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 'Abbâsid 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 Mawâlî, particularly of Persian extraction, could not long be ignored, and by their support the 'Abbâsids 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 'Abbâsids were not only obliged to compensate the Malwâlî by giving them equal status with the Arabs, but also had to depend on the persian Mawâlî 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 Qur’ân; this was likely one reason for his execution by al-Mansûr. Apart from the accusation of zandaqa, the Persian secretarial class found themselves the rivals of the proto-Sunnite 'ulamâ’, the masters of Hadîth and jurisprudence. They expressed their disdain for the 'ulamâ’ through the Shu'ûbiyya movement (from shu'ûb, “peoples”), which glorified the culture and achievements of the non-Arab, especially Persian, people of the empire and belittled Arabic Qur’ânic 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'ûbiyya 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'ûbiyya forced the Arab or Arabized Muslims to develop an Arabic religious culture of high quality. Al-Jâhiz (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'ûbiyya trends was the political contest between people of constitutionalist or of absolutist persuasion. The 'ulamâ’, who included Persians as well as Arabs, represented the constitutionalist block, because they were the interpreters of the Qur’ân and Hadîth which were the constitution of the empire. The secretaries, who were joined by some Arabs, particularly from Yemen of proto-Shî'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 Shî'ites and an anti-Islamic and anti-Arab trend among the secretaries. We saw how al-Ma’mûn attempted to win the Shî'ites by nominating 'Alî ar-Ridâ as his heir apparent and adopting what amounted to the Zaydite compromise, which allowed the best Hâshimite (including himself) to be recognized as imâm. By another move, the adoption of the Mu'tazilite teaching that the Qur’ân is created (See chapter 5), al-Ma’mûn attempted to win the absolutist sympathies of the Shî'ites and the secretaries and check the power of the 'ulamâ’. The teaching that the Qur’ân is the uncreated speech of God implied that it was sacred and unchangeable in al its implications, as interpreted by the 'ulamâ’, whereas to say that it is created implies that its provisions may be overruled by the decree of an inspired imâm. Likewise the Mu'tazilite Qadarite position squared with the teaching that the Qur’ân is created, because the the historical events mentioned in the Qur’ân 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 Kalâm, 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 qiyâs. Qiyâs, 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 Qur’ân. 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 Qur’ân 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 Abû-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 Qur’ânic passages such as 2:75-9 and 5:13-15, which refer to forging, distortion, concealing and effacing of the Scriptures. The Qur’ân is not clear to what extent such distortion (tahrîf) affects the Scriptural texts themselves, but various hadîths warn Muslims against reading Jewish or Christian books. Also, according to at-Tabarî (d. 923), the earlier Qur’ân commentators held that the Bible as a whole is corrupt. At-Tabarî himself rejected this view, as did al-Baydâwî (d. 1388). Such partial acceptance of the Bible may have begun during the first 'Abbâsid century, when Muslims were looking for passages to prove that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible, according to Qur’ân 61:6 and 7:157. At the beginning of the 'Abbâsid period, around 782, the Nestorian Timothy I mentions only three passages used by al-Mahdî 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 Qur’ân, 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 'ulamâ’, constitutionalist religious scholars who considered themselves the proprietors of Qur’ânic learning and hence of the legislation which must guide the caliphs in ruling the Islamic community.

Accordingly, the caliph al-Ma’mûn (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 Harrân around 850, where the Sâbi’ans (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-Ma’mûn 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-Ma’mûn permitted the rise of the first notable Muslim philosopher and the only one of Arab descent: al-Kindî (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-Kindî influenced the Mu'tazilites, the first philosophical theologians of Islam, who also had the official support of the 'Abbâsid caliphs until 849.

The religious scholar and Hadîth-master, Ibn-Hanbal,was persecuted by the 'Abbâsids for not subscribing to the Mu'tazilite view of the createdness of the Qur’ân. 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'arî (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 Qur’ân and Hadîth and avoid rational arguments and philosophical terminology altogether.

4.3 The rise of Kalâm

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 Qur’ân 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 Hârûn ar-Rashîd and al-Ma’mûn, 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 Kalâm. This word means “speech”, and was used by critics who called this kind of theology just “talk”. The aim of Kalâm 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-Kindî 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 (jawâhir al-ajsâm), related to the same question; 3) nature or quiddity (mâhiyya), which was used in the discussion of God’s attributes; and 4) ability to act (istatâ'a), which was used in the discussion concerning free will. These notions were discussed among philosophers and theologians well before the time of al-Kindî and the Mu'tazilites, certainly during the reign of Hârûn ar-Rashîd, but the relationship between al-Kindî and the Mu'tazilites shows how far the influence of philosophy on Kalâm had progressed.

A few prominent mutakallimûn (practitioners of Kalâm) who made innovative theological speculation with philosophical concepts were: Hishâm ibn-al-Hakam (d.c. 805), Dirâr ibn-'Amr (a contemporary of the latter), Bishr al-Marîsî (d.c. 833), and Husayn an-Najjâr (of the same time).^[3]

The new theology, or Kalâm, was not well received by a large body of traditional religious scholars because of its use of non-Qur’ânic philosophical concepts. The Hanafite judge, Abû-Yûsuf (d. 798), equated it with zandaqa. The Hanbalite school was the most opposed to Kalâm, as it was to philosophy, and al-Ash'arî, 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 Hârûn ar-Rashîd and al-Ma’mûn; the second was during the life of al-Ghazâlî (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-Ghazâlî’s 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 'Abbâsid period

To indicate the importance of the philosophical movement, some notable philosophers or scientists can be pointed out: Qustâ ibn-Lûqâ (d.c. 919), a translator; Ishâq ibn-Hunayn (d. 910), a translator; Hubaysh, nephew of Hunayn, a translator; Abû-Bishr Mattâ (d. 940), a translator and logician; Thâbit ibn-Qurra (d. 901), a mathematician; Sinân (d. 942), son of the latter, a mathematician and astronomer; an-Nayrizî (d.c. 921), a mathematician and authority on Euclid, known to the West as Anaritius; Abû-Ma'shar (d. 886), an astronomer, known to the West as Albumasar; al-Battânî (d. 929), an astronomer, known to the West as Albategnius; and Ibn-Masarra (d. 931), a Spanish metaphysician and sûfî.

Another philosopher of this time of Muhammad ar-Râzî (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-Fârâbî (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-Fârâbî was accused of holding God’s 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-Fârâbî’s time could also coincide with that of a Shî'ite imâm.

Ibn-Sînâ (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 Aristotle’s Metaphysics 40 times and could not understand it until he came across a commentary by al-Fârâbî. Ibn-Sînâ 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-Fârâbî did, on the role of successors to the prophet, since Fâtimid propaganda was at that time disturbing the realms loyal to the 'Abbâsids.

In metaphysics, Ibn-Sînâ 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 Aristotle’s), he thought of creation as a necessary and eternal emanation, rather than a free act of God. Ibn-Sînâ 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 Qur’ânic 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 Qur’ânic language, but the philosopher (who is also a sûfî) stands at the apex of human understanding. The position of a philosopher would seem to be superior to that of a prophet, yet Ibn-Sînâ 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 Qur’ânic 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-Ghazâlî (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 Wâsil 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-Shî'ites in a pejorative sense to those who were neutral regarding 'Alî, neither supporting nor opposing him. Later, Qatâda called 'Amr ibn-'Ubayd by this name, and he accepted it in a favourable sense, since in the Qur’ân Abraham (19:48) and the Men of the Cave (18:16) are praised for withdrawing from the worship of false gods. Finally, when Abû-l-Hudhayl and his followers agreed upon the “five principles”, they looked back to Wâsil 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, “Abû-l-Hudhayl received the ‘teaching of justice and unity’ [Mu'tazilism] from 'Uthmân at-Tawîl and the latter told him that he had received it from Wâsil who had it from Abû-Hâshim ibn-Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyya who had it from his father Muhammid ibn-al-Hanafiyya who had it from 'Alî who had it from the Messenger of God, to whom Gabriel had brought it from God.”

What is clear is that Abû-l-Hudhayl is the founder of Mu'tazilism properly so-called, yet he adopted a name which already existed and had been applied to Wâsil 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. Abû-l-Hudhayl was the successor of Dirâr 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-Nazzâm (d. 836), Mu'ammar (d. 830), al-Asamm (d.c. 816), Hishâm al-Fuwatî (d.c. 830), al-Jâhiz (776-869, a black man, probably Ethiopian, and master of Arabic literature), and Ash-Shahhâm (d. 880).

The Baghdad school, which constituted the court theologians of al-Ma’mûn 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-Ma’mûn. Bishr criticised some of the view of members of the Basra school and was a supporter of al-Ma’mûn’s declaration of 'Alî ar-Ridâ as his successor. Other Baghdad theologians were: Thumâma (d.c. 828, a man of great political influence), Ibn-abî-Du’âd (776-854, grand qâdî and administrator of the Mihna under al-Mu'tasim), al-Murdâr (d. 840, an ascetic and student of Bishr), Ja'far ibn-Harb (d. 800, a follower of al-Murdâr, and who was at the court of al-Wâthiq), Ja'far ibn-Mubashshir (d. 848, a companion of the previous Ja'far), and al-Ishkâfî (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) tawhîd (“unity”), 2) 'adl (“justice”), 3) al-wa'd wa-l-wa'îd (“the promise and the threat”), 4) al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn (“the intermediate position”), and 5) al-amr bi-l-ma'rûf 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 'Abbâsids.

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 reason’s 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 'Abbâsid century even after it lost the official support it had during the mihna. Some important Mu'tazilites of this period are al-Jubbâ'î (d. 915), Abû-Hâshim (d. 933), and al-Ka'bî (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 Hadîth and jurisprudence, but also, even though he rejected Kalâm, for this theological positions. These are summarized in a creed ('aqîda), of which numbers 16 & 17 interest us in here:^[7]

Religion is only the book of God, the âthâr (sayings or acts of pious men), the sunan (standard practices), and sound narratives from reliable men about recognized sound valid Traditions (akhbâr) 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 imâms [sc. scholars] who are taken as exemplars, who hold to the Sunna and keep to the âthâr, who do not recognize heresy and are not accused of falsehood or of divergence [from one another]. They are not upholders of qiyâs (analogical reasoning) and ra’y (personal opinion), for qiyâs in religion is worthless, and ra’y is the same and worse. The upholders of ra’y and qiyâs in religion are heretical and in error, except where there is an athar from any of the earlier reliable imâms.

He who supposes that taqlîd (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 ra’y and Kalâm 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 Kalâm for abandoning the primacy of the Qur’ân and Hadîth, and secondly for anthropomorphism (tashbîh) in positing analogies between God and creation. The second criticism is opposed to the Hanbalite approach to God of bi-lâ 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'arî (873-935) was the culminating figure in the development of Sunnite theology. He studies law, and is claimed by both the Hanafite and the Shâfi'ite schools (although in the beginning the Hanafites opposed Ash'arite Kalâm). He studied Mu'tazilite theology under al-Jubbâ’î 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 Ramadân. In the first dream the Prophet Muhammad commanded him to defend the teachings handed down from himself in the hadîths. In the second he inquired how he was carrying out this command. Al-Ash'arî then gave up the study of Kalâm and devoted himself entirely to Hadîth study. Thereupon in the third dream the Prophet angrily said he commanded him to study Hadîth, but not to give up Kalâm.

Another story of al-Ash'arî’s conversion is a supposed debate he had with al-Jubbâ’î 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'arî supposedly abandoned Mu'tazilism because of its inconsistency in this problem. Yet the story is suspect because it was first attributed to al-Ash'arî only in the 14th century by as-Subkî (d. 1370), secondly because it did not argue against al-Jubbâ’î, whose teaching about lutf, or God’s free generosity, was close to al-Ash'arî’s 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'arî’s theological style relies heavily on comparison of Qur’ân verses and to some extent hadîths, 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'arî is very much in the style of the Mu'tazilites who relied heavily on Qur’ân quotations to support their rational arguments.

Al-Ash'arî 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 God’s 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 Qur’ân story, preferred prison to adultery with his master’s 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'arî’s importance should not obscure the fact that there were theologians before him (especially ibn-Kullâb) who defended Sunnite positions with rational methods. Moreover al-Ash'arî did not dominate the scene of Sunnite Kalâm during his lifetime, but had many influential companions, such as al-Qalânisî. Yet al-Ash'arî left writings which were the inspiration of later theologians who therefore looked to him as their father. some of his immediate pupils were Abû-Sahl as-Su'lûkî of Nishapur (d. 979), Abû-l-Hasan al-Bâhilî of Basra, and Abû-'Abdallâh ibn-Mujâhid of Basra and Baghdad (d. 980, different from Ibn-Mujâhid, the Qur’ânic scholar). These, however, are not very well known.

Al-Mâturîdî (d. 944), although regarded from the 16th century as equal in importance to al-Ash'arî, 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-Mâturîdî entered into prominence when the Seljûq and Ottoman Turks brought Hanafism to the forefront.

Al-Mâturîdî differed from al-Ash'arî 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-Bâqillânî (d. 1013)see chapter 2 for his atomism), Ibn-Fûrak (d. 1015) and al-Isfarâ’inî (d. 1027). These were all students of al-Bâhilî, while al-Bâqillânî also studied under Ibn-Mujâhid, and Ibn-Fûrak under as-Su'lûkî.

Concerning the question of Scriptural authority, al-Bâqillânî developed the concept of mu'jiza, or miracle. A controversy had arisen as a result of the sûfîs who were reputed to have visions or revelations and to work miracles. These, however, were considered to be the exclusive prerogatives of prophets. Al-Bâqillânî distinguished between a mu'jiza, a miracle adduced evidence of prophesy, confounding any attempt to imitate it, and a karâma, 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 Qur’ân, of all its aspects (style, teaching content, prophesy of the future etc.) al-Bâqillânî saw its superior literary quality as the aspect which defies imitation.

On the same question, al-Isfarâ’inî held that the Qur’ân was miraculous only because God obstructed any attempt at imitation, not that it is inimitable in itself.

Al-Juwaynî (d. 1085) was another important Ash'arite who lived in Nishapur in the Seljûq period. He had to go into exile to Mecca and Medina)hence gaining the name Imâm al-Haramayn (imâm of the two shrines). With the accession of Alp-Arslân to the Seljûq throne, the famous Nizâmalmulk was appointed wazîr. The numerous Nizâmiyya schools he founded were centres of Ash'arism, and to head the one in Nishapur he called al-Juwaynî back from exile. Al-Juwaynî was a theologian in his won right, but is known chiefly as the teacher of al-Ghazâlî.

4.8 Al-Ghazâlî

At the age of 19 Abû-Hâmid Muhammad al-Ghazâlî began to study under al-Juwaynî at Nishapur, mastering all branches of legal and theological studies. When his master died in 1085 he joined the scholars surrounding Nizâmalmulk. His good performance in debates won him an appointment as chief professor at the Nizâmiyya 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-Fârâbî and Ibn-Sînâ, and wrote a polemical attack on their views in his Tahâfut al-falâsifa (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 Tûs, he adopted a kind of monastic sûfî 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 Nizâmalmulk, 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-Ghazâlî’s autobiography, al-Munqidh min ad-dalâl (Deliverance from error), tells how in his crisis he sought relief from his scepticism by testing the various movements of his time: philosophical theology (Kalâm), philosophy, Bâtiniyya (Ismâ'îlî Shî'ism), and Sûfism. He discovered that only Sûfism could and did deliver him from his breakdown and restore him to health.

The fullest exposition of al-Ghazâlî’s thought is his lengthy Ihyâ’ 'ulûm ad-dîn (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-Ghazâlî 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-kifâya). 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 'Abbâsids, first under the Umayyads, then under the Murâbits (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-Ghazâlî 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-Ismâ'îlî polemic neutralized Fâtimid propaganda.

4) He reconciled Sûfism with Sunnite practice, 1) by allowing sûfîs to talk about love of God which brings nearness (muqâraba) to him, but not union or indwelling, 2) by demanding the sûfîs’ subjection to the Sharî'a as they advance on their tarîqa towards the haqîqa, and 3) by insisting on their disavowal of any claims to work strict miracles (mu'jizât), which is the prerogative of a prophet. They could only work karâmât by God’s 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-Ghazâlî’s 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-Ghazâlî

The earliest philosopher of note in Spain was Ibn-Bâjja (d. 1138), known to the Latins as Avempace. Much indebted to al-Fârâbî, he studied all branches of knowledge and knew Aristotle thoroughly. His ethical treatise, Tabdîr 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.

Abû-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-Yaqzân which contrasts the philosophical and sûfic 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 Qur’ân.

The great Ibn-Rushd (1126-1198), a Spanish Arab known to the Latins as Averroes, wrote a refutation of al-Ghazâlî’s Tahâfut, called Tahâfut at-Tahâfut (The incoherence of the Incoherence). In his Fasl al-maqâl (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 Qur’ân.

Ibn-Rushd, like Ibn-Sînâ, 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 Shî'ites and sûfîs, who held to revelation but gave it an esoteric interpretation based on divine inspiration and expressed in poetic or sometimes philosophical language.

^[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 à la théologie musulmane, p. 321.

^[6]For details see W.M. Watt, The formative period.

^[8]Cf. H. Laoust, La profession de foi d’Ibn-Batta.

^[10]As it was to A.J. Wensinck, in The Muslim creed, its genesis and historical development, (London: 1932).

^[11]Introduction à la théologie musulmane (Paris, 1948).

^[13]Le problème des attributs divins dans la doctrine d’al-Ash`arî et de ses premiers grands disciples (Beirut, 1965)