irreligion. Ibn-al-Muqaffa', for example, wrote a book criticizing Muhammad, Islam and the Qurān; this was likely one reason for his execution by al-Mansūr. Apart from the accusation of zandaqa, the Persian secretarial class found themselves the rivals of the proto-Sunnite 'ulamā, the masters of Hadīth and jurisprudence. They expressed their disdain for the 'ulamā through the Shu'ūbiyya movement (from shu'ūb, peoples), which glorified the culture and achievements of the non-Arab, especially Persian, people of the empire and belittled Arabic Qurānic and religious literary style. Ibn-al-Muqaffa', who was the best master of Arabic style in his time, was in the forefront of the Shu'ūbiyya movement. For Islam what was at stake was not just the question of literary style or even some doctrinal points, but the fundamental question of whether Islam would absorb and transform the conquered nations or the conquered nations would absorb and transform Islam. Arabic culture is essential to Islam, and the challenge of Persian zandaqa and Shu'ūbiyya forced the Arab or Arabized Muslims to develop an Arabic religious culture of high quality. Al-Jāhiz (d. 869) and Ibn-Qutayba (d. 889) were two men who answered the challenge by combining good Arabic literary style with a traditional Islamic outlook.
Another aspect of the challenge of the zandaqa and Shu'ūbiyya trends was the political contest between people of constitutionalist or of absolutist persuasion. The 'ulamā, who included Persians as well as Arabs, represented the constitutionalist block, because they were the interpreters of the Qurān and Hadīth which were the constitution of the empire. The secretaries, who were joined by some Arabs, particularly from Yemen of proto-Shī'ite sympathies, represented the absolutist block.
The caliphs found it advantageous to tap the strong points of both blocks. In general they would welcome an acceptance of their absolute power, but had to check an exclusively 'Alid trend among the Shī'ites and an anti-Islamic and anti-Arab trend among the secretaries. We saw how al-Mamūn attempted to win the Shī'ites by nominating 'Alī ar-Ridā as his heir apparent and adopting what amounted to the Zaydite compromise, which allowed the best Hāshimite (including himself) to be recognized as imām. By another move, the adoption of the Mu'tazilite teaching that the Qurān is created (See chapter 5), al-Mamūn attempted to win the absolutist sympathies of the Shī'ites and the secretaries and check the power of the 'ulamā. The teaching that the Qurān is the uncreated speech of God implied that it was sacred and unchangeable in al its implications, as interpreted by the 'ulamā, whereas to say that it is created implies that its provisions may be overruled by the decree of an inspired imām. Likewise the Mu'tazilite Qadarite position squared with the teaching that the Qurān is created, because the the historical events mentioned in the Qurān would hot have been determined from eternity, and room would be left for free human choice.
4.2 Greek philosophical influence
Before considering Greek influence, we must remark that Islamic systematic theology, or Kalām, did not originate solely from interaction with Greek thought, but had already been prepared by the growth of systematic juridical science and the method of qiyās. Qiyās, Schacht observes,[1] did not come from Greek thought, but from Jewish exegetical science. Theologians who took and interest in Greek thought, however, had a juridical background.
Greek thought was unique in the ancient world up to the time under consideration, because it alone reached a scientific level. It was not all scientific, nor were its scientific theories valid in their entirety, but its method and outlook were scientific, in that it attempted, first, empirically to ascertain facts about the subject under enquiry and secondly to analyze these facts in relation to their proper causes, whether in logic, mathematics or natural science. The Persians, Egyptians and others had remarkable achievements in astronomical observations, building etc. which required considerable mathematical understanding, but their mathematics was not formally demonstrative in terms of theorems, and remained on a pre-scientific level.
The early Christian Fathers took an interest in philosophy when they came into contact with the Greek community of Alexandria, which had an old and flourishing school. The Greeks of Alexandria were won over to Christianity in the 2nd century by the attraction of Christ as the incarnation of divine wisdom, as early Christian apologetes presented him. The school of Alexandria, however, did not have deep roots among the Coptic speaking Egyptians, and when the Arabs conquered Egypt, the Greek philosophers and theologians left Egypt. Around 718 the school moved to Antioch in Syria, where philosophical and theological learning was more flourishing. In pre-Islamic times Christian schools developed in Syria and Iraq, which gave instruction in Syriac (Aramaic) language. Especially in Gondeshapur, in Iraq, the chief Greek philosophical treatises had been translated in to Syriac and much original literature was being written. We must note, however, that the Neoplatonic form of Greek philosophy was dominant in these schools.
Greek logical, physical and metaphysical notions enhanced the analytical perception of Christian theology, even though these notions were not always accurately or adequately applied to the questions Christian theology was facing. In their use of Greek philosophy Christian theologians emphasized that it was only an instrument for explaining the Christian message; it was not to determine the content of Christian theology.
When the Arab Muslims conquered Egypt, Syria and Iraq they largely avoided the existing schools and educational system. They were suspicious of anything non-Arab, and thought this learning was either anti-Islamic or superfluous, since all that was worth knowing was in the Qurān. In spite of this prevalent attitude, some Muslims took an interest in philosophy, for several reasons:
(1) Muslims engaged in religious debate with Christians and found themselves on the defensive when Christians used philosophical learning to bolster their position, particularly about the implications of the term Word of God, applied by the Qurān to Jesus (4:171). Many Muslims decided to learn some philosophy in order to answer the Christians.
Muslim interaction with Christian theologians at this time has not been thoroughly studied.[2] Yet the discussions between educated Muslims with St. John of Damascus (d. 749), his disciple Theodore Abū-Qurra (d.c. 826), and the Nestorian Catholicus (bishop) Timothy I (d. 823 at the age of 95) are well known. For Christians such debates were mostly defensive, since Muslims were protected from conversion by the death penalty for apostasy and by the teaching that Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupt and unreliable. The latter teaching was based on Qurānic passages such as 2:75-9 and 5:13-15, which refer to forging, distortion, concealing and effacing of the Scriptures. The Qurān is not clear to what extent such distortion (tahrīf) affects the Scriptural texts themselves, but various hadīths warn Muslims against reading Jewish or Christian books. Also, according to at-Tabarī (d. 923), the earlier Qurān commentators held that the Bible as a whole is corrupt. At-Tabarī himself rejected this view, as did al-Baydāwī (d. 1388). Such partial acceptance of the Bible may have begun during the first 'Abbāsid century, when Muslims were looking for passages to prove that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible, according to Qurān 61:6 and 7:157. At the beginning of the 'Abbāsid period, around 782, the Nestorian Timothy I mentions only three passages used by al-Mahdī to prove his point, namely John 15:23)16:1, Isaiah 21:9, and Deuteronomy 18:18. Yet a century later Ibn-Qutayba (d. 889) and others were able to quote many passages. Muslim scholars generally, however, have not been prepared to accept the Bible except in so far as it agrees with the Qurān, and even when they seem to accept certain passages their acceptance is often only hypothetical, for the sake of arguing with their opponents.
In discussing with Christian theologians Muslim scholars would certainly have met many philosophical notions and observed how they were relevant to theological problems. Yet direct contact of Muslims with Greek philosophy was more important. This came about partly through the conversion of some educated people who had a Greek intellectual background, and partly from the interest some Muslims took in philosophy with the encouragement of the caliphs.
(2) The second reason is that Muslims, especially the rulers, desired the advantages of philosophical learning. Philosophy, we must keep in mind, at that time meant all the human sciences, such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine and technology.
(3) The third reason is that the caliphs, for a time, found it politically convenient to support the philosophers, because they were associated with the secretarial class of civil servants who were mostly Persian and attached to their traditional culture more than to Islam; this class of people were rivals of the 'ulamā, constitutionalist religious scholars who considered themselves the proprietors of Qurānic learning and hence of the legislation which must guide the caliphs in ruling the Islamic community.
Accordingly, the caliph al-Mamūn (813-833) established in Baghdad the Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom), which as a translation and research centre for philosophy, a kind of university where Muslim and non-Muslim scholars freely mingled. Iraq became the intellectual centre of the Muslim world, so that the Christian Alexandrian school moved again from Antioch to Harrān around 850, where the Sābians (a religious sect) had a philosophical school. It moved to Baghdad around 900. A number of important Christian schools in Iraq taught theology, medicine, mathematics, physics and other branches of philosophy. The principal Greek scientific works had been translated into Syriac, and this was the language of instruction in these schools. To make these works accessible to readers of Arabic, al-Mamūn maintained a team of translators at the Bayt al-Hikma. As a result, a vast amount of translation was done, mostly by Christians.
The environment created by al-Mamūn permitted the rise of the first notable Muslim philosopher and the only one of Arab descent: al-Kindī (c. 800-866). He had a huge library and mastered all the Greek sciences available. Neoplatonism, with some corrections such as creation from nothing rather than natural emanation, to him seemed in harmony with Islamic revelation. Al-Kindī influenced the Mu'tazilites, the first philosophical theologians of Islam, who also had the official support of the 'Abbāsid caliphs until 849.
The religious scholar and Hadīth-master, Ibn-Hanbal,was persecuted by the 'Abbāsids for not subscribing to the Mu'tazilite view of the createdness of the Qurān. The hostile reaction of the Hanbalite people of Baghdad led the caliph al-Mutawakkil in 849 to expel the Mu'tazilites and philosophers from his court. both these groups continued to write and study on their own outside court, while a more traditional group of theologians gained official favour. Al-Ash'arī (873-935), who took over the leadership of this group, continued to use the rational methods and philosophical concepts of the Mu'tazilites and the philosophers, but did so in defense of conservative traditional positions. He stood in contrast to Ibn-Hanbal and theHanbalites, who wanted to stick to the Qurān and Hadīth and avoid rational arguments and philosophical terminology altogether.
4.3 The rise of Kalām
Muslim religious scholars and ordinary devout Muslims generally kept well away from Christian schools and the foreign sciences they taught. Their attitude was one of suspicion of anything non-Arab and also an assurance that al that is important to know is in the Qurān or is explained in Islamic religious sciences. Anything else is either anti-Islamic or superfluous. Therefore those Muslims who took an interest in Greek thought and sciences were suspect and cut off from the mainstream of Islamic intellectual life, becoming like a sect to themselves.
Only a few daring Muslim theologians entered the court circles of Hārūn ar-Rashīd and al-Mamūn, where for some years Muslim and Christian philosophers were freely mixing, and Christian theologians were sometimes to be seen. The result of this contact was a new kind of theology called Kalām. This word means speech, and was used by critics who called this kind of theology just talk. The aim of Kalām was to provide, with the help of philosophical analysis, a thematic or systematic presentation and defence of Islamic teachings. It was used first in debates with non-Muslims, and afterwards brought into disputes between differing Muslim theologians or schools of thought.
Al-Kindī wrote about many topics which were not related to theological debates, such as logic, ethics, mathematics, astronomy, meteorology and medicine, but some of his writings deal specifically with notions which were central to Mu'tazilite positions on certain questions. Some of these notions were: 1) the atom (indivisible part), which was key to predestinarian occasionalism, which the Mu'tazilites rejected; 2) essences of bodies (jawāhir al-ajsām), related to the same question; 3) nature or quiddity (māhiyya), which was used in the discussion of Gods attributes; and 4) ability to act (istatā'a), which was used in the discussion concerning free will. These notions were discussed among philosophers and theologians well before the time of al-Kindī and the Mu'tazilites, certainly during the reign of Hārūn ar-Rashīd, but the relationship between al-Kindī and the Mu'tazilites shows how far the influence of philosophy on Kalām had progressed.
A few prominent mutakallimūn (practitioners of Kalām) who made innovative theological speculation with philosophical concepts were: Hishām ibn-al-Hakam (d.c. 805), Dirār ibn-'Amr (a contemporary of the latter), Bishr al-Marīsī (d.c. 833), and Husayn an-Najjār (of the same time).[3]
The new theology, or Kalām, was not well received by a large body of traditional religious scholars because of its use of non-Qurānic philosophical concepts. The Hanafite judge, Abū-Yūsuf (d. 798), equated it with zandaqa. The Hanbalite school was the most opposed to Kalām, as it was to philosophy, and al-Ash'arī, who had a Hanbalite background, had to write a defence of his involvement in this study.
Although the philosophical movement in the Islamic world produced great men who contributed much to Western thought, this movement ,as noted above, was an isolated counter-culture in its own home. Nevertheless, at two points of time it had an important influence on Islamic theological thought. The first time was during the reigns of Hārūn ar-Rashīd and al-Mamūn; the second was during the life of al-Ghazālī (d. 1111). In between these times there was virtually complete isolation, and the concepts and problems brought into Islamic theology prior to 849 remained the same until al-Ghazālīs time, three centuries later. Except for these two periods, the theologians were happy to avoid the philosophers, and the philosophers developed some theses that were irreconcilable with Islamic revelation.
4.4 Some philosophers of the 'Abbāsid period
To indicate the importance of the philosophical movement, some notable philosophers or scientists can be pointed out: Qustā ibn-Lūqā (d.c. 919), a translator; Ishāq ibn-Hunayn (d. 910), a translator; Hubaysh, nephew of Hunayn, a translator; Abū-Bishr Mattā (d. 940), a translator and logician; Thābit ibn-Qurra (d. 901), a mathematician; Sinān (d. 942), son of the latter, a mathematician and astronomer; an-Nayrizī (d.c. 921), a mathematician and authority on Euclid, known to the West as Anaritius; Abū-Ma'shar (d. 886), an astronomer, known to the West as Albumasar; al-Battānī (d. 929), an astronomer, known to the West as Albategnius; and Ibn-Masarra (d. 931), a Spanish metaphysician and sūfī.
Another philosopher of this time of Muhammad ar-Rāzī (c. 865-923 or 932). He was most famous as a physician, but also wrote on ethics and metaphysics; for him philosophy took the place of religion. He advocated that the philosopher should keep away from political matters and devote himself to contemplative scientific pursuits. One point in which he deviated from Islam is that, since all men are equally endowed with reason, prophets are not necessary.
Al-Fārābī (875-950), however, held the contrary view that all things emanate from God in a hierarchical pattern. Also, since God is immaterial, he should know only the general nature of material things and not individual particular things, such as the actions of individual men; al-Fārābī was accused of holding Gods ignorance of particulars because it accords with his principles, but he avoided drawing the conclusion publicly. The first head of the ideal state is a prophet; other men with lesser qualities succeed him. The caliph should be a man of wisdom, and hence a philosopher, a role which in al-Fārābīs time could also coincide with that of a Shī'ite imām.
Ibn-Sīnā (980-1037), known to the Latins as Avicenna, was one of the greatest Muslim philosophers. Of Persian and maybe Turkish background, he mastered all available learning before the age of 18, and was particularly skilled in medicine. He read Aristotles Metaphysics 40 times and could not understand it until he came across a commentary by al-Fārābī. Ibn-Sīnā served various princes in the fragmentized Islamic caliphate of his time and upheld the role of a prophet in the foundation of an ideal state. He did not theorize, however, as al-Fārābī did, on the role of successors to the prophet, since Fātimid propaganda was at that time disturbing the realms loyal to the 'Abbāsids.
In metaphysics, Ibn-Sīnā maintained that God is a pure and simple being, as opposed to the composite being of creatures, yet, following Plotinus Theology of Aristotle (which he believed to be Aristotles), he thought of creation as a necessary and eternal emanation, rather than a free act of God. Ibn-Sīnā maintained the immortality of the soul (even without a personal agent intellect), yet, thinking that happiness consists in seeing God without the nuisance of the body, he opposed Islamic teaching about the resurrection, or gave it only a symbolic interpretation. Moreover, he thought that Qurānic language, which is loaded with metaphors, is suited only for ignorant people; theologians go one step higher by trying to understand the deeper meaning of Qurānic language, but the philosopher (who is also a sūfī) stands at the apex of human understanding. The position of a philosopher would seem to be superior to that of a prophet, yet Ibn-Sīnā sometimes explains prophesy as an exalted form of human philosophical thinking.
Such philosophy could hardly be called Islamic, although its proponents claimed to be Muslims and often twisted Qurānic passages to suit their positions. Louis Gardet is right in saying that it is essentially of Platonic-Aristotelian inspiration, in Arabic language, with Islamic influence.[4] It is not surprising that the theologians opposed the philosophical movement; the chief combatant was al-Ghazālī (1058-1111), who will be discussed later.
4.5 The Mu'tazilites
The word Mu'tazilite means someone who withdraws. But who withdrew from whom, and for what reason? Muslim historians relating Mu'tazilite accounts of their origins give various versions. One is that Wāsil may have been the originator of the theory of the intermediate position regarding the status of a sinner, the five principles of Mu'tazilism containing this theory were not fully developed in his time, nor were they agreed upon by any group of people as a unified set of tenets.
A more accurate history, if we follow the reconstruction made by W.M. Watt,[5] is that the term Mu'tazilite was most likely first applied by proto-Shī'ites in a pejorative sense to those who were neutral regarding 'Alī, neither supporting nor opposing him. Later, Qatāda called 'Amr ibn-'Ubayd by this name, and he accepted it in a favourable sense, since in the Qurān Abraham (19:48) and the Men of the Cave (18:16) are praised for withdrawing from the worship of false gods. Finally, when Abū-l-Hudhayl and his followers agreed upon the five principles, they looked back to Wāsil and 'Amr for their ancestral legitimacy and adopted their name of Mu'tazilites, since these also taught the intermediate position of a sinner.
Some Mu'tazilites fabricated an even better account of their ancestral legitimacy. According to this account, Abū-l-Hudhayl received the teaching of justice and unity [Mu'tazilism] from 'Uthmān at-Tawīl and the latter told him that he had received it from Wāsil who had it from Abū-Hāshim ibn-Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyya who had it from his father Muhammid ibn-al-Hanafiyya who had it from 'Alī who had it from the Messenger of God, to whom Gabriel had brought it from God.
What is clear is that Abū-l-Hudhayl is the founder of Mu'tazilism properly so-called, yet he adopted a name which already existed and had been applied to Wāsil and 'Amr, who could be claimed as suitable forefathers of the movement, giving it respectability and legitimacy.
Basra and Baghdad were the two centres of Mu'tazilism. Abū-l-Hudhayl was the successor of Dirār as the leader of the Basra theologians. Although he died in 842, he was not well in his later years, and did most of his creative work before 800. Other Mu'tazilites who followed him in Basra were: an-Nazzām (d. 836), Mu'ammar (d. 830), al-Asamm (d.c. 816), Hishām al-Fuwatī (d.c. 830), al-Jāhiz (776-869, a black man, probably Ethiopian, and master of Arabic literature), and Ash-Shahhām (d. 880).
The Baghdad school, which constituted the court theologians of al-Mamūn and his two successors, was founded by Bishr ibn-al-Mu'tamir, who may have learned Mu'tazilism from Mu'ammar in Basra, and then lived in Baghdad during the reign of al-Mamūn. Bishr criticised some of the view of members of the Basra school and was a supporter of al-Mamūns declaration of 'Alī ar-Ridā as his successor. Other Baghdad theologians were: Thumāma (d.c. 828, a man of great political influence), Ibn-abī-Duād (776-854, grand qādī and administrator of the Mihna under al-Mu'tasim), al-Murdār (d. 840, an ascetic and student of Bishr), Ja'far ibn-Harb (d. 800, a follower of al-Murdār, and who was at the court of al-Wāthiq), Ja'far ibn-Mubashshir (d. 848, a companion of the previous Ja'far), and al-Ishkāfī (d. 854, a companion of the two Ja'fars).
The political implications of Mu'tazilism concern the questions of faith and practice and were discussed in chapter 1.
Mu'tazilism is distinguished by its five principles: 1) tawhīd (unity), 2) 'adl (justice), 3) al-wa'd wa-l-wa'īd (the promise and the threat), 4) al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn (the intermediate position), and 5) al-amr bi-l-ma'rūf wa-n-nahy 'an al-munkar (commanding the right and forbidding the wrong). The last three principles are probably historically earlier. Numbers 3 and 4 have been discussed in chapter 1. Number 1 was discussed in chapter 2, and number 2 will be discussed in chapter 5.
Number 5 was interpreted to oblige action to the extent that one has the opportunity and ability to do so, whether by tongue or sword. Thus an armed revolt against an unjust ruler is obligatory when there is a likelihood of success. On the other hand, a just ruler should be supported; for the Mu'tazilites this meant the 'Abbāsids.
Throughout these five principles there is the supposition that human reason is capable of discovering truth about God and what is good or bad for man; revelation may help to understand these things better, but it does not take away reasons autonomy. Sunnite theologians rejected this autonomy of reason (except in preliminary matters of faith, such as the existence of God) and most other mu'tazilite teachings, but adopted many of the ideas and methods of argument the Mu'tazilites had taken over from Greek philosophy. This was the permanent contribution the Mu'tazilites made to Islamic theology.
Mu'tazilism survived into the 2nd 'Abbāsid century even after it lost the official support it had during the mihna. Some important Mu'tazilites of this period are al-Jubbā'ī (d. 915), Abū-Hāshim (d. 933), and al-Ka'bī (d. 929 or 931). Some of their teachings will be mentioned in chapter 5.[6]
4.6 Hanbalism
Mu'tazilism was opposed by the break-away Ash'arite school, but even more fundamentally by Hanbalism, which also opposed Ash'arism. Ahmad ibn-Hanbal (d. 855) has been mentioned already. he was important not only in the area of Hadīth and jurisprudence, but also, even though he rejected Kalām, for this theological positions. These are summarized in a creed ('aqīda), of which numbers 16 & 17 interest us in here:[7]
Religion is only the book of God, the āthār (sayings or acts of pious men), the sunan (standard practices), and sound narratives from reliable men about recognized sound valid Traditions (akhbār) confirming one another.. until that ends with the Messenger of God and his Companions and the Followers and the Followers of the Followers, and after them the recognized imāms [sc. scholars] who are taken as exemplars, who hold to the Sunna and keep to the āthār, who do not recognize heresy and are not accused of falsehood or of divergence [from one another]. They are not upholders of qiyās (analogical reasoning) and ray (personal opinion), for qiyās in religion is worthless, and ray is the same and worse. The upholders of ray and qiyās in religion are heretical and in error, except where there is an athar from any of the earlier reliable imāms.
He who supposes that taqlīd (following an authority without criticism) is not approved and that his religion is not thus following anyone.. only wants to invalidate the athar and to weaken knowledge and the Sunna, and to stand isolated in ray and Kalām and heresy and divergence [from others].
Although this creed is aimed mostly against the Ash'arites, it applies as well to the Mu'tazilites. It condemns their Kalām for abandoning the primacy of the Qurān and Hadīth, and secondly for anthropomorphism (tashbīh) in positing analogies between God and creation. The second criticism is opposed to the Hanbalite approach to God of bi-lā kayf (amodally or do not say how).
Hanbalism was very important not only theologically but also politically. In Baghdad the masses of people followed the Hanbalite leaders and could hold the caliphs to ransom whenever they made any demands.
Two famous medieval Hanbalite writers are Ibn-Batta (d. 997)[8] and Ibn-Taymiyya (d. 1328).[9]
4.7 Ash'arism
Al-Ash'arī (873-935) was the culminating figure in the development of Sunnite theology. He studies law, and is claimed by both the Hanafite and the Shāfi'ite schools (although in the beginning the Hanafites opposed Ash'arite Kalām). He studied Mu'tazilite theology under al-Jubbāī and might have succeeded him as master of the Basra school had he not abandoned Mu'tazilism about 912. The story of his conversion comes in various versions, all of which associate it with three dreams he had during the month of Ramadān. In the first dream the Prophet Muhammad commanded him to defend the teachings handed down from himself in the hadīths. In the second he inquired how he was carrying out this command. Al-Ash'arī then gave up the study of Kalām and devoted himself entirely to Hadīth study. Thereupon in the third dream the Prophet angrily said he commanded him to study Hadīth, but not to give up Kalām.
Another story of al-Ash'arīs conversion is a supposed debate he had with al-Jubbāī about three brothers, one who was a good believer, the other a wicked unbeliever and the third died as a boy. If only those who earn Paradise will enter it, then only the first brother will go in. It seems unjust that God did not let the third brother grow up and earn Paradise. If it is said that God foreknew that the boy would be wicked, then he should have made the second brother die before he became wicked. Al-Ash'arī supposedly abandoned Mu'tazilism because of its inconsistency in this problem. Yet the story is suspect because it was first attributed to al-Ash'arī only in the 14th century by as-Subkī (d. 1370), secondly because it did not argue against al-Jubbāī, whose teaching about lutf, or Gods free generosity, was close to al-Ash'arīs ideas, but against some of the Mu'tazilites of Baghdad, and thirdly because there are other stories about his conversion and the possible factors influencing it.
Al-Ash'arīs theological style relies heavily on comparison of Qurān verses and to some extent hadīths, in addition to rational arguments. This might be surprising[10] after hearing how the Hanbalites condemned him for selling out to philosophical thinking. But the studies of Louis Gardet and George Anawati[11] R. McCarthy[12] and Michel Allard[13] have pointed out that al-Ash'arī is very much in the style of the Mu'tazilites who relied heavily on Qurān quotations to support their rational arguments.
Al-Ash'arī agreed with the basic teaching of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal. The only difference was his use of rational arguments. This led him to treat the question of Gods attributes, which the Hanbalites avoided, and to look for human analogies to explain how God can will evil. He drew comparison with the case of a man who did not resist murder in order not to be guilty of sin himself and in this way willed his own death. Similarly Joseph, in the Qurān story, preferred prison to adultery with his masters wife, and in this way willed an act of injustice upon himself. Such comparisons were rational in a way, but still simplistic and lacking philosophical precision.
Al-Ash'arīs importance should not obscure the fact that there were theologians before him (especially ibn-Kullāb) who defended Sunnite positions with rational methods. Moreover al-Ash'arī did not dominate the scene of Sunnite Kalām during his lifetime, but had many influential companions, such as al-Qalānisī. Yet al-Ash'arī left writings which were the inspiration of later theologians who therefore looked to him as their father. some of his immediate pupils were Abū-Sahl as-Su'lūkī of Nishapur (d. 979), Abū-l-Hasan al-Bāhilī of Basra, and Abū-'Abdallāh ibn-Mujāhid of Basra and Baghdad (d. 980, different from Ibn-Mujāhid, the Qurānic scholar). These, however, are not very well known.
Al-Māturīdī (d. 944), although regarded from the 16th century as equal in importance to al-Ash'arī, is likewise little known with regard to his life, and most early biographical dictionaries do not even mention him. This may be because he lived in Samarqand, far to the East, and the Hanafites who cultivated his theology were not much interested in biographies or the history of the theological movements and heresies. Al-Māturīdī entered into prominence when the Seljūq and Ottoman Turks brought Hanafism to the forefront.
Al-Māturīdī differed from al-Ash'arī in three areas, discussed in this work: the first is the relationship between faith and practice (chapter 1). The second is qadar (chapter 2), and the third concerns the attributes of God (chapter 5).
Better known are three second generation Ash'arites, namely, al-Bāqillānī (d. 1013)see chapter 2 for his atomism), Ibn-Fūrak (d. 1015) and al-Isfarāinī (d. 1027). These were all students of al-Bāhilī, while al-Bāqillānī also studied under Ibn-Mujāhid, and Ibn-Fūrak under as-Su'lūkī.
Concerning the question of Scriptural authority, al-Bāqillānī developed the concept of mu'jiza, or miracle. A controversy had arisen as a result of the sūfīs who were reputed to have visions or revelations and to work miracles. These, however, were considered to be the exclusive prerogatives of prophets. Al-Bāqillānī distinguished between a mu'jiza, a miracle adduced evidence of prophesy, confounding any attempt to imitate it, and a karāma, a wonder or an extraordinary work of God produced at the prayer of a holy man but not as evidence of a prophetic mission. Applying the notion of mu'jiza to the Qurān, of all its aspects (style, teaching content, prophesy of the future etc.) al-Bāqillānī saw its superior literary quality as the aspect which defies imitation.
On the same question, al-Isfarāinī held that the Qurān was miraculous only because God obstructed any attempt at imitation, not that it is inimitable in itself.
Al-Juwaynī (d. 1085) was another important Ash'arite who lived in Nishapur in the Seljūq period. He had to go into exile to Mecca and Medina)hence gaining the name Imām al-Haramayn (imām of the two shrines). With the accession of Alp-Arslān to the Seljūq throne, the famous Nizāmalmulk was appointed wazīr. The numerous Nizāmiyya schools he founded were centres of Ash'arism, and to head the one in Nishapur he called al-Juwaynī back from exile. Al-Juwaynī was a theologian in his won right, but is known chiefly as the teacher of al-Ghazālī.
4.8 Al-Ghazālī
At the age of 19 Abū-Hāmid Muhammad al-Ghazālī began to study under al-Juwaynī at Nishapur, mastering all branches of legal and theological studies. When his master died in 1085 he joined the scholars surrounding Nizāmalmulk. His good performance in debates won him an appointment as chief professor at the Nizāmiyya college in Baghdad in 1091, at the age of 33. He lectured on jurisprudence to classes of up to 300 students. In the meantime he set himself to reading the works of al-Fārābī and Ibn-Sīnā, and wrote a polemical attack on their views in his Tahāfut al-falāsifa (Inconsistency/incoherence of the philosophers).
Psychological tensions, together with fear of hell fire, came to a crisis in 1096, producing a speech impediment which prevented him from lecturing. He then decided to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, but spent a year of retreat in Damascus and Jerusalem before doing so. Back in his home town of Tūs, he adopted a kind of monastic sūfī life together with some young disciples. He regained his health and peace of mind and in 1106, the beginning of the 6th Islamic century, he was urged by his friends, including the son of Nizāmalmulk, to return to teaching. They were convinced he was the mujaddid (renewer of religion) expected by Tradition at the beginning of each century. Back at Nishapur he taught until 1110, the year before his death.
Al-Ghazālīs autobiography, al-Munqidh min ad-dalāl (Deliverance from error), tells how in his crisis he sought relief from his scepticism by testing the various movements of his time: philosophical theology (Kalām), philosophy, Bātiniyya (Ismā'īlī Shī'ism), and Sūfism. He discovered that only Sūfism could and did deliver him from his breakdown and restore him to health.
The fullest exposition of al-Ghazālīs thought is his lengthy Ihyā 'ulūm ad-dīn (Revival of religious sciences), a kind of summa theologiae. In this and many other works he developed Ash'arite theology and made a lasting impact in several areas:
1) Many new philosophical elements were absorbed into theology, particularly most of Aristotelian syllogistic logic. The result was an enrichment of systematic theology.
2) He helped kill philosophy as an autonomous study, at least in the East. In spite of his own exposure to philosophy, al-Ghazālī was of the view that, of its branches, medicine, arithmetic and some other basic skills should be learned by a few individuals who would serve the community (fard al-kifāya). Logic and metaphysical study of God (as done by Aristotle) was absorbed into theology. Natural science was considered either false (as astrology or magic or any recognition of nature and causality in the world) or useless (detailed knowledge of the physical universe).
Only in Spain, which was always independent of the 'Abbāsids, first under the Umayyads, then under the Murābits (after 1086), and finally under the philosophy-loving Muwahhids (1147-1225), did philosophy continue to be studied for some time to come, although with intermittent persecution.
Al-Ghazālī also attacked indiscriminate study of theology and Islamic legal science, insisting that only a few people should have specialized knowledge of these subjects.
3) His anti-Ismā'īlī polemic neutralized Fātimid propaganda.
4) He reconciled Sūfism with Sunnite practice, 1) by allowing sūfīs to talk about love of God which brings nearness (muqāraba) to him, but not union or indwelling, 2) by demanding the sūfīs subjection to the Sharī'a as they advance on their tarīqa towards the haqīqa, and 3) by insisting on their disavowal of any claims to work strict miracles (mu'jizāt), which is the prerogative of a prophet. They could only work karāmāt by Gods permission.
5) He softened the rivalry between the Hanbalites and the Ash'arites and among the four legal schools by insisting that scholars should not be accused of apostasy for differences of views in non-essentials.
In spite of these achievements, al-Ghazālīs fame in the next two centuries came not from his theology but from his earlier contribution to the field of jurisprudence. Today, however, he is regarded as the greatest of the medieval Muslim theologians.
4.9 Philosophy in Spain after al-Ghazālī
The earliest philosopher of note in Spain was Ibn-Bājja (d. 1138), known to the Latins as Avempace. Much indebted to al-Fārābī, he studied all branches of knowledge and knew Aristotle thoroughly. His ethical treatise, Tabdīr al-mutawahhid (Guidance of the solitary), urges philosophers to keep aloof from ordinary society and be friends with one another, indicating the isolated status of philosophers in Spain of that time.
Abū-Bakr M. Ibn-Tufayl (in Latin, Abubacer, d. 1185) was a physician familiar with all branches of science, but is famous for his ethical novel Hayy ibn-Yaqzān which contrasts the philosophical and sūfic wisdom of an island solitary to the ignorance of the crowds of people on another island who can understand only the sensible language of the Qurān.
The great Ibn-Rushd (1126-1198), a Spanish Arab known to the Latins as Averroes, wrote a refutation of al-Ghazālīs Tahāfut, called Tahāfut at-Tahāfut (The incoherence of the Incoherence). In his Fasl al-maqāl (The harmony of religion and philosophy) he proposes his conviction that philosophy and revelation are both true and in harmony with one another. Yet, significantly, he works out any apparent contradictions by insisting on the truth of philosophy and the need for reinterpretation of the Qurān.
Ibn-Rushd, like Ibn-Sīnā, through Spanish translators had tremendous influence on European thought, culminating in Thomas Aquinas. Thomas worked out permanent principles for the reconciliation of philosophy and theology, science and religion, which permitted science and philosophy to flourish, in spite of incidental conflicts, in the Christian world. In the Muslim world, however, the theologians failed to integrate the thought of the philosophers. Philosophy, including scientific and technological research, died out as an independent study, and only the elements which were absorbed into theology were retained. This was the situation until the impact of Europe on the Muslim world in the 19th century caused a reawakening.
We may summarize the movements discussed in this chapter by pointing out that Hanbalism represented one extreme: keeping to the letter of revelation only, rejecting all rational ideas and methods. The opposite extreme is that of some of the philosophers, who had nothing to do with revelation and confined themselves to what reason taught them. In between we find the Mu'tazilites who mixed philosophy with rational ideas and methods, and the Ash'arites who mixed philosophy with rational methods, but rejected the rational ideas of the Mu'tazilites and the philosophers. To complete the picture, we may refer to the Shī'ites and sūfīs, who held to revelation but gave it an esoteric interpretation based on divine inspiration and expressed in poetic or sometimes philosophical language.
[1]Origins, p. 99.
[2]See, nevertheless, W. Montgomery Watt, Islam and the integration of society, pp. 258 ff. and Jean-Marie Gaudeul, Encounters & clashes, Islam and Christianity in history.
[3]For a detailed discussion of these men see W.M. Watt, The formative period.
[4]Introduction ą la théologie musulmane, p. 321.
[5]The formative period.
[6]For details see W.M. Watt, The formative period.
[7]See Watt, Formative period, pp. 294-4.
[8]Cf. H. Laoust, La profession de foi dIbn-Batta.
[9]Cf. E.I.2, III, 950 ff.
[10]As it was to A.J. Wensinck, in The Muslim creed, its genesis and historical development, (London: 1932).
[11]Introduction ą la théologie musulmane (Paris, 1948).
[12]The theology of al-Ash`arī (1953).
[13]Le problčme des attributs divins dans la doctrine dal-Ash`arī et de ses premiers grands disciples (Beirut, 1965)