1

INTRODUCTION TO ISLAMIC THEOLOGY A study of some major theological issues

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
It seems sometimes strange or even inadequate to talk about a subject such as Islamic Theology particularly in a Chritian environement because there is a traditional presumption that theology is Christian. But if theology (Greek word which means "study of God) could be defined as the study of God not only as he is in himself but also as he is in relation to all created beings; if theology is a systematic discourse on revealed truth; if theology comprises all human efforts to understand and explain the nature of the relations between God and man, why should we not talk about Jew theology or Islamic theology, for instance, since Jews and Muslims believe in a God who created the universe and revealed his will to mankind; and that Jews and Muslims strive to understand and explain the revelation they claim to have received from God? Islamic theology could, therefore, comprise all the systematic work of Muslims as they try to know and understand God and his creatures, as they build up a systematic discourse on Gods will to mankind. According to Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Islamic theology could be defined as the explanation of statements of the articles of belief based directly upon the words of the Quran and the Hadith.1 However, this discourse can be initiated or is also initiated and developed by orientalists or scholars who are interested in studying Islamic conceptions of God, the universe and their relations. Nevertheless, since Christianity is different from Islam, we should be surprised to get different conclusions or different understandings, perhaps, of similar realities. Generally speaking, prophets are not theologians because the religious conception that they awken, do not take the form of deliberately planned system. Theology begins when later generations, especially after a community has been formed, that some people feel called to interpret the prophetic revelations and explain what could be seen as gaps. Thus the literal sense of the prophetic statements is clarified and conclusions are made. Before this inclination can be acted on, prophetic revelation must take the form of a holy scripture, a canonically fixed and formally defined text accepted by the majority. In the case of Islamic theology, the Quran is the formal text that contains the basic statements of Muslim belief.2 However, we ought to know that Muslim creed is rich and vast. It contains issues like the place of Muhammad, the conception of revelation and the nature of the Quran, the nature of God, the attributes of God, prophethood and Angelsbut here we study God in Islam and some traditional issues that occured in the early history of Islam and marked the development of Islamic theology.

Kenneth Cragg and Marston Speight, Islam from within. Anthology of a Religion (California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 80), p. 118. 2 Cf. Ignaz Goldzher (Translated by Andras and Ruth Hamori), Introduction to Islamic Theology and law, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981), pp. 67-68.

FIRST PART
I. MONOTHEISM: ITS DEVELOPMENT IN EARLY ISLAM
INTRODUCTION
The formula "L ilh ill llh, Muhammad rasl Allh" (there is no god save Allh and Muhammad is His prophet) is the most concentrated profession of faith of the Islamic belief in one God. It is called the shahda. Obviously, many people have heard that Islam, the religion preached by Muhammad, is one of the great monotheistic religions in the world. And most of those who study the religions of the world have certainly read the shahda but do not realize the depths of that expression of faith. Thus, based on these statements, I wish objectively to present in this essay the Islamic conception of God's unity. In this case, it is also our duty to research on its meaning and implications. For the Muslims, God (Allh) is the one and only deity. Right from Muhammad's preaching, Muslims worship only one Supreme Being who is the Creator of heaven and earth. This is what the Qur'n preaches, the theologians defend and explain in different ways, and the philosophers attempt to purify with the use of Hellenistic thinking. In the Qur'n, the unity of God is noted almost in each sra (chapter) in order to show its importance in Islam. The Qur'n gives sufficient testimony to Muslim belief in one God. From the rise of Muhammad till the fall of the Umayyad Empire, the conception of God's unity was taken without any questioning. But when the theologians and philosophers were allowed to comment on Islamic dogmas, the question of the unity of God and, of course, other matters were discussed as vastly as possible with a new outlook. Inasmuch as several books of the Greek philosophers, especially those written by Plato, Aristotle and their immediate disciples, were translated and commented by the Muslim philosophers, reason found a place alongside revelation. Belief in one God reached another level. Two great schools, Mu`tazilism and Ash`arism, opposed each other because they wanted to know if the essence of God is identical with or distinct from its attributes. In fact the issue simply was how to purify the noble belief in one God and not a matter of doubting this truth. In spite of some differences, which can be noted between the Islamic and Christian monotheism, Islamic belief in this matter is that strict monotheism does not permit any form of polytheism or idolatry. It also rejects any mediation or intermediary between God and man. At least belief in one God is the common point of all the monotheistic religions from where they could build or continue the dialogue, which was undertaken almost five decades ago. In fact, writing this essay, my purpose was to find a common point that could gather together Muslims and Christians so that they may solve their problems and live in peace.

A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
History, being a study of the past experience of man and his environment, tells us that each event is usually influenced either negatively or positively by some previous phenomena. The advent of Islam which is an event sui generis was surely influenced by various and important civilizations, thoughts, philosophies and religions. Furthermore, monotheism, which is the essential feature of

3 the religion founded by Muhammad,3 was as well influenced by several previous monotheistic ideas expressed either implicitly or explicitly. In short, the religious thought of pre-Islamic Arabia and the rest of the Middle East can be compared with Islamic monotheism. Pre-Islamic Arabian thought Muslims refer to Arabian culture before the birth of Muhammad as jhiliyyah. In fact,z
the term Jahiliyyah, usually rendered time of ignorance or barbarism, in reality means the period in which Arabia had no dispensation, no inspired prophet, no revealed book; for ignorance and barbarism can hardly be applied to such a cultured and lettered society as that developed by the south Arabians.4

Thus, it is advisable for us to examine the religious situation of that period for a better understanding of Islamic monotheism. Before that, let us look at how the geographical and cultural situation led Arabians to focalise their thinking to a spiritual life. Geographical and Cultural situation The land of Arabia determines in one way or the other the cultural and religious situation of the country. In other words the position of Arabia influences its culture, and culture goes with religion. Arabia is a peninsula, which is divided into two main parts: the north and the south. Both of them are covered by the Arabian Desert. Because of the desert, any organization based on fixed dwellings was impossible especially in the north where Bedouins lived. P.M. Holt observes: The Bedouins of the desert and the sedentarized nomads of the oases are two main representatives of the arid area dwellers in the north.5 The south, different from the north because of its favourite climate, had an advanced civilization based on agriculture.6 In spite of this distinction, both northerners and southerners were submitted to desert law which influenced them in all their thoughts, needs and deeds. That is why they were animist. The main towns (Makka, 'if and Medina) followed the same law. The Arabians believed that inanimate objects, such as trees, stones and springs, housed spirits which could influence the lives of men.7 In anything they did or thought, Arabians bore in their mind not only the presence but also the influence of spirits. Taylor says that animism, so defined, was the core of all religions. According to him, the term "spirits" applies to gods and divinities.8 Arabia was not exempted from this
3

Robert Caspar, "The permanent signification of Islam's monotheism," in Concilium. Religion in the eighties (Edimburgh: T. and T. Clark Ltd, 1985), pp. 67-78.

Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs, from the earliest times to the present (London: Macmillan, 9th ed. 1968), p. 87. P.M. Holt (ed.), The Cambridge history of Islam, vol. 1, The central Islamic lands, (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), p. 5.

6 Carl Brockelman, History of the islamic peoples, (New York: Capricorn books), 1960), p. 582. 7

Philip Hitti K, op. cit., p. 15.

Philip Hitti, "Arabia" in The Encyclopedia Americana, (New York: Americana Corporation, vol 1, 1927).

4 common idea. Again, Arabians lived broadly a hard and poor life because of the desert. We can imagine that a change which might help them to live a better life was expected. W. Montgomery Watt points this out in a particular way:
Thus there is a belief, put into Muhammad's mouth in different forms, that four things are decided for a human being while he is still an embryo in the womb. According to one version, Anas ibn-Mlik reported of the prophet that he said, "God has entrusted an angel with the womb... when God will to complete the forming of it."9

This statement leads us to believe that the geographical situation of Arabia led Arabians to trust in spiritual life. "If God wills" is an old sentence. It makes us think of monotheism before Muhammad. H.A.A. Gibb relates:
The old legend that Islam was born of the desert is taking a long time to die. Since Renan popularized the view that monotheism is the natural religion of the desert, it seemed a plausible argument that Muhammad 's insistence on the unity and unapproachable greatness of God was simply a reflection of the vast changeless wastes of Arabia.10

In fact, the life of the city is different from desert life. Desert life makes man acknowledge his limitations and order his relationship with the infinite. Desert life raises more a religious consciousness. The religious situation of pre-Islamic thought Islam as a culture and a civilization; is first and foremost a religion. Thus taking into account what is said above, we realize that the religion, which stands on the Qurn, came to build on previous Arabian religion. As far as we are concerned hic et nunc, this opinion stimulates us to study the Arabian religion before Muhammad. Arabians were always religious men but their religion before Muhammad was in a primitive stage. It was polytheism. Along with their belief in spirits, Arabians worshipped several deities and built sanctuaries and temples in many places where they kept their idols. The city of Makka, where Islamic faith was first revealed, was the most important religious centre. Hitti said:
The name Makkah, the Macoruba of Ptolemy, comes from Sabaen Makumba, meaning that it owes its foundation to some religious associations and therefore must have been a religious centre long before Muhammad was born.11

So tribal deities who were very important were represented by some idols at Makka in order to sustain the tribal life. For instance, Northerners
Often carried their idols with them when they travelled, presuming that the idols had permitted its worshippers to travel. All these statues, whether in the Ka'bah, around it or scattered around the tribes or the provinces, were regarded as intermediaries between their worshippers and the supreme God. They regarded the worship of them as a means of rapprochement with God even though in reality, that same worship had caused them to forget the true worship of God.12
9

Montgomery Watt, What is Islam (London: Longman, 1968), p. 23. H.A.R. Gibb, Islam. A Historical Survey, (London: University Press, 1975), p. 1. Philip Hitti, op. cit, p. 103. Muhammad Husayn, The life of Muhammad, (Lagos: Academy Press, 1982), p. 20.

10

11

12

Now it is obvious that Arabians before the rise of Islam bore in mind the idea of the supreme God, one and great. Arabians were polytheists because each tribe had its own gods or divinities. Even in this level, the tribal god became greater than other gods of other tribes. Arabia was moving towards henotheism?13 However these gods or godesses linked Arabians to the supreme one. In fact, among the gods worshiped all over the Arabian land, Mant, `Uzza and al-Lt were predominant. These three were daughters of Allh, the supreme God. We will not be surprised that Allh was the principal God of Arabia though not the only deity of Makkah. It is clearly seen that his name is an ancient one.
It occurs in two south Arabic inscriptions, one a Minaean found at al-`Ula and other a Sabeaan, but abounds in the form H L H in the Lihyamite inscription of the fifth century BC14

In this period, though monotheism was not as clear as it is in Islam, Arabians worshipped one god through many deities. On the eve of Islam, some native Arabians tried to abandon their deities in order to worship only one God. That is Hannifiya. The Hannifiya As soon as Arabians entered into relationship with other religions, namely Judaism and Christianity, some of them adopted the Hannifiya, which was a kind of monotheistic faith but different from either Judaism or Christianity.
Hanf appears repeatedly in the Qur'n as the name of those who possess the real and true religion; it is used particularly of Abraham as the representative of the pure worship of God. As a rule it contrasts him with the idolaters... but in one or two passages it at the same time describes him as one who was neither a Jew nor a Christian.15

Muhammad himself acknowledged the Hannifiya as a true religion: "And further (thus): set thy face towards religions with true piety, and never in any wise be of the Unbelievers" (Qur'n 10:105). Monotheism was the principal feature of the Hannifiya. A anf is one who had abandoned idolatry and polytheism to worship only one God. Before the coming of Islam, Muhammad was not alone in feeling the need of monotheism.16 Though towards the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth centuries, paganism was more influential, the coming and the spread of the two great monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity in Arabia, had reinforced monotheism. Thus, looking at Arabia before Islam, we discover that the unity of God was known a long time before Muhammad. Islam therefore is considered as a continuation, revival and purification of primitive monotheism.

Robert Caspar , Trait de thologie musulmane. Histoire de pense religieuse musulmane, (Rome: P.I.S.A.I, 1987), p. 7.
14

13

Philip Hitti, op. cit, p. 100. .A.R. Gibb, Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam (New York: Cornell University Press, 1961). James, E.O., Comparative religion, (London: Metheun, 1961), p. 203.

15

16

6 Judaism Judaism is a religion of the Jews whose founder is Abraham. Like Islam, Judaism is more than a religion because, for the Jews, it is a way of life; it contains commandments, rites traditions and beliefs. Contrary to other religions of Semitic world, Judaism is monotheism with a revealed book. Since the time of the Patriarchs, but developed after exile, Judaism is contained in the book called Torah.
The Torah was given only as a means of purifying men - so runs a famous rabbinic dictum. It is no impossible set of demands, meant for angels or a very few men of superior piety. Its wisdom and ordinances are the way of holiness for all men, even the most ordinary among them.17

Through the Torah, Jews honoured God, one and Creator of the universe. He is mighty and powerful; no single creature can represent him. He is also unseen but he is always with his people. "You will have no gods other than me. You must not make yourselves any image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth" (Dt 5, 7-8). Judaism is also guided by a tradition. Tradition carries along with its values and patterns of behaviour so that the young ones will be enlightened. In time of crisis, tradition was called to challenge and to give the truth. Torah and tradition are the source of Judaism. Priests are guards of Torah and tradition; they were also ministers of the cult that rendered God praise and forgiveness. To honour God faithfully, the Jews have some festivals namely, the Sabbath, the Passover, the Shabuoth, Sukkoth and Yom Kippur. In short, Judaism is the life of Jews. It helps Jews to live faithfully with God and their fellowmen, to keep God's commands and to be prepared against various systems. In fact the belief of the countries surrounding Judaism was quite different. Jews were the only monotheistic people in the Semitic world, so that Judaism suffered from within and without. Because of its monotheistic concept of God and its consequences, Judaism was always in conflict and war with its surroundings. By the way, there was also great influence from the outside, which brought some deviation in the religious practice of the Jews. Jews borrowed from all the countries surrounding it. In spite of this deviation, Jewish nationalism made the survival of monotheism possible and so it continues till the present day. Really, with the fore-going information and analysis, some may say that Arabian traditional preIslamic thought, as well as the traditions and philosophy of the ancient world, together with Judaism, gave birth to Islamic monotheism. If they did not give birth to it, at least all these ancient ideas did influence Islam widely and strongly. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, adopted some, corrected a little and rejected what was totally against his revelation and its implications. The new Muslim community superseded the old Arabian tribal society, which drew inspiration from the whole Semitic world.

17

Arthur Hertzberg, Judaism, (New York: George Braziller, 1962), p. 256.

B. MONOTHEISM IN THE QUR'AN

Introduction We saw in the first chapter that the Islamic conception of God (Allh) has a very rich and large background. We also agreed that the pre-Islamic thought has much in common with the thought of nearby ancient civilizations. We even can say that Islamic monotheism was inpired by those thoughts, but we have not yet brought out its meaning and development properly within Islam. So we should look at the first source of Islam, the Qur'n from which we find the earliest proclamation and the first development of Islamic monotheism. Arthur Jeffery wrote:
The Qur'n is the scripture of Islam. It is called the noble Qur'n, the glorious Qur'n, the mighty Qur'n, but never the holy Qu'rn save by modern, western-educated Muslims who are imitating the title holy Bible. It contains the substance of Muhammad's deliverances during the twenty odd years of his public ministry. It is clear that he had been preparing a book for his community which would be for them what the Old Testament was for the Jews and the New Testament for the Christians, but he died before his book was ready, and what we have in Qur'n is what his followers were able to gather together after his death and issue as the corpus of his revelations.18

The Qur'n is the first source of Islam and Muslims claim that It is first a revealed message. In fact, it is a written book with 114 sras in which, claim the Muslims, Allh himself reveals to man who He is so that man will live according to His will. In this way the Qur'n purports to be the word of God, which directs Muslims in their various ways. That is why the importance of the Qur'n is compared to what is given to the Old Testament for Jews and to the New Testament for Christians. The Qur'n talks about Allh in different ways gathered together in three themes: First Allh is God of creation, judgment and retribution; secondly, He is God omnipotent and merciful. Thirdly, He is unique and One in Himself.19 Furthermore, as the Qur'n is presented as the unchageable the word of God, it gives a permanent significance to Islamic monotheism that may be interpreted later in one way or the other by different Islamic schools or groups. The Qur'n gives the essence of the belief in one God in Islam. According to Kenneth Cragg:
The Qur'n, for Muslims, is the ultimate literature. Having it means a human literacy reading a divine writing. There is first the literacy of Muhammad in the vocation of prophetic word and action in the name of God: then the scripture in the active possession of the prophet's hearers, reading and rehearing his words as the directive of their being and the bond of their community. Everything in the world, wrote a French poet, exists to come to climax in a book. In a very different idiom, that is what Muslim finding their Qur'n, the one great book which is the utmost in language and meaning, the crux of truth in literary forum - not book about something more intimate than itself but itself the sum and centre.20

Arthur Jeffery, Islam, Muhammad and his religion, (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1958), p. 47.
19

18

Cf. The Encyclopedia of Islam, (London: Luzac and Co., vol. 1, 1960).

20

Kenneth Cragg, The Mind of the Qur'n. Chapters in reflection (London: George Allen, 1973), p. 13.

8 The Qurnic preaching At the beginning of the seventh century of the Christian era, precisely from 610 to 632, Muhammad claimed to receive the revelation from Allh and started to proclaim the word of Allh as he claimed to be told.
A Muslim tradition tells us that sra XCVI was the first to come down to the prophet Muhammad; so the mission entrusted to him was from the first the preaching of the word of Allh. Allh, as is said to Muhammad in this first sra, is thy Lord, creator of man, the very generous, who teaches man that which he knew not.21

Though Allh was known before the rise of Islam, with Muhammad, the conception of Allh changed. We know that Allh was one of the Meccan deities, even the supreme deity but the preaching of the Qur'n conceived Him as universal, one and transcendent. In fact, Muhammad did not try at all to prove the existence of God. The existence of God is strongly affirmed in all the sras. Muhammad talked about God who is and was revealed to him. The first sra (of the present text) which is called the "the opening" alFtia because of its importance in alt and in many other forms of prayer, gives the most precious substance of Islamic doctrine.22 The formula "In the name of Allh, most Gracious, most Merciful" Bi-smi-llhi r-Ramni r-Ram, which is placed before all the sras except sra 9, shows that the God that Muhammad proclaimed not only exists but also is the most Gracious and the most Merciful. Muhammad believed in the living God; that is why he praises him "Praise to Allh, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds" (sra 1:2), and worships him: "Thee do we worship and thine aid we seek" (sra 1:5). Moreover, Muhammad calls God the "Master of the day of judgement" (sra 1:4). Nowadays Montgomery W. Watt tells us that al-Ftia was considered by some Muslims as an individual prayer of Muhammad.23 On realizing this, we see more or less how Mohammad was convinced that his call was real and true and came from the living God. sra 3:2 says: "Allh! There is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal". He is unseen; He exists: "This is the book; in it is guidance, sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allh; who believe in the unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what we have provided for them" (sra 2:2-3). He is present among us; He gives signs to those who obey Him. It is what is said in sra 2:251-252: "By Allh's will they routed them: And David slew Goliath; and Allh gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not Allh check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: but Allh is full of bounty to all the worlds". By analysing all these verses mentioned above, we realize that Muhammad, instead of proving the existence of God, presented the attributes, the will and the nature of God in whom he believed. His preaching on which all Islamic doctrines are built was to tell his contemporaries that Allh is the creator of the universe, that he is one. In other words, the Qur'nic preaching shed light on the vague knowledge that the pre-islamic Arabs had. Louis Gardet asserts:
But the vague notion of supreme (not sole) divinity, which Allh seems to have connoted in Meccan religion, has to become both universal and transcendental; it has to be turned by the Kur'anic preaching, into the affirmation of the living God, the Exalted one.24
21

The Encyclopedia of Islam, (London: Luzac and Co., vol. 1, 1960). Montgomery Watt, Companion to the Qur'n (London: George Allen, 1967), pp. 13-14. Ibid., p. 14. Cf. The Encyclopedia of Islam, (London: Luzac and Co, vol. 1, 1960).

22

23

24

In Rgis Blachre's periodization of the Qur'n, we find that, among the themes developed in the three Meccan periods, the preaching of God's oneness is emphasized implicitly or explicitly everywhere (cf. sras 112, 52, 73, 70). The oneness of God is also stressed in the Medinan period.25 For instance, in referring to Judaism and Christianity, the Qur'n denounces their sin against the belief in one, unique and transcendental God. The Qur'nic preaching hinges on the oneness of God; so it is very imperative for us to point out its meaning. The meaning of Islamic monotheism It is evident that Islam is a monotheistic religion. Some scholars may even say that Muslims practice a strict monotheism. Indeed Islam is one of the three great monotheistic religions beside Judaism and Christianity. A Rahman I. Doi says:
Islam teaches and preaches monotheism the belief in one God. This belief is known as the unity of God-head. The belief is the foundation stone of Islam. It governs the religious faith, designs the social pattern and gives life to the oral codes.26

We can imagine that monotheism is the central feature of Islam. The statement quoted above shows how it governs the internal and external expression of Islam. Robert Caspar expresses this as follows:
Belief in the one transcendent God is undoubtedly the specific feature of Islam in two senses. First, it distinguishes it from the other great monotheistic religions: If Israel is rooted in hope and Christianity vowed to charity, Islam is centred on faith... Secondly, belief in the one transcendent God is the axis around which all Islam's doctrine and practice is organized.27

By emphasizing the importance of the Qur'n and how it expresses monotheism, Robert Caspar adds:
The whole Koran is nothing other than an urgent and reiterated repetition of that faith, of its history in humanity and its consequences in personal and social life. It could be called the one, sufficient dogma.28

One dogma, one God: the Qur'n repeats this in many places. Thus, in the following sub-sections, we shall point out two main factors that clarify the meaning of Islamic belief in one God. The unity of God (tawd) "L ilha ill llh, there is no god save Allh" is the digest of Islamic unity. This is the first article of the Islamic creed, which describes the God in whom Muhammad believed. It is called the shahda. As Muhammad was to challenge the the beliefs of his contemporaries, he was to define the God in whom he believed by differentiating his conception of God from that of his contemporaries, thus giving the real meaning of his call. Kenneth Graff reports:
25

Cf. Rgis Blachre, Le Coran (Paris: P.U.F, 1966), pp. 32-62.

26

Rahman Doi, The cardinal principles of Islam, (Lagos: Islamic Publication Bureau, 1972), p. 38.

Robert Caspar, "The permanent significance of Islam's monotheism," in Concilium, (Edinburgh: T and T. Clark Ltd., 1985), pp. 67-68.
28

27

Ibid., p. 68.

10
As for the question which might be asked, that is which you have asked, as to "He is God", it is narrated that the Quraish said; "O Muhammad, describe your Lord to us, the one to whom you call us." It was then that these words were given in revelation. "One" here is in opposition (to God) or may be taken as a second predicate. It indicates the manifold attributes of God's majesty and points to all the elements of (his) perfection. For the truly one is transcendent in essence above all seriality and multiplicity. For He has no need of these as physical, partial and participant entities certainly do.29

The revelation that Muhammad claimed to receive was not given at once. It came progressively according to the problems he faced. Because the Quraysh asked Muhammad to "describe your Lord to us", revelation came down to enable Muhammad to explain and defend what he had said. The request of the Quraysh shows us that at the beginning Muhammad called people to believe in one God. Abd-al-Rahman Azzam said:
If we were to analyse the life of Muhammad in Mecca and contemplate the content of his message, we would discover that Muhammad devoted his heart and efforts and offered his life and the lives of his followers to the crystallization of the first fundamental belief in the unity of God. He fought his enemies and made peace with them; he shunned and then forgave them; and he appealed to people of other religions (Christians and Jews) to join with him in one common belief: worship of the one God, a worship which would admit no partners.30

We now know that Muhammad taught his followers belief in one God. Thus it is certain that Muhammad had a monotheistic conception of God, though some scholars say that at the beginning, the expression "Allh akbar" meant henotheism not monotheism. But what kind of monotheism did Muhammad preach? Was it a simple idea? H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Framers answer this question as follows:
But unity is far from being a simple idea; it may be internal or external; it may mean that there is no other god except Allh, who has no partner, it may mean that Allh is a oneness in himself; it may mean that he is the only being with real or absolute existence, all other being having merely a contingent existence; it may even be developed into a pantheistic assertion that Allh is all.31

The above statement does not clarify the issue but rather gives the opportunity to raise more questions to develop the unity of God in Islam as it is really conceived.

C. ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM CONTRASTED WITH POLYTHEISM AND IDOLATRY

The conception of God in the Qur'n modified the shahda as soon as the belief in one God became more intimate to Muhammad and to his followers.32 The shhada, "There is no god but God", became a confession and later on an adoration as is expressed in srah 21:87: "And remember Dh-Nn, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that we had no power over him! But
29

Kenneth Cragg, op. cit., p. 63.

30

Abd-al-Rahmn Azzam, The eternal message of Muhammad, (New York: America Library, 1965), p. 53.

H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Shorter encyclopedia of Islam, (New York: Corneil University Press, 1961).
32

31

Kenneth Cragg, op. cit., p. 130.

11 he cried through the depths of darkness. There is no god but thou: Glory to thee: I was indeed wrong". Wilfred Contnell Smith commented:
To say that there is one God, and He alone is to be worshipped, means at its most immediate, as it meant in pagan Arabia when it has first proclaimed, a rejection of polytheism and idolatry.33

According to many scholars of Islam, such as Watt, Anawati, Blachre, Gardet, Jomier and now Wilfred Smith, Islamic monotheism contrasts with both polytheism and idolatry.34 For instance, sra 27:63-64 says: "Or, who guides you through the depths of darkness on land and sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before his mercy? [Can there be Another] god besides Allh? High is Allh above what they associate with him! Or, who originates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? [Can there be another] god besides Allh? Say, bring forth your argument, if ye are telling the truth!". To appreciate then islamic monotheism, we have to separate from it every idea of another god. Worship is due only to Allh, not to any idols or god. Even angels are servants of God; they should not be worshipped. "He doth send down these angels with inspiration of this command, to such of his servants as He pleaseth, (saying): warn (man) that there is no god but I: so do your duty unto me" (sra 16:2). In adition, Montgomery Watt says:
This is the most extreme criticism of paganism in the Qur'n, denying all reality to the pagan deities; elsewhere it is allowed that some of them may be angels, though this still does not make it permissible to worship them.35

With regard to idols, Montgomery Watt comments on sra 53:15-22, at the same time clarifying our opinion:
The idols mentioned were known as daughters of God, though this does not imply a family system, as in Greek mythology? But only that these were (in the eyes of those who used the phrase) divine beings of a sort, subordinate to God.36

Allh is the only God. With this confession, Muhammad came to liberate his contemporaries from their ignorance. Muhammad refers to the jhiliyya, the time during which Arabs did not know the true God who must be worshipped and not others. Muhammad also came to unify Arabs by worship of the Creator of the universe so that his glory will shine on them and they may have salvation. This is what Kenneth Cragg is talking about in these lines:
In that sense, the shahdah itself, there is no god but God, is not simply a proposition that negates but a disqualification that unifies. It does not proclaim itself as an idea but as a veto and liberation.37

In fact, it is no wonder that Muhammad, who claimed to have receive the revelation of the unity of Allh, reacted strongly against the pagan idolatry and polytheism of his time and before. Moreover,
33

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, On understanding Islam. Selected studies (Paris: Monton Publishers, 1981), p. 33. Cf. sras 2:225; 27:60-64; 6:101; 90:14.

34

35

Montogomery Watt, Companion to the Qur'n (London: George Allen, 1967), p. 245.
Loc. cit. Kenneth Cragg, op. cit., p. 132.

36

37

12 shirk (associating other divinities with God) is the greatest sin which cannot be forgiven. It is obvious that to worship idols or any god than Allh is to contradict Muhammad's message. It is also to deny the real nature of God inasmuch as polytheism has no place in the shahda. Again, Muhammad's opposition to polytheism and idolatory was the main reason for his fight against his countrymen. He fought them because they believed and worshipped many gods or deities. Polytheism is more than a sin, it is the greatest sin, the unforgivable sin. The God of Muhammad is one. There is nothing like him on earth and in heaven. "Verify, I am Allh; there is no god but I: so serve thou one [only] I and establish regular prayer for celebrating my praise" (sra 20:14). The formula "There is no deity but God" also means that there is nothing from eternity in its essence and attributes but God and nothing is necessary everlasting but God. It is only God who is Self-subsistance and has power over everything possible.38 But some scholars report that Muhammad was still compromising with some deities. This is said in the passage called "Satanic verses". The Satanic verses The Satanic verses, which are related by at-abar and later on reported by Watt and Robert Caspar, are no longer in the present Qur'n. Looking for ways to win his people, Muhammad came to pronounce the satanic verses. Joseph Kenny, quoting at-Tabar, says:
The Messenger of God was looking for way to win a truce and rapprochement with his people.. When he saw that his people had turned away from him and nothing to do with what he brought them from God, he was pained and desired a message from God that would reconcile himself with his people. Because of his love and desire for them he would be glad if the bone of their contention could be softened a little. He thought much about it and desire it very much. Then God revealed, "By the star when it goes down, your companion has not gone astray nor erred; nor does he speak what he feels like saying" (Q 53:1-3), until the words, "Have you seen al-Lt, al-`Uzz and Mant?" (Q 53:19-20). At this point Satan put on his lips what he was thinking in himself and his people wanted to hear from him: "Those are the high flying ghurnqs [Numidian cranes] whose intersession can be counted on".39

Originally, the Satanic verses existed after verses 19 and 20 of sra 53. Rgis Blachre keeps it in his translation: "Avez-vous considr al-Lt et al-`Uzza et Mant, cette troisime autre? Ce sont les sublimes desses et leur intercession est certes souhaite".40 In them, Muhammad seemed to accept the mediation of al-Lt, al-`Uzza and Mant. This meant that Muhammad, after affirming the unity of God, continued to compromise with polytheism. However, it is accepted in Islam that in some cases God allows Satan to confus a prophet. Sra 22:52 puts it in this way: "Never did he send an Apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he formed a desire, Satan threw some [vanity] into his desire: but Allh will cancel anything [vain] that Satan throws in, and Allh will confirm [and establish] his signs: For Allh is full of knowledge and wisdom".
Joseph Kenny, Muslim theology as presented by M. b. Yusuf As-Sanusi especially in his Al-`aqida Al-Wust (Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1970), p. 109.
38

Joseph Kenny, Muhammad and the rise of Islam. A critical presentation of the background and major Muslim sources (1992), p. 25.
40

39

Rgis Blachre, Le Coran (Paris: G.P. Maisonneuve, 1966).

13

The intention and zeal of Muhammad were to proclaim the pure unity of God. In sra 109, he definitely broke with polytheism: "Say: o ye that reject faith! I worship not that which ye worship; nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your way, And to me mine." Islamic monotheism contrasted with Christian ideas of divine Fatherhood and Sonship Originally tawhd (the unity of God) was asserted against the Arabs, but later on Muhammad extended it to Christians who worship Jesus as Son of God. Sra 6:101 says: "To him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when he hath no consort? He created all things, and he hath full knowledge of all things". So Islamic monotheism does not permit any equal or partner with Allh. The gods of ancient Arabia certainly had wives and children. Even in pre-Islamic Arabian thought, Allh, the supreme God among others, had his own children. We remember that all over the Arabian land, Mant, al-`Ozza and al-Lt were conceived as daughters of Allh and were worshipped. Hence, Islamic monotheism does not accept any fatherhood or sonship because Allh has no consort or partner. "He is Lord of the East and the West: there is no god but He: take Him therefore for (thy) Disposer of affairs" (sra 73:9). In the same vein, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan wrote:
The Qur'n not only excludes all idea of any equal or partner with Allh, it specifically excludes all idea of his having a son except in the purely metaphorical sense in which all mankind are his children, and in which the peacemakers are spoken of in the Bible, as the children of God (Matt 5:9). God is ever-living, All-knowing, All-hearing, the Creator of all, whose authority extends over everything. To attribute a son, in any but the purely metaphorical sense, to God, would amount to a denial of his unity and in effect to a denial of his Godhead.41

Thus Muslims reject the Christian teaching that Jesus is Son of God, or even a person in God's unity. Jacques Jomier mentions:
For the Muslim, monotheism does not signify only the unity of God, because there can be several persons in the unity. Monotheism in Islam is the absolute oneness of God which formally does away with the notion of persons participating in the divinity... All forms or philosophies of an incarnate God are excluded by the monotheism of Islam, as are blind obedience to dictators, to clergy or to one's own whims and desires.42

Thus the oneness of God came to mean both an external and internal unity of God. It is external for it does not accept the existence of another god; it is internal because it does not admit any person within God. Islamic monotheism rejects the theology of the Trinity because, say Muslims, it sins against the oneness of God. The God of Muhammad is one and not three in one. Thus, in his combat not only with the Mekkans, but also with Christians, Muhammad gave in sra 112 the last formula of monotheism which will never change. He said: "Say: He is Allh, the one and only; Allh, the Eternal, the Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none
41

Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Islam. Its meaning for modern man (New York: Harper, vol. 7, 1962), p. 93.

42

Jacques Jomier, How to understand Islam (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1989), p. 40.

14 like unto Him". With these four verses, short but very powerful, significant and determining, Muhammad affirmed a very strict monotheism. Moreover, Islamic monotheism implies also the transcendence of God.

D. THE TRANSCENDANCE OF GOD

Before going into the consequences of Islamic monotheism, we would like to explain a little about the transcendence of God in the Qur'n. Indeed, the Islamic monotheism also includes the transcedence of God. God is one and transcendent. Being the creator of all things, God is not only different from all creatures but above all. "And there is none like unto him " (sra 112,4). Robert Caspar is explicit on that :
This one God is transcendent, in the exact sense of the term. He is the totally other and nothing is like Him. The idea of creation introduces a radical division between the creator and creatures, in contrast to religions based on emanation or mystical experience.43

While we talk about transcendence, we do not mean distance, for God is close to man and the Qur'n says that God always invites man to come close to him. But what the transcendence of God rejects is the concept of any intermediary or mediation other than the Qur'n. Robert Caspar proclaims:
While the Koran seems to accept some cases of intercession (the angels, the prophet), both ancient and modern Islam make a boast of this rejection: no meditation, still less if there is question of incarnate God, no church, no sacraments; an extremely sober liturgy in bare mosques, where the believer is alone before God, even at the Friday common prayer.44

If God sometimes allows angels (e.g. the angel Gabriel) and prophets (Moses, Jesus and Muhammad) to bring his word to man, He cannot permit at all the reality of the incarnate son coming down from Heaven as the mediator between God and man. We give here some consequences of belief in one and transcendent God.

E. CONSEQUENCES OF ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM

The belief in one transcendent God has, of course, many implications, since faith in one God moves and guides all the life (social, physical, spiritual) of a Muslim. Some of these implications will be considered here. First, Islamic monotheism leads Muslims to conceive God as all-powerful, Almighty who will never fail because he is not contingent. He knows everything and his knowledge will never cease. Furthermore Muslims attribute the organization of the world to the oneness of God. It is because He is one that he orders and organises the universe; otherwise the world would have been in

43

Ibid., p. 69. Ibid., p. 69.

44

15 chaos.45 Second, Islamic monotheism brings together the temporal and the spiritual life. We remember that Islam is at once religion, politics, culture and civilization. Robert Caspar testifies:
In relation to social life, the Moslem city, the role sovereignty of God leads to a rejection of a separation between temporal and spiritual (dn and duny), and so to state religion (dn al-dawla).46

Third, Muslims strongly believe in the Qur'nic message, for it came from God who is righteous. Therefore his righteousness makes his message true. As we know the Qur'n claims to be a revealed book and that Muhammad is nothing more than a prophet. This idea goes with what Abdal-Rahman Azzam said:
The wisdom of this is clear: From belief in the one God stems all that is righteous; it makes for righteousness in the message. It is the bond that limits all the component parts of the message and strengthens them, for its position is comparable to the relationship of the soul to the body, which falls slack, deteriorates and vanishes once the soul departs from it.47

If God is not one, how can he be righteous? The oneness of God makes his message one and righteous. It goes without saying that for Muslims the Qur'n, which is the message come down from God who is one, must be righteous. Moreover, Islamic monotheism determines the attitude of each Muslim. Muslims understand that inasmuch as God is one and transcendent, it is He who gives existence to anyone he wants. Thus man should adore him and serve him by keeping his law, because it is in this way that he can be saved. The Qur'n says: "And the servants of Allh Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in Humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, peace (sra 25:63). The Qur'n continues by saying: "Their messengers said to them: We are only human like yourselves, but Allh bestows favour upon whomsoever he willeth of his servants" (sra 14:13). So if everybody who follows Allh is his servant (`abd), inequality does not have any place in the Islamic Umma; equality and brotherhood will be the attitude of all Muslims. In the same way, it implies that nobody recieved special gift from God which may make him greater than others. Because of His oneness, Allh, and no other one, is ruler of the universe. Belief in the unity of God promotes not only the sense of brotherhood but also equality. Furthermore Professor Joseph Kenny who studied the principles and the consequences of the Islamic monotheism in the philosophical point of view, wrote:
Comme une variation de la shahda, n'importe quel attribut de Dieu ou nom de Dieu peut tre remplac par "ilha". Par exemple, "personne n'est fort (qadr) sauf Dieu". La thologie ash'arite avait utilis de tels noncs pour soutenir son enseignement cardinal selon lequel il n'y a aucun pouvoir dans la nature; ou pour tre exact, la nature, comme principe d'action, n'existe pas. Seul Dieu agit directement tout instant l'occasion de la conjonction de ce qui apparat tre une cause et un effet.48

45

Kenneth Cragg, op. cit., p. 132. Robert Caspar, op. cit., p. 71. `Abd-al-Rahmn Azzam, op. cit., p. 56.

46

47

48 Joseph Kenny, La philosophie du monde Arabe. Auteurs et thmes principaux (Kinshasa: F.C.K., 1994), p. 32.

16 Allh is one, almighty and powerful, therefore no creature has power over others, because it is even He who determines all human acts. He is the principle of life. Indeed the Qur'n attributes some responsibilities to man but accepts that it is Allh who determines and guides. "Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allh has, knowing [him as such], led him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart [and understanding], and a cover on his sight: who, then, will guide him after Allh [has withdrawn guidance]? Will ye not then receive admonition?" (sra 45:23). Also, in the al-fatih, it is said that it is Allh who shows the straight way to man. The second consequence Professor Kenny noticed is the absence of any philosophical ethics, for if Allh guides nature, it means the nature cannot decide on its behalf. Can the nature say that this is good or bad? Professor Joseph Kenny says:
Le prochain pas dans le processus logique serait de nier la validit d'une thique philosophique. Si le monde naturel n'a aucune conduite rgulire qui lui est propre, nous ne pouvons pas considrer la nature humaine et dire que quelque chose est bon ou mauvais pour elle, parce que tout cela dpend de la libre dcision de Dieu.49

Beings are not good or bad in themselves; an action is only good or bad because God declares it to be so. Nobody, nothing can challenge him. The meaning of the unity of God, which has been explained, contains several implications. I hope that those, which are exposed, are more or less sufficient to understand what Islamic monotheism is and what it implies in the Qur'n.

F. CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM AS ISLAM SEES IT

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are known as monotheistic religions because of their common belief in one, unique and supreme God, creator of heaven and earth. After studying Islamic doctrine, we notice that only a small number of the Muslims accept Christian monotheism.50 Muslims say that Christianity had a true monotheism in the past but with the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation, it has deviated from what was preached by Jesus himself. Jacques Jomier writes:
Christianity as Islam sees it is essentially the form of the unique religion, eternal and immutable, which God willed to be valid for the children of Israel at a particular moment in history. It was preached by Jesus, but little by little his disciples moved away from his message and God sent Muhammad to remedy the situation.51

In addition, Muslims reject any existent comparable to God. Muhammad `Abduh puts it in this way:
The necessary Being is one in His essence, His attributes, His existence and His acts. His essential unity we have established in the foregoing denial of compositeness in Him, whether in reality or conceptually. That He is unique in His attributes means that no existent is equal to Him therein.52
49

Ibid., p. 35. Jacques Jomier, op. cit., pp. 105-108. Ibid., p. 103. Muhammad `Abdul, The theology of Unity (London: George Allen, 1966), p. 51.

50

51

52

17

So based on this statement and on what we have already said in the second and third chapters, there is no room for the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus, in Islamic monotheism. These are simply kinds of polytheism and idolatry. Because of that, according to some Muslim fundamentalists, conversion to Christianity is nonsense; it is a regression. Christianity is seen in the light of the Qur'n. What the Qur'n says about Christianity is true and sufficient. Jacques Jomier says:
The first principle is that the only true source which allows a knowledge of Christianity is the Qur'n. Recent Muslim lives of Jesus, Written in Arabic, present what they call the Jesus of history. In fact, their account is based exclusively on Qur'nic sources; what is taken from elsewhere is there only a supplement or for illustration.53

G. ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM AS CHRISTIANITY SEES IT

The majority of Christians, especially those who are well informed, accept Islam as a monotheistic religion. Knowing that Christianity is not only a great religion, but is expressed in different views, we choose to stand on what the Catholic Church says. The Vatican II Council's view is in large agreement with a wide spectrum of other Christian views, although it does not find acceptance among some fundamentalists and those who are called today "born again". When Massignon was asked in an interview if he believed in Islam, he replied that he believed in the God of Abraham, a real, immanent person, and not in the abstract deity of the philosophers and of Devil. For that noble reason, Massignon is a friend to the Muslims.54 Louis Massignon received a Christian faith in his childhood but lost it a while. In his encounter with Muslims, he experienced certain realities which helped him later on to find his faith. From his personal experience he discovered that Islamic monotheism is true and that it is a relevent point to establish dialogue between Muslims and Christians. In other words, Louis Massignon want to say that Allh is true God, the God of the Bible. In the same vein, Kenneth Cragg wrote:
In as much as both Christian and Muslim faiths believe in one supreme sovereign Creator-God, they are obviously referring, when they speak of God under whatever terms, to the same Being. To suppose otherwise will be confusing. It is important to keep in mind that though apprehensions differ, their theme is the same. The differences, undoubtedly real, between the Muslim and the Christian understanding of God, are far-reaching and must be pantiently studied. But it would be fatal to all our mutual tasks to doubt that one and the same God over all was the reality in both. Those who say that Allh is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are right if they mean that God is not so described by Muslims. They are wrong if they mean that Allh is other than the God of the Christian Faith.55

But, in order to show that Massignon statement is not shared by all Christians, G.J.O. Moshay presents a number of questions:
A number of thoughtful people have often asked: Is Allh God? Is the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Many opinions abound. Some have said Allh is simply God -the same God of the Bible as He is known in the Arabic language. Some say he cannot possibly be; they say they do not know who he is, but
53

Jacques Jomier, How to understand Islam (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1989), p. 109.

Giulio Basselti-Sani, Louis Massignon (1883-1962), Christian ecumenist, Prophet of inter-religious reconciliation (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1974), p. 262.
55

54

Kenneth Cragg, The call of the minaret (New York: Orbis Books, 1985), p. 30.

18
that they are sure he is not the same God of the Bible. Some say he is indeed a mighty god, but not the Almighty God. Yet some are of the opinion that there are two Allhs. They say that Allh of the Arab and Hausa Christians is different from the Allh of the Muslims in these same areas. According to them, while the Allh of the Arab Christians is God, the Allh of the Muslims is not. But if he is not, who he is?56

Moshay's main contention is that Allh is not the God of the Bible. In fact, he goes so far as to say that Allh is demon as he wrote:
I thank God for this serious observation and comment. It has served to reinforce my convictions on the spirit behind Islam. But there is still a question whether indeed it is one god that is worshipped in Islam... There is no monotheism in heathenism. Probably the right word should be monolatry. One cannot serve satan and not have relationship with demons. In fact, most operations and interactions in the occult and Christless religions are more with these demonic spirits than satan himself. 57

We, however, take the position of Massignon and Cragg that Allh (the Arabic name of God) is the God of Israel, the God of Jesus. If we look at the themes that are stressed in the Qur'n in order to identify God, we will realize that God is presented as the sole divinity in relation to man, one in his nature and the only One who is worthy to be worshiped; He is eternal. In its document Vatican II council, The authority of the Catholic Church, aware of the Islamic belief in one God, presents its point of view. Vatican II Council first refers to Jews and Muslims when he says that those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in various ways. Vatican II Council added that Muslims adore the one, merciful God.58 We shall lengthwise examine Vatican II Council in the following documents. From its point of view about dialogue between Christians and Muslims, the Catholic Church presents two documents in which we notice an acknowledgement of the monotheism in Islam. The first is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium No. 16) says:
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creation, in the first place amongst whom are the moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day". It goes without saying that the Catholic Church places Islam as the first monotheistic religion outside the biblical revelation because it affirms broadly that Muslims and Christians worship the same living God as unique and mankind's judge on the last day.59

The second text, longer than the first, stresses the same idea but more strongly. In its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate No.3), the Catholic Church says:The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to man. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own".
56

G. Moshay, Who is this Allh? (Ibadan: Fireliners International, 1987), p. 9. Ibid., p. 130. Vatican II Council, Lumen Gentium, 16.

57

58

59

Robert Caspar, Trait de thologie muslmane. Histoire de la pense Religieuse musulmane (Rome: P.I.S.A.I, 1987), t. 1, p. 84.

19

In this document, the Catholic Church affirms once more that belief in one God and his worship are the foundation of Islam. Even Christians believe in one God in three persons; Christians and Muslims worship the same God in different ways. In my point of view, should I doubt Islamic monotheism? No. Muslims adore the supreme God in their context, language and practice. There is only one supreme God called YHWH in Hebrew, Allh in Arabic, God in English, Dieu in French, Olwa in Yoruba, Nzambi in Kikongo. After studying a little of the Qur'n, the period of Muhammad's lifetime and a few centuries after his death, I can say that the God worshipped by Muslims is one, unique and Creator of the universe, despite their life of honouring Him. Even if some types of Christians are still doubting Islamic monotheism, I do not complain so much because the time will come when they will believe that Allh in whom Muslims believe, is one, All-Mighty, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, Master of the day of Judgement.

H. NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF ISLAMIC MONOTHEISM

Islamic monotheism has some negative aspects that take some people into doubt. Here, I intend to present one I have found very important according to my topic. Despite its meaning and absoluteness, Islamic monotheism has a very serious deficiency; for instance, many Muslims believe that this unique God calls them to fight or discriminate against unbelievers in order to make them believers. E. Tyan said that jihd in Islam is a duty which is imposed upon the community considered as a whole and which only becomes obligatory for each individual according to the purpose envisaged by the law.60 The Qur'n has many calls for a holy war (2:186;8:15;22:40;9:1314). Sra 9:13-14 has this recommendation:
Will ye not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first? Do you fear them? But Allh has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them; Allh will chastise them at your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and relieve the hearts of a believing people.

Besides, in some sects in Islamic world, jihd is considered as the sixth pillar after shahda, alt, zakt, awm and ajj. Taking into account these cases, jihd becomes an end and not a means. But these practices do not basically change Islamic monotheism. We keep saying that Islam is a monotheistic religion and Muslims believe in God who is one and unique. Meanwhile, we should know that there is a big difference between faith and the practice of that faith. The negative aspect of Islamic monotheism lies in the practice of their belief and sometimes in its development. As a matter of fact, the Islamic view of God's unity will be different from that of Christianity because their practices and development are different.

60

Cf. The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 2 (London: E.J. Brill, 1965).

20

SECOND PART
II. SOME MAJOR THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
A word may be needed about Islamic theology, concentrating on its formative period (750-950). The five points below are the main issues, in the order of their historical emergence, which dominated Islamic theological debate in the period under consideration. These debates either arose from or had serious implications for the political situation of the time. The first issue, the relationship between faith and practice, arose directly from the chaos in the Islamic world following the assassination of Uthmn. Muslims are supposed to be at peace with one another (Q 3:103; 9:71) and to fight only unbelievers (Q 9:123 etc.) The three-way civil war between Muwiya, Al and the Khrijites could be justified only by supposing that the enemy was an apostate, since by his behavior he had forfeited the right to call himself a Muslim. The Khrijites formulated this position and applied it to all beside themselves who claimed to be Muslims. During the Umayyad period a party was developing based on loyalty to the family of Al. It took some time, until the Abbsid period, for this party to take shape and adopt the name Shite. Also during the Umayyad period Qurnic studies made much progress, laying the base for its paramount authority in what was later to become Sunnism. The Umayyads utilized religious ideas to enhance their own authority, giving rise to the second debate. The pre-Islamic idea of destiny (qadar), remoulded in the Qurn, was used to support their authority as decreed by God, forcing their opponents to argue for the role of free human choice. As the Umayyads consolidated their authority, a mainstream unity developed in the Muslim community, leaving on the sidelines the Shite exaltation of Al (especially in Kfa) and the Khrijite condemnation of everyone who did not measure up to their own behavior expectations. Ab-Hanfa was the principal formulator of the teaching, which came to be known as Murjiism. This is that Muslims should leave the judgement of the case between Uthmn and Al to God. In the meantime anyone who outwardly professes Islam should be accepted as a Muslim, and rulers in power should be presumed to be legitimate. This was the Sunnite resolution of the first debate. As for the third debate, the Abbsid period saw the growth and reformulation of Shism, although always as an opposition movement or at times as a junior collaborator in government. Radical Shism made no compromise on the primacy of Al and his rightful heirs, although there was no unanimity which these were. The caliph al-Mamn patronized a compromising group of Zaydite Shites who recognized the superiority of Al and his line, but were prepared to accept a less deserving ruler who could be elected. Shism eventually divided into two main branches, the Ismls, or Seveners, who recognize a line of seven imms before the line went into hiding, and the Immites, or Twelvers, who recognize twelve imms before the line went into hiding. The Abbsid period also saw a large-scale introduction of Greek philosophy and science into the Muslim world, occasioning the fourth debate: What is the relationship between revelation and

21 reason? Discussions between Muslims and Christians and between different Muslim schools of thought led to the application of philosophical concepts to talk about God, giving rise to the fifth issue: What is the relationship between Gods substance and his attributes and between one attribute and another? Both questions were taken up by the Mutazilites and their break-away cousins, the Asharites.

1. ISLAM: FAITH AND PRACTICE

Khrijism When the Khrijites protested `Als agreeing to negotiate with Mu`wiya, they shouted No judgement but Gods! This meant that grave sinners (Mu`wiya for rebelling, and `Al for compromising with him) are apostates from the Islamic community; so it is the duty of Muslims to fight them. This Khrijites action raised a theological question: What is the definition of faith? Does it include practice, or obedience to Islamic law, or is practice something additional to faith? The Khrijites were influenced in their position by the assumption that faith is not simply a matter of personal belief but is first of all membership in a believing community. Anyone who is unfaithful to that community cannot be a believer and cannot enter Paradise. The Khrijites laid great stress on the Quran. This led them to two conclusions: 1) Membership in the community depends upon following the laws of the Quran, and anyone who violates these laws forfeits his membership. 2) An imam, or caliph, is not necessary from a theoretical standpoint. If one is chosen out of practical necessity he can be from any tribe or nation, even an Ethiopian slave. This second conclusion touches issue of authority, and will be dealt with in chapter 3. Like any of the movements under consideration in Islamic theology, Khrijism is a wide label applied to many individuals and subsects whose views differed greatly from one another. At least three groups went by the name of Khrijites. Only the first consistently follows the logic of Khrijism; the others are compromises or diluted versions. So, while we mention the three groups, only the first is important. 1.1 Azraqites The first group is the Azraqites, names after Nfi' ibn-al-Azraq, its leader, who was active in Basra at the time of Yazds death and the rebellion of Ibn-az-Zubayr in Mecca. This group pointed to Qurn 9:81 ff. that those able people who sit still and do not go out (kharaj) to fight for the sake of God are unbelievers. They interpreted this to mean that anyone who did not join the Khrijites was an unbeliever. Furthermore they pointed to Qurn 2:117 which teaches that such apostates are destined to hell fire for eternity, and concluded, according to the injunction of Qurn 9:29 to fight unbelievers, that they should attack non-members of their group, except Christians and Jews, whom the Qurn has declared protected. Azraqite teaching reflected Arab nomadic custom whereby members of other tribes were all potential enemies and, unless there was an alliance, could be attacked whenever the chance came. The Azraqites not only maintained themselves by raiding, but reinforced their group solidarity by a test (mihna) of those who would join their group. The candidate was given a prisoner go kill, preferably one of his own tribe. This act would make the new member a target for the revenge of the victims family, and he would have to depend more solidly upon the Azraqites for protection. Thus religion became the sole bond uniting the members, and family ties and the authority of elders or chiefs meant nothing.

22 In 683 Ibn-al-Azraq went to Mecca to support Ibn-az-Zubayr, but the latter was interested in becoming caliph over a stable state and was not comfortable with Ibn-al-Azraqs anarchical outlook. Ibn-al-Azraq returned to Iraq and was pursued by Ibn-az-Zubayrs army and killed in 685, but the Azraqites continued as a terrorist band, robbing and killing whenever they saw the opportunity, until they were wiped out by the Umayyad governor al-Hajjj in 698. 1.2 The Najdites The Najdites, a less important group of Khrijites, are called after their leader Najda ibn-'mir who was also a supporter of Ibn-az-Zubayrs rebellion in 683. Najda did not stay with Ibn-az-Zubayr, but gained control of al-Yamma in central Arabia and eventually most of eastern and southern Arabia, a more extensive area than the territory controlled by Ibn-az-Zubayr. Najda was deposed by his followers and died in 693, yet his party continued to rule until they were defeated by al-Hajjj in 693. Because the Najdites held political power, they were forced to modify the strict Khrijite teaching that any Muslim who commits a serious sin is an apostate and should be killed. Najda, therefore, distinguished between fundamentals and non-fundamentals in religion. People who sin by ignorance could be excused, as the leaders of one expedition who appropriated to themselves some captured women without following the rules for the distribution of booty, but in fundamental matters of faith and respect for the life and property of other Muslims there no excuse was accepted. Another distinction was made between occasional sin and persistence in sin; thus God would punish those who sometimes commit theft or adultery or lesser sins, but only those who persist in such acts would be excluded from the community and destined to eternal punishment in hell. Najda also held that Muslims who did not join his group by going out to fight had the status of hypocrites (munfiqn), not unbelievers, as the Azraqites said. Furthermore, Najda seems to have permitted his followers the practice of taqiyya (cf. Q 16:106), that is, they may conceal their beliefs if their lives are in danger because of their beliefs, for instance from non-Khrijite Muslims or from Azraqites. 1.3 Other Basra Khrijites Besides the Azraqites and Najdites there were other Khrijites in Basra who held even more mitigated views. Forced to make a pragmatic adaptation to non-Khrijite rule, their theorists defended abstention from revolution, orsitting still, saying that this did not make someone an unbeliever; likewise sins such as theft or adultery were not regarded as making someone an unbeliever. The test of accepting non-Khrijites as Muslims came when there was a question of giving them Khrijite women in marriage or selling them slave girls. There is the story of one Ibrhm who was annoyed with his slave girl and threatened to sell her to a bedouin. Some people challenged the legality of his action, but the majority supported him. One group which defended such dealings with non-Khrijites was the Wqifites, whose name means to stop or suspend judgement regarding the ultimate fate of non-Khrijites or of sinners. The Wqifites did advocate punishing sinners, but not excluding them from the community. As Khrijism gradually disappeared from the heartlands of the caliphate, moderate Khrijites continued to govern some outlying states, as 'Umn, while a revolutionary form of Khrijism took root for a time among the Persians and among the Berbers of the Maghrib. Khrijism gave them

23 justification for rebelling against the central government and also for protesting against the superior status of the Arabs. After the fall of the Umayyads in 750 Khrijism was insignificant for the development of Islamic theology; yet it is important for having been the first formulated theological movement in Islam and for having initiated future discussion of two major theological issues: that of faith and works, and that of the authority of the Qurn. Khrijite thinking, however, has always resurfaced in the Islamic world as a rallying point for the oppressed and politically disaffected, because it justifies revolution against Muslim authority. We see this in Hanbalism, Ibn-Taymiyya, Wahhbism of Saudi Arabia, al-Mawdd, and the Muslim Brothers of Egypt and the movements they spawned. The assassins of President Sadat of Egypt were inspired by Khrijite principles, since they held that because he did not establish Shar'a in full he forfeited his claim to be a Muslim. In Nigeria the Maitatsine movement acted in a similar way, although they never were able to articulate their principles. The Izala and other such movements which do not recognize a secular government in Nigeria all have a touch of Khrijism, even though they may not go as far as the Azraqites. 1.2 Murjiism The word Murjiism comes from an Arabic word meaning to postpone or defer, and was used to mean that the community should postpone judgement on whether a sinner is a Muslim or not until the next life when God will judge him. The word was adopted because of its use in Qurn 9:106, where the status of three men who stayed away from the battle of Tabk was questioned: [These] others are deferred (postponed) to the command of God; he will either punish them or forgive them. Later, verse 118 says they were forgiven. The history of Murjiism, like that of Qadarism, is complicated because later Sunnite writers listed it among the heresies; so ho respectable man could be included among the Murjiites. For example, al-Ash'ar, writing first as a Mu'tazilite and then as a Hanbalite, condemned Ab-Hanfa as a Murjiite heretic because he was a member of a rival legal school; this was at a time when the various schools had not yet come together under the banner of Sunnism. Later al-Baghdd (d. 1037) and ash-Shahrastn (d. 1153) could not longer regard the founder of the Hanafite school as a heretic, yet they continued to list Murjiism as a heresy in order to complete the list of seventytwo heresies foretold by Muhammad in the hadth: The Jews are divided into seventy-one sects and the Christians into seventy-two, but my community will be divided into seventy-three sects, only one of which will be saved. In fact, no heretical sect of Murjiites ever existed; on the contrary, men from the mainstream of Islam, led by Ab-Hanfa, applied the term irj (to postpone) to several teachings which became part of later Sunnism. Irj 1: Sinners are accepted as Muslims The first application of irj was to judgement of the case of 'Uthmn and `Al. Judgement should be postponed whether they (and other sinners) are believers or unbelievers, and in this life both men should be accepted as believers and as rightful rulers. This position was directed against the Khrijites placing of 'Uthmn, as well as Mu`wiya and `Al, among the unbelievers. It was also against the proto-Sh`ites who judged that `Al was superior. Politically, therefore, the Murjiites pragmatically accepted the Umayyads while they were in power, and the right of Hshimite superiority. Murjiism had an anti-Khrijite tone in Basra, where Khrijites were numerous, whereas in Kfa, a stronghold of pro-'Alid sympathies, it was used to oppose Sh`ite attempts to revolt or condemn the 'Uthmn (Umayyad) party. Murjiism may even

24 have been primarily directed against proto-Sh`ites, since a preponderant number of the Murjiites listed by Ibn-Sa'd (d. 845) and Ibn-Qutayba (d. 889) are from Kfa. By opposing the divisive tendencies of the Khrijites and Sh`ites and upholding the unity of the Islamic community, the Murjiites are forerunners of the Sunnites. Irj 2: Faith does not include works The second application of irj was with regard to faith and practice; practice was postponed, or placed after, faith. This application of irj was demanded by the first. If judgement is to be deferred whether a grave sinner is a believer or not, he is really accepted as a believer, although lacking in the practice of faith. That is because the Arabs communal way of thinking made them look upon a believer primarily as a member of a believing community rather than simply one who has faith. If a grave sinner is accepted as a member of the Muslim community, then he must have faith, and faith (mn) must be defined accordingly. In the Qurn and the Hadth a distinction is sometimes drawn between mn and islm (and sometimes ihsn, doing good). mn is the profession of faith from the heart and mouth, while islm is serving God, especially through salt and zakt. Islamic theological literature gives various ways of distinguishing the two, mainly by saying that mn is of a higher or lesser value than islm. Murjiite theologians, as will be seen, gave mn a meaning equivalent to accepting the official religion. Ab-Hanfa, if we accept W. Montgomery Watts historical investigation, was the chief theologian of Murjiism and was not a heretic, but initiated the ideas that were to prevail in later Sunnism. The problem he faced was to find an intermediate position between rigorism and laxism. The Khrijite and Mu'tazilite rigorist position caused moral anxiety, because by sin a person would be deprived of mn and membership in the community. Anxiety was furthered by the Hanbalite practice of applying the phrase in sh Allh (If God wills) even to ones own belief by saying, I am a believer, if God wills. They said this because they considered obedience to the laws of the Qurn part of faith, and they were not so self-confident to assert that they had fulfilled all the requirements of the law. To correct the rigorist trend some people turned to a laxist position; for example Muqtil ibnSulaymn (d. 767) said, Where there is mn, sin does no harm. This statement of Muqtil (member of the Zaydite sect) is what later Sunnite writers wrongly considered central in Murjiism, and is the reason why they considered Murjiism a heresy. Ab-Hanfas solution was to define mn as confession (iqrr) with the tongue and counting true (tasdq) with the heart. mn is thus an intellectual acceptance of the basic tenets of Islam, and does not include fulfilling the Law. It is moreover the distinguishing factor between belonging to the Muslim community or not; someone either has mn or he does not. Therefore, Ab-Hanfa concluded, it is equal among all Muslims and does not increase or decrease in degree. Faith stays the same, and only practice can increase or decrease. The Hanbalites, including al-Ash'ar, opposed this definition of mn, and asserted that faith includes practice and does increase or decrease. They cited in favour of their view Qurn verses such as 8:2: Believers are only those whose hearts shake when God is mentioned; and when his signs are recited to them, it increases their faith. The Hanafite view, however, prevailed in later Sunnite orthodoxy.

25 The Hanafite position fostered the belief that every Muslim is assured of ultimately entering Paradise, provided he does not sin against faith by shirk (worshiping other beings in association with God), according to Qurn 4:48 : God does not forgive the associating [of any being] with him, but he forgives what is less than that to whom he wishes. Even al-Hasan al-Bas held that anyone who affirms the shahda at his death will enter Paradise. The Hanafites evolved the teaching that a sinner who has not denied the faith will suffer Hell fire temporarily. According to at-Tahw, If God wills, in his justice he punishes them in Hell to the measure of their offense, then in his mercy, at the intercession of intercessors from among the people obeying him, he removes them from Hell and raises them to his Paradise. There are many Qurnic references to Gods forgiveness (e.g. 2:284; 3:129; 4:48,116; 5:18,40) and to intercession (e.g. 10:3; 19:87; 20:109; 34:23; 43:86). The Qurn does not explicitly mention Muhammad as an intercessor, yet the idea became strongly rooted in Islam. The Wasiyya of Ab-Hanfa seems to contain the earliest mention of it. Irj 3: `Al is last in merit Finally, two other applications of the word irj can be mentioned to complete the discussion of Murjiism. One of them was al-Ash'ars transformation of the first application of the word to the case of 'Uthmn and `Al. For al-Ash'ar there was to be no deferment of judgement, but `Al himself was to be deferred to the fourth place, so that the chronological order of the first four caliphs was also that of merit. This view (initiated, as we will see, by the 'Uthmnites of the first `Abbsid century) became the standard Sunnite view. Irj 4: Paradise is assured The other application of irj was a later transformation of the second application to the question of faith and practice. Since the word irj can also mean to give hope, ash-Shahrastn gave the interpretation that anyone who preserves his faith, even without practice, is assured of entering Paradise. 1.3 The Mu'tazilite intermediate position of a sinner Mu'tazilism as a movement will be discussed in chapter 3. Yet the fourth of their five principles, that of the intermediate position of a sinner, belongs to this chapter. Politically, the Mu'tazilites tried to reduce tension between the constitutionalist and absolutist factions in the empire, represented by the proto-Sunnites and the proto-Sh`ites respectively. They did this by their compromise of recognizing the elections of all the first four caliphs, although the Basra and Baghdad schools differed concerning the superiority of `Al. Ab-l-Hudhayl and most of his Basra followers held that the imm must be chosen by election and should always be the best man (afdal). He also maintained that the first four caliphs were each the best men at the time of their election, yet he refused to pronounce whether 'Uthmn was right or wrong during his last six years, and whether `Al was right or wrong at the Battle of the Camel. Only al-Asamm varied from the general Basra view by holding that `Al was never imm. Bishr and the Baghdad school held that an inferior or less qualified man (mafdl) may become imm if there is some ground ('illa) for choosing him. although Bishr recognized the election of all the first four caliphs, he had a definite preference for `Al, and judged that he was in the right in his disputes; this is because the Baghdad school favoured the tendency of the proto-Sh`ites and the `Abbsids towards absolutism.

26 The meaning of the intermediate position (al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn) is that a sinner is neither a believer nor an unbeliever. In this life criminals should be punished, but nevertheless accepted as Muslims. This position is anti-Khrijite and differs from Murjiism only by the fact that the Mu'tazilites taught that the sinner will be eternally in Hell in the next life if he dies unrepentant, whereas the Murjiites held that for all Muslims eventual entrance to Paradise is assured. Later developments The influential al-Ash'ar, who broke away from Mu'tazilism, maintained the Khrijite position that faith includes practice and therefore admits of degrees. He thought that the intercession of Muhammad may gain the release of some Muslims from Hell, but that God may decide to punish some Muslim sinners eternally in Hell. Nevertheless he did not go the whole way of the Khrijites regarding the treatment of sinners in this life. Although Ash'ar is the father of Sunn theology, most Sunn theologians did not follow him on these points. The view of al-Mturd (d. 944) overruled al-Ash'ar, so that pure Murjiism is the common teaching: Faith does not include practice, and no Muslim will stay eternally in Hell.

2. DIVINE AND CREATED POWER: THE QUESTION OF QADAR

Qadarism The word qadar first of all means Gods determination of all events, including what people choose to do. We would expect a Qadarite to be someone who maintains that God determines everything, but in fact the term historically came to mean the opposite, namely, one who asserts that qadar belongs to man, and man himself determines his own acts, and not his Creator. Qadar in this sense refers to mans power freely to choose. Later Sunnism considered Qadarism a heresy, but in Umayyad times the issue was not so clear, and the debate went on right within the general proto-Sunnite movement, although some moderate Khrijites also took part. The debate is similar to that within Christianity concerning free will and grace. Does man require Gods help to do or think anything good in his sight, or to do anything at all, even evil things? If so, how can man be responsible for what he does? Pre-Islamic Arabian thought The pre-Islamic background to the discussion of qadar is important. In a land where rainfall and weather are completely erratic and people sometimes have plenty and other times nothing at all, it is natural for them to have a fatalistic outlook. Pre-Islamic poetry made an impersonal force out of Time (dahr, zamn) or Days. This force determined everything, especially mans ajal (term of life) and rizq (sustenance). On the other hand the Arabs honoured human achievement, especially victory in battle, and took it as a sign of inherited excellence enabling a man to do wonderful things. The Qurn The Qurn retains the notions of ajal and rizq, but teaches that these are determined by God, not an impersonal Time (cf. 45:23-25; 57:22); moreover Gods decrees are not simply inevitable

27 results of his omnipotence but also the execution of his designs of love and mercy for mankind. In its teaching concerning judgement on the Last Day, the Qurn implies human responsibility. This teaching, however, must be reconciled with the teaching that God can forgive or punish sins as he wishes (cf. 2:284; 3:129; 4:43,116; 5:18,40) or forgive because of persons he has given permission to intercede. Moreover God is said to guide (ahd) people or lead them astray(adalla) just as he pleases (cf. 6:125; 16:93), and in the same way help them to succeed (nasara) or abandon them (khadala). Other passages make Gods guidance or leading astray dependent on peoples previous good or evil actions (e.g. 2:26; 3:86).

The Umayyad period In the Umayyad period the debate had political overtones. The Umayyad authorities favoured predestinarian views in order to support their claim to divinely given authority. Their argument, especially as put forth by the poets Jarr and al-Farazdaq, was that the Umayyads inherited the caliphate from 'Uthmn as his blood-heirs. God decreed (qad) their authority and made them his representatives on earth. The Umayyads claimed to be the caliphs of God (khalfat Allh) and his shadow on earth, in this way changing the word caliph from meaning successor (of Muhammad) to mean deputy as Adam was Gods deputy in Qurn 2:30, and David in 38:26; the Qurn speaks of this generation as both Gods deputy on earth and successor of previous generations, 6:165; 7:79,73; 10:14,73, 35:39). Everything the Umayyads did was therefore decreed by God and should be accepted as such by their subjects. In this context Qadarites were considered opponents of the regime, although in assessing their number we should be aware that the Umayyads tended to brand any of their opponents as Qadarites, and later Sunnites tried to minimize the number of Umayyad opponents who subscribed to Qadarism. The alleged founder of Qadarism is Ma'bad al-Juhan, who took part in the rising of Ibn-al-Ash'ath in 701 and was executed around 704; about all we know about him is that he had the reputation of being the first to discuss the question of qadar. Another important man is Ghayln ad-Dimashq, who was a critic of the regimes of 'Umar ibn-'Abdal'azz (717-20) and of Hishm (724-3); he had to flee to Armenia, but was captured and executed. His followers, however, helped the reformist Yazd III to occupy the throne for a few months in 744. Ghayln is reported to have combated the popular opinion that evildoing is by Gods determination (qad wa-l-qadar). There were many more proto-Sunnites of Qadarite sympathies, but later Sunnite reports give us few names and only describe certain tendencies. One Qadarite tendency was to say that good actions are from God, but evil actions are from man. Al-Ash'ar tells a story making fun of a Qadarite named Maymn: Maymn had some money owed to him by Shu'ayb and demanded its repayment. Shu'ayb said to him, I shall give it to you if God wills. Maymn said, God has willed that you should give it to me now. Shu'ayb said, If God had willed it, I could not have done otherwise than give it to you. Maymn said, God has willed what he commanded; what he did not command he did not will, and what he did not will he did not command... The dispute was then carried to Ibn-'Ajarrad, who was then in prison (from 723 to 738), and he said in support of Maymn, We do not fix evil upon God. Another tendency was to say that both good and evil actions are from man, yet through an ability (istat'a) or power (qudra) given to man by God.

28 Still another tendency which said that man is the originator of both his good and evil actions gave the explanation that God does not know beforehand what any man will do, because if he knew beforehand he would be responsible. Al-Hasan al-Basr, because of his standing, was claimed by both Mu'tazilites (who agreed with Qadarism) and Sunnites as their forefather. His political action contributed support to Qadarism in that he criticized authorities, yet his repudiations of the uprisings of Ma'bath and Ibn-al-Ash'ath give the opposite impression. In his Risla he explains that the circumstantial events of mens lives designated by ajal and rizq are determined by God, yet god cannot be blamed for misfortunes, since they are for the punishment of evildoers or the testing of good people. Man, however is responsible for choosing good or evil, because God has given him the power (qudra) to choose. Al-Hasan explained that Gods determination (qadar is the same as his command (amr), and that he influences human choice only by commanding good or forbidding evil. Predestinarian Qurn verses such as 16:93, God leads astray whom he wishes and guides whom he wishes, al-Hasan explains in concordance with other Qurn verses to mean, God sends astray the evildoers; in other words, Gods action always follows mans free choice of good or evil. Regarding Qurn 6:35, Had God wished, he could have guided them, al-Hasan admits that God could compel men to believe, but he does not in fact do so. Al-Hasan al-Basrs position is thus fundamentally a form of Qadarism. The debate between the Qadarite identification of Gods will with his command and the Determinist identification of his will with what actually happens is based on an apparent conflict between Gods goodness and his power. If God causes evil to happen, then he is not good. If evil happens independently of God, then God is not all-powerful. Predestinarian views became less identified with support for Umayyad rule as it became weaker; so that the traditional Arab predestinarian outlook was able to reassert itself and pious men could oppose Qadarism without appearing pro-Umayyad. The Hadth movement in the early 8th century was strongly predestinarian. Determination of the circumstantial aspects of mans life (ajal and rizq) is expressed, for example, by the Hadth: What reaches you could not possibly have missed you, and what misses you could not possibly have reached you. Determination of human choice is expressed in the following Hadth: [The Prophet said:] By God, one of you will work the work of the people of the Fire until there is between him and it less than an arms length, and the book [of destiny] will overtake him and he will work the work of the people of the Garden and enter it; and another man will work the work of the people of the Garden until between him and it there is less than an arms length, and then the book will overtake him and he will work the work of the people of the Fire and enter it. Still other Hadths assert that if anyone dies without believing in Gods determination of all things he will go to Hell. On the other hand, a very few traditions condemn fatalistic inactivity and urge people to action. Opposition to Qadarism also appeared, as later theologians relate, in the objection that it was Christian-inspired. The stories of Christian influence on Ma'bath and others may be true, because Christianity does emphasize human responsibility (although the all-importance of grace is also affirmed), yet the debate about qadar took place in an Islamic setting because of questions raised by the Qurn itself, and the solutions proposed by all the parties had an Islamic form and used Qurnic concepts.

29 Mu'tazilite Qadarism When the `Abbsids came to power in 750 Qadarism was transformed. It was no longer a symbol of political opposition, and was absorbed by the Mu'tazilite movement, which for a time was officially endorsed by the caliphs. Mu'tazilite Qadarism was expressed in their teaching of justice ('adl), the second of their five principles, and the promise and the threat, their third principle. These principles assert mans mastery over his own acts, on the basis that God would be unjust if he punished or rewarded people for doing things for which they were not responsible. The Mu'tazilites interpreted Qurnic phrases indicating Gods leading astray as his declaration that sinners are astray; his guidance means the sending of prophets with warnings and promises, and he gives help as a reward to those who are good or because he knows they will use it well. In every case predestination of human acts is avoided. The Mu'tazilites tried to explain human freedom by positing a power (qudra, quwwa, or istat'a) to act. This is not merely simultaneous with the act, as the determinists said, but precedes the act. The Mu'tazilites did not define this power precisely; it simply stood for the internal decision which precedes an external act. They were concerned with affirming that man is master of his external acts, not with giving a psychological analysis of the freedom of the internal decision. Besides defending human responsibility, the Mu'tazilites tried to combat popular belief in the determination of ajal and rizq. In the case of murder, they said that the victims ajal was the time God foreknew that someone would kill him; in other words, free human activity is involved. The Mu'tazilites were bolder in denying the determination of rizq; they asserted, contrary to an-Najjr, that a man who eats stolen food is consuming another mans rizq, and not his own, since God did not determine the stealing. The Mu'tazilites critics confronted them with a series of problems. One of these concerned the consequences of an act, because of the problem of responsibility for chain effects which may go on even after the first agent is dead. If a man shoots an arrow at his enemy but dies before the arrow reaches, did a dead man kill a living man? Mu'ammar said that the consequences belong to whatever directly brings them about; thus the arrow killed the man. Bishr disagreed and introduced the concept of tawallud, or generated effects, which for him all belong to the first agent; he admitted that the dead man killed his living enemy. Ab-l-Hudhayl said the same, but added the principle that a man is responsible only for the foreseen consequences of his action. The preoccupation of all these thinkers was to explain responsibility only for the external act, since the mans intention (irda) cannot be called killing until the arrow reaches the opponent and his spirit leaves him Since the principle of justice implied that evil should not be fixed on God in any way, the Mu'tazilites tried to answer various other problems. One was that had God given some people extra favour (lutf), they would not have gone to Hell. Bishr ibn-al-Mu'tamir admitted that, since God is all powerful, he could always do something better than what he has done; he does no evil by not giving all the favour he could give. Ab-l-Hudhayl and an-Nazzm disagreed, and said God must always do what is best or perfect (aslah), although there are various ways of perfection he could choose from; whatever God does has to be interpreted as a best or perfect thing.

30 Another problem was why does God let children and animals suffer, when they are not responsible. Some explained that they suffer for the benefit of others, such as the warning of adults, and they will be compensated by being given entry into Paradise by a special act of Gods generosity. (tafaddul). This thought was developed by al-Jubb (d. 915), who maintained that God is bound to do what is best in matters of religion, since his command for men to believe in him would be meaningless if he did not provide the means to obey it. The means includes the sending of prophets to instruct and also the interior movement of a persons will to obey. The latter gift is called a grace (lutf) and it makes obeying God easier, yet it does not compel the recalcitrant nor is it strictly necessary for those who are inclined to obey. In fact, the more grace God gives, the less the human input and the less the reward. It would be better to let a man struggle on his own and earn a great reward than to have the way made easy by grace and thereby make him deserve less reward. Ab-Hshim (d. 933), son and successor of al-Jubb, reverted from his fathers teaching about Gods free generosity and returned to the older Mu'tazilite teaching that man believes in God and obeys him by his own efforts only and God is obliged to treat him according to the norms of strict justice. A final problem is the eternity of punishment in Hell; what good does it do? Al-Iskf said that sinners are punished to warn the sinners and unbelievers of this world. The Mu'tazilites replies to all these questions, however, were not very satisfactory, and their opponents continued to multiply objections and put them in an embarrassing state of defense. Ash'arite determinism Dirr ibn-'Amr (d.c. 800) was originally counted as a Mu'tazilite, but differed from them on the question of free will. He said that God determines mans acts, but man acquires them, so that the same action can be attributed to both God and man. The concept of acquisition (kasb), which seems to have originated with Dirr, became an important part of Ash'arite theology. Dirr explained that man acquires his acts, and is therefore responsible for them, because they proceed from an ability (istat'a) which God creates in him enabling him to choose. Husayn an-Najjr, who lived in the time of al-Mamn, was a vigorous anti-Mu'tazilite and developed many of the views of Dirr. He is strongly deterministic whenever he speaks of goodness or evil in the world or in human choice. Thus he accepts the idea of acquisition (kasb), but says that the ability (istat'a) to act exists only at the time of the act, not before or after. Ibn-Karrm (d. 869) was a sf and a preacher with many followers. Known as Karrmites, these were influential chiefly in Persia. They did not have a great impact on the mainstream of Islamic thought, yet they contributed to a Sunn consensus on some points. One of these was their view on istat'a which was the same as that held by an-Najjr, just mentioned. The question of qadar is one of the focal points of al-Ash'ars opposition to Mu'tazilism. Al-Ash'ar repeats the idea developed by the above-mentioned anti-Mu'tazilite thinkers, that God determines mans acts and gives him the power to act only at the time of acting. The power to act gives man the appearance of freedom, but fundamentally he is not free, because the power does not cause but only occasions the act. Yet al-Ash'ar says that this power is the basis of kasb and gives him a title to claim the act as his own.

31 Atomistic occasionalism The Ash'arite school developed the idea of determinism, basing it on the cosmic principle of atomism. The idea goes back to pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and was developed by Democritus. It was introduced to the Muslim world by al-Kind (c. 840) and taken up by Hishm ibn-al-Hakam (d.c. 805) and Dirr ibn-'Amr. Al-Bqilln (d. 1013) popularized atomistic occasionalism which means that all physical beings are simply gatherings or clouds of atoms with particular qualities, and that all of these last only an instant and must constantly be recreated by God. They therefore have no power to act on their own, but all apparent activity or causality that seems to be theirs is really Gods direct action, and they are only the occasion. For instance, the sun does not cause heat and light, but God does so directly when the sun happens to be shining. The same idea was reiterated and systematized by al-Ghazl (d. 1111) and other Ash'arites. Muhammad as-Sans (d. 1490) says in his al-'Aqda al-wust. For the same reason, you become aware of the impossibility of anything in the world producing any effect whatsoever, because that entails the removal of that effect from the power and will of our majestic and mighty Protector, and this necessitates the overcoming of something from eternity by something which came into being, which is impossible. Therefore a created power has no effect on motion or rest, obedience or disobedience, or on any effect universally, neither directly nor through induction. (n. 35) For that matter, food has no effect on satiety, nor water on moistening the land, growing plants, or on cleaning, nor fire on burning, heating or cooking food, nor clothing or shelter on covering or repelling heat and cold, nor trees on shading, nor the sun and the rest of the heavenly bodies on illumination, nor a knife on cutting, nor cold water on diminishing the intensity of heat of other water, as neither has the latter in diminishing the intensity of cold in the former. Conclude by analogy from these examples that whenever God acts in his ordinary way he makes something exist on the occasion of another. but know that it is from God from the start, without the other accompanying things having any intermediary or effect on it, neither by their nature, nor by a power or peculiarity placed in it by God, as many ignorant people think. More than one sound imm has recalled that there is agreement that whoever holds that those things produce an effect by their nature are an unbeliever. (n. 39) The total lack of power in creatures applies also to human choice. The same as-Sans maintains that man has a power to choose, but this power has no effect on his act whatsoever. It merely gives him a feeling of ease and freedom, whereas in reality he is forced (n. 37). God rewards obedience and punishes disobedience by his own free decision, not because of any obligation of justice (n. 38). As-Sanss position is in line with Ash'arite theological tradition, even though Qurnic texts can be cited in favour of both human freedom and divine determination. The basis of Ash'arite thinking We have seen how Ash'arite thought is wedded to atomistic occasionalism ,but that is not the real starting point of Ash'arism. The starting point is a particular understanding of the shahda, the fundamental statement of Islamic belief. The shahda begins: L ilha ill llh, There is no divinity but Allh. This is an exclusive statement and is meant to exclude the theoretical existence of other divinities and the practical worship of such. The latter is the sin of shirk, associating other divinities with God. As the Ash'arites understand the shahda, whatever pertains to God is exclusively his and cannot be shared with a creature. This applies particularly to the attribute of

32 power. God alone is sovereign and powerful; there is no natural power in creation; otherwise creatures would be part of God, which is the meaning of pantheism. Why do the Ash'arites say that nothing divine can be shared with creation? Briefly, it s because they think only in terms of Platos analogy of attribution. For Plato, only the ideal world is real; the sensible world is just a shadowy imitation, not really participating in the nature of the ideal world. If we are to be consistent, such thinking should conclude that only the ideal world (or god exists, and everything else is no-being, but neither Plato nor the Ash'arites theologians went that far. Aristotle completely rejected Platos theory of an ideal world, but did accept the existence of God and of other spirits. Also, although eh did not carry his theological speculation very far, he laid the basis for understanding how divine qualities can be shared with creatures. This is in his discussion of analogy in Book 5 of his Metaphysics. There he says that things are one analogically which have the same relations as something else to another object. In his commentary on this passage, Thomas Aquinas says that analogy can be taken in two ways: 1) Two things can have the same relationship to a third thing, such as healthy urine which is a sign of health, and healthy medicine which is a cause of health; both are related to the health of an animal. 2) Two things can have the same relationship to different things, such as calmness of the sea and stillness of the air; in this case we have four terms. In this passage Thomas set the distinction between analogy of proportion or attribution and analogy of proportionality. Applying this concept to God, Thomas maintained in his Disputed questions on Truth and his Disputed questions on power that the analogy characterizing the relationship between God and creatures cannot be one of attribution, because we do not say God is being and goodness because he is the cause of being and goodness in creatures, since this would imply that real goodness and being is principally in creatures and God must be defined in relationship to them. Rather it is the other way around. So Thomas opts for analogy of proportionality: As God has being, goodness etc. in an infinite way, so creatures have these in a finite way. Any positive attribute observed in creation may be applied to God in a super excellent way, provided it does not imply a defect or limitation, such as materiality. Names such as the Sun of justice are not proper analogical expressions, but simply metaphors, and are sometimes categorized as analogies of improper proportionality. In the Summa theologiae and in the Summa contra gentiles Thomas passes over the analogy of proportionality, which involves four terms, and returns to a revised version of the two term analogy of attribution. Using the same illustration of health, this time medicine is not defined as healthy merely because it cause health in an animal, but because it has a power to heal which is prior in nature to the health that is in the animal. So, although our knowledge of Gods goodness stems from our knowledge of created goodness, his own goodness does not consist merely in causing goodness outside himself, but in possessing goodness essentially and in a more eminent way. For Thomas, then, both proportionality and attribution are two valid forms of analogy in language about God. To look at the relationship of creatures to God exclusively in terms of analogy of attribution logically leaves no being or reality to creation. To see creatures as sharing in divine qualities in any way (See Wisdom 13:1-6; Romans 1:19-20, 2 Peter 1:4), we must make use of the analogy of proportionality. That is what the Ash'arites failed to do.

33

3. AUTHORITY IN RELIGION SHISM VERSUS SUNNISM

Sh`ism Sh`ism, as well as Sunnism, contrary to the impression given by later Muslim historians of heresies and Sh`ite writers, had no definite shape in the Umayyad period, and not even during the first century of `Abbsid rule, that is, until the latter part of the 9th century. The movement we are to describe, which does not correspond in every way to later Sh`ism, can better be called protoSh`ism. This movement was intellectually quiet during the time of the Khrijite debates, yet we can note four historical phases it underwent during the Umayyad period. The early Arab phase The early Arab phase encompassed the time of `Al and his sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn. Sh`ite (meaning partisan) was likely the name by which the supporters of `Al and his sons at that time called themselves. Even after the Khrijites left him, numbers of people still supported `Al, but they were not strong and numerous enough to overcome the opposition of both the Khrijites and Mu`wiya. After `Al died in 661 and al-Hasan accepted the retirement Mu`wiya offered him, the next heir to `Als claims was al-Husayn. He accepted no compromise, yet bided his time until Mu`wiyas death in 680. Al-Husayns bid for power led to the massacre at Karbal, but the longterm result of his martyrdom was the devotion of Sh`ite Penitents over the centuries who have continued to lament al-Husayns death and give their total support to the Sh`ite cause.

The revolt of al-Mukhtr The next phase began with the revolt of al-Mukhtr in 685. He not only aroused the Arab Penitents (who repented having abandoned al-Husayn at Karbal), but also assured the future of Sh`ism by winning a basis of support among the non-Arab Mawl. Al-Mukhtr built his policy upon five principles: 1) the Book of God, 2) the Sunna of the Prophet, 3) vengeance for the family of `Al, 4) defense of the weak, and 5) jihd against evildoers. The first principle was aimed against Sh`ite extremists who tended to prefer the voice of the imm to directions given in the Qurn. The second principle may have been directed against the Khrijites, who accepted the authority of the Qurn alone. The third principle was an appeal to the Arab Penitents, and was put into effect when al-Mukhtr executed those responsible for killing al-Husayn. The fourth principle echoes Qurn 4:75, and is an appeal to the Mawl, who were the weak (mustad'afn) or deprived members of the Muslim community. The fifth principle was an appeal to action, in opposition to those who would wait indefinitely for God to send a messianic imm. The original feature of al-Mukhtrs revolt was his claim to be acting on behalf of Ibn-al-Hanafiyya. This device became a precedent for future Sh`ism, when the imm became a remote or hidden personality imbued with superhuman or divine qualities. The task of managing day to day politics and military operations, where human defects and mistakes are so evident, was left to someone else who acted as a prime minister and could be blamed for anything that went wrong. The latter did not have to be of the family of `Al or Muhammad in any sense. The fact that al-Mukhtr acted on behalf of Ibn-al-Hanafiyya disproves the claim of later Sh`ite writers that their sect was in agreement from the beginning that the imm, by divine right and

34 Muhammads designation, must be a descendant of Muhammad through Ftima and her husband `Al, and then through their sons al-Hasan or al-Husayn. In proto-Sh`ism there was no such fixed teaching, but only a respect for the family of Muhammad, particularly for `Al. Thus it was possible to recognize Ibn-al-Hanafiyya as imm, and also to give special honour to `Als brother Ja`far and to Muhammads uncle al-'Abbs. Proto-Sh`ite sentiments were built upon the Arab idea that human excellence is inherited and can be characteristic of certain families. That is why it was possible for the proto-Sh`ites to collaborate with the `Abbsids; both attributed a special excellence to Muhammads clan of Hshim in general. Traditional Arab ideas are responsible for attributing to the imm special qualities or charisma on a human level. The Aramaean or Persian Mawl, however, are responsible for attributing to him superhuman or divine powers, in accordance with their tradition of divine kingship. A period of quietude After al-Mukhtrs death came a period of quiet incubation. Ibn-al-Hanafiyya himself died in 700, and soon the idea spread, especially through the poet Kuthayyir and the Kaysnite sect (named after Kaysn, a supporter of al-Mukhtr), that he was not really dead, but hiding on a mountain near Medina where he is miraculously taken care of and protected until the day he should return as Mahd, or divinely guided one, and restore justice on earth. Legends about a hidden imm, which became a legacy of much of later Sh`ism, served the purpose of excusing people from challenging the existing authorities; many proto-Sh`ites taught that the obligation of commanding the right and prohibiting the wrong applied only to jihd of the heart and of the tongue, but not to jihd of the sword until the appearance of the speaking imm (al-imm an-ntiq). Proto-Sh`ism in fact was quiet until around 740, when it became apparent that the Umayyads would not be able to restrain the growing opposition to their rule. A revival of militancy The revival of proto-Sh`ite militancy started with preachers of the 'Alids cause, and these roused the suspicion of Umayyad officials. One of them was Bayn ibn-Sim'n, who preached in Kfa claiming that he was the representative of the imm; yet four different versions exist of who this imm was: either 1) Ab-Hshim, son of Ibn-al-Hanafiyya, or 2) Muhammad al-Bqir, a grandson of al-Husayn, or 3) Ja`far as-Sdiq, son of Muhammad al-Bqir, or 4) Muhammad an-Nafs azZakiyya, a great-grandson of al-Hasan. Bayn and a companion were executed by burning in 737. Another man, Ab-Mansr, was executed in 742 after claiming to be both the agent and the successor of Muhammad al-Bqir. Muhammad al-Bqirs brother Zayd also claimed to have succeeded him as imm and led a revolt himself in 740, but he was killed by the Umayyads without delay. The Zaydite sect of Sh`ites, formed in the `Abbsid period, was named after him. Another revolt started in 744 by 'Abdallh ibn-Mu`wiya, a great-grandson of `Als brother Ja`far; he was killed in 747. The final revolt in which proto-Sh`ites took part brought the `Abbsids to power. These facts show that many different men claimed to be the imm in succession to `Al, and no single one was unanimously accepted by the proto-Sh`ites, contrary to the assertion of later Sh`ites that a single line of imms was always recognized. According to later Sh`ites the imms were: 1st) `Al, 2nd) his son al-Hasan, 3rd) the latters brother al-Husayn, 4th) al-Husayns son `Al Zayn al-`bidn (d.c. 712), 5th) the latters son Muhammad al-Bqir (d. 731), 6th) the latters son Ja`far as-Sdiq (d. 765), and 7th) the latters son Ms al-Kzim (d. 799), according to the Immites, or his brother Ism`l, according to the Ism`ls.

35

To check the multiplication of claims to be the imm or his representative, the idea was spread during the late Umayyad period that there was only one rightful imm at any one time, and he got his authority by appointment (nass) from the previous rightful imm. Anyone who claimed to be the imms military or political representative also had to be appointed (was). Because this idea was so widespread, the `Abbsids claimed for Muhammad ibn-`Al, their first propagandist, appointment by Ab-Hshim, son of Ibn-al-Hanafiyya, as his successor. The early `Abbsid period For the first century of `Abbsid rule (750-850) we must still speak of proto-Sh`ism, since the movement had not yet taken definite shape. Proto-Sh`ites, especially of the important Kaysniyya sect, supported the `Abbsids seizure of power and may have accepted their claim of designation by Ab-Hshim, son of Ibn-al-Hanafiyya. Yet when it became apparent that the `Abbsids were creating a dynasty for their family alone, many proto-Sh`ites were disaffected; they certainly did not accept al-Mahds claim that Muhammad had designated his uncle al-'Abbs as Imm. In spite of revolts by many Sh`ite leaders, for the most part proto-Sh`ites evolved a kind of practical accommodation with the `Abbsids. One such proto-Sh`ite group was the Rfidites, who were claimed by the later Immites as the forefathers of their movement. The name Rfidite comes from an Arabic word meaning to reject, and was given to them by their opponents because they rejected Ab-Bakr and 'Umar (and, of course, 'Uthmn) as rightful caliphs. They also maintained that the imm, or caliph, was not meant to be chosen by election, but by his predecessors designation. According to them, Muhammad designated `Al as his immediate successor. Yet for long the Rfidites refused to decide what series of imms followed `Al. This was a safe policy, especially when al-Mamn took the title of imm; al-Mamn even permitted the Rfidites to defend their ideas in his presence. Nevertheless, before al-Mamns time many Rfidites recognized some of the first seven Immite imms and argued about who was the successor of the seventh imm, Ms al-Kzim (d.c. 799). One group, called the Wqifa (stopper), said that he was not really dead, but one day would return from hiding. Another group, called the Qat`iyya (the decisive), said that he was definitely dead and that his son `Al ar-Rid succeeded him. Al-Mamn favoured the latter group when he designated `Al ar-Rid his heir apparent in 817. After the latters death in the following year the Rfidites again argued about who was his successor. All these Rfidite debates could not have been about who was the rightful caliph, for the `Abbsids would tolerate no such pretender, but they must have meant who was the head of the 'Alid family. The Kaliph would be glad to give such a man some recognition in order to rally his supporters to the Kaliphal cause. Rfidite writers of the Qat`iyya branch, such as Hishm ibn-al-Hakam (d.c. 805) and `Al ibnMtham (who lived a little later), were fundamentally supporters of the absolute power of the `Abbsid caliphs. Their political absolutism was based on three theological points: The first was that succession to the caliphate goes by designation, not election. The second point was that most of the Companions were unbelievers for having elected Ab-Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmn in place of `Al; consequently all the Hadth, which by this time had isnds going back to these Companions, was worthless, and Hadth masters should therefore have nothing to say in public affairs. The third

36 point was the rejection of ijtihd, or the attempt to develop and apply Shar'a; the voice of the imm, or caliph, was sufficient. This point was also aimed against the power of the `ulam. Another proto-Sh`ite group was the Zaydites. This movement was named after Zayd ibn-`Al, a grandson of al-Husayn, who revolted against the Umayyads in 740 and was killed within a short time. The revolutionary members of this movement seem to have maintained that only a Ftimid (a descendant of al-Hasan or al-Husayn) could be imm, and that if there is a qualified claimant of this line people are obliged to follow him from the moment he takes up the sword. Such Zaydite claimants were Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiyya in 762, whom we have mentioned, Muhammad ibn-al-Qsim in Khurasn in 834 and Yahy ibn-'Umar in Kfa in 864. There were many non-revolutionary Zaydites, however, who were ready to accept the `Abbsids as imms and enjoyed the support of al-Mamn, who wanted to use them to promote an absolutist interpretation of the caliphate. Their position was basically a compromise between the Rfidites and the proto-Sunnite `ulam. They elaborated a theory of the immate of the inferior (immat almafdl see chapter 1 on Mu'tazilite support for this theory). This meant, to please the Rfidites, that `Al was superior and that the imm should preferably be a descendant of `Al and Ftima, but it was legitimate to choose a less worthy ruler; so they recognized Ab-Bakr and 'Umar, and some were prepared to recognize the first six years of 'Uthmns rule. Moreover they said the imm was to be chosen by election. This point put the non-revolutionary Zaydites on the side of the constitutionalists, and was meant to please the proto-Sunnite Hadth masters and jurists. The compromise, however, did not work, because the Rfidites dearest teaching, that the imm is chosen by designation, was not accepted; and the `ulam would always have to fear that an imm would overrule their interpretations of the law. The Zaydites did not become a definite sect with a system of laws all their own until they established two states, one to the north of the Islamic world, on the south shore of the Caspian Sea, and the other in Yemen. By 850 Zaydism disappeared from the heartlands of the caliphate, and survived only in these two states. These outlying Zaydites made no attempt to spread their teachings; so Zaydism remained outside the mainstream of Islamic thought. The maturation of Sh`ism At the beginning of the 2nd `Abbsid century (850) Sh`ism was a greatly fragmented movement, but by the early 10th century the various Sh`ite groups had come together into two main movements, the Ism`lites and the Immites, and one fringe movement, the Zaydites. Ism`lism takes its name from Ism`l the son of Ja`far as-Sdiq (the latter d. 765), whom the Ism`lites hold to have been the seventh imm rather than his brother Ms al-Kzim. Although for this reason they are called the Seveners, they believed in a continuing sequence of imms who remained hidden while the movement was propagated by missionary agents (d'). These agents had their first success around 894 when they led the Ism`lite sub-group known as Carmathians (Qarmita) to establish a state in eastern Arabia with its centre in Bahrayn. This state served as a base for some effective propaganda within `Abbsid domains which the caliphs had difficulty in containing. The eastern Arabian Carmathian state lasted to the beginning of the 12th century. Ism`lism had greater success in North Africa where the agent Ab-'Abdallh became powerful enough with Berber support to allow the hidden imm to come out in the person of the claimant 'Ubaydallh, who took the title al-Mahd and started the Ftimid dynasty. The Ftimids conquered

37 Egypt and moved the capital from Mahdiyya on the Tunisian coast to the new city of Cairo. The Ftimids sent agents to preach in `Abbsid lands and came close to winning these lands to their cause. But the movement had already peaked with the conquest of Egypt and dwindled as a world political force thereafter. Sunnite theologians, however, came to grips with Ftimid arguments only in the 11th century. Ism`lism still survives in Bombay and central India and in scattered communities in the Middle East; it is also followed by Indian Muslims in Kenya. The current leader is Agha Khan, who lives in Paris. The name Immism came into use only around the year 900, although Immites claimed earlier origins in the Rfidites and others before them to lend legitimacy to their movement. Immites differ from Ism`lites mainly in their adherence to Ms al-Kzim (d. 799) as the 7th imm rather than his brother Ism`l. Furthermore, while the Ism`lites held that the successors if Ism`l were hidden and unknown except to their chosen agents, the Immites held that the series of imms continued publicly until the 12th imm, Muhammad son of Hasan al-`Askar ibn-`Al. The latter, the 11th imm, died in 874, and his son Muhammad is alleged to have disappeared miraculously in 878. Thereafter the Immites have maintained allegiance to a series of hidden imms. The legitimacy of this line they say derives from the designation which Muhammad the Prophet made to `Al, and he and each imm thereafter made to his successor. The Immites allegiance to their own imm did not mean that they planned a coup against the `Abbsids. First of all, by this time the `Abbsid caliphs had lost most of their power anyway, and their position was not coveted; secondly the acceptance of a hidden imm excused them, like the Rfidites before, from active political involvement. Today Immite Sh`ites dominate Iran, where they became politically prominent in the 16th century. Like the Ism`lites, the Immites regard Ab-Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmn as usurpers and the Companions who supported them as partners in crime. They therefore repudiate the Sunnite collections of Hadth which include these men in the isnds and accept instead the collection of alKuln (d. 939). This contains over 15,000 Hadths, with the name of the imm in the isnd of each Hadth. The name of the imm, according to the Immites, is what guarantees the Hadths authenticity, since he is an infallible teacher. This difference regarding the fundamentals of religions set Sh`ites far apart from Sunnite Muslims and at the same time stimulated the Sunnites to a greater awareness of their own identity. The basic principles of Sh`ism, as it matured, are: 1) that the imm must be a descendant of Muhammad through `Al and Ftima; 2) that the imm is immune from sin and error, so that his interpretation of the Qurn and his commands must be followed; 3) the imm gets his authority by appointment from his predecessor, not by election; 4) the imm has long ago gone into hiding, but sometimes acts through a representative who, in popular opinion, has the same authority; 5) jihd to establish the rule of the imm is necessary only when the imm or his representative appears and calls for action; 6) the martyrdom of `Al and Husayn show the way to salvation, and every Sh`ite should be happy to shed his blood in the same way. Sunnism As in the case of Sh`ism, Muslim writers since the 10th century have presented a picture of a fully formed Sunnism going right back to Muhammad. The assumption in both cases is that Islamic

38 teaching is completely unchangeable, and that it is passed on in the form of a faithfully preserved Qurn and Hadth guaranteed by correct isnds. In fact, in the Umayyad period we can only talk of proto-Sunnism or the general religious movement, to use the term of W.M. Watt. The difference between Sunnism and Sh`ism is fundamentally a question of inspiration: whether it applies only to the composition of Scripture or also to its interpretation. The Umayyad period If there were scholarly and political differences within the general religious movement, was there consensus about anything? A general feature of proto-Sunnism, as opposed to Khrijism and proto-Sh`ism, was the acceptance of all the first four caliphs and Mu`wiya as well. This neutrality regarding the past did not extend to each of Mu`wiyas successors, however, as can be seen in the revolt of Ibn-az-Zubayr and various other revolts. Nevertheless, proto-Sunnites generally accepted Umayyad rule until its last years, when they nearly unanimously supported the `Abbsid rise to power. A typical figure of the proto-Sunnite movement was al-Hasan al-Basr (642-728). Born in Medina, he went to Basra around 657, and served as a soldier in Afghanistan from 663 to 665. He then turned to secretarial and scholarly work and made his home in Basra. There he served the governor al-Hajjj and helped with his project of pointing the Qurn text. For some reason he broke with al-Hajjj and went into hiding until al-Hajjjs death in 714; afterwards he served as qd of Basra. Politically he supported the Umayyad rulers in that he faithfully carried out his responsibilities and actively discouraged the many revolts he was invited to endorse. Yet, as a forefather of the Sfic movement, his concern was Gods judgement, and he was not afraid to criticize the authorities, warning them of hell fair; he also preached moderation in the use of worldly goods and intolerance of innovators or heretics. Al-Hasan al-Basrs teachings in many ways anticipate later Sunnism, but he never thought out many questions with the precision of later Sunnites. The early `Abbsid period Like Sh`ism, Sunnism was still fluid in the early `Abbsid period, and can better be called protoSunnism. Anti-Sh`ism manifested itself in the 'Uthmnite movement. This was a group opposed to the Rfidite exaltation of `Al. The name goes back to Umayyad times, when 'Uthmnites were those who sided with the cause of 'Uthmn and repudiated `Al; these also became supporters of the Umayyad rule. In `Abbsid times the repudiation of `Al was continued by a small group promoting a cult of Mu`wiya, but the 'Uthmnites of `Abbsid times had a more moderate position. As expressed by al-Jhiz (who was also a Mu'tazilite), 'Uthmnism first of all meant the recognition of all the first four caliphs, with the qualification that the chronological order of these caliphs was also the order of merit. Thus 'Uthmn is preferred to `Al, who comes last in order of merit. The caliphs gain their authority, moreover, by election, not appointment. Politically, 'Uthmnism of `Abbsid times was no longer a call for Umayyad rule, but was a repudiation of the absolutism implied in the Rfidite cult of `Al (and encouraged by al-Mamn), which attributed to the imm immunity (`isma) from error (= infallibility) and from sin (impeccability), and gave the imms decision priority over any interpretation of the Qurn or appeal to Hadth made by the `ulam. The 'Uthmnites are, therefore, forerunners of Sunnism because of their

39 insistence on the priority of the Qurn and Hadth and because of the teaching which they originated concerning the order of merit of the first four caliphs. Sunnism takes final shape Up to the 2nd century of `Abbsid rule (850) there was widespread difference about many basic matters which are now considered essential to Sunnism. Only in this century (850-950) did a consensus emerge, which most Muslims today think goes back to the time of Muhammad. The word Sunnism (originally meaning beaten path) became the name for the new orthodoxy. Its earliest general use is in the works of al-Ash'ar, who uses the terms ahl as-sunna wa-ashb alHadth (people of Sunna and followers of Hadth), ahl as-sunna wa-l-istiqma (people of Sunna and the right way), and ahl as-sunna wa-l-jam`a (people of Sunna and the community-the majority). The consensus which distinguished Sunnism from Sh`ism concerned chiefly the order of merit of the first four caliphs. In accepting the chronological order as the order of merit, as opposed to the Sh`ites who said that only `Al was the rightful successor to Muhammad, Sunnites affirmed the fundamental righteousness of the historical Muslim community, at least in its early years, and thereby validated the Islamic beliefs and practices for which this historical community stood. These beliefs and practices were formulated in the Hadth literature, with each Hadth resting on and isnd, or chain of authorities going back to Muhammad. Because most of these isnds contain names of Companions of Muhammad whom the Sh`ites did not regard as genuine Muslims, because they were supporters of the first three caliphs or even opponents of `Al, the Sh`ites rejected the whole corpus of Hadth literature which the Sunnites accepted, and compiled separate Hadth collections of their own. Qurnic studies We can now examine the status of the Qurn, tradition and law within the general religious movement of the Umayyad period, then see how they developed in the Sunnism of the `Abbsid period, assessing as well the influence of the government and of Sfism on theology. Qurnic studies in the Umayyad period were not yet a separate specialized discipline, but the same men who devoted themselves to the study of law and of tradition also led the way in Qurnic studies. It may seem surprising that the Qurn, which is the first authority in Islam, should become the subject of a debate which could be settled only by an appeal to tradition, but the history of the text makes this clear. We cannot take time her to evaluate the historicity of the so-called 'Uthmn edition of the Qurn. But by the time of 'Uthmn, if not earlier, the order and canonicity of the sras as well as the consonantal text was established. This text did not contain vowel marks or even the dots which differentiate many consonants from one another; for example, only a dot makes the difference between H, j and kh, or between b, y, n, t and the. These marks were first added to the text only at the time of the caliph 'Abdalmalik (685-705) - at same time that Hebrew and Aramaic (Syriac) were provided with similar diacritical marks. The general al-Hajjj promoted the pointing of Arabic to make the 'Uthmnian edition of the Qurn more legible as a means of combatting the non-'Uthmnian texts used by Ibn-az-Zubayrs followers and other opponents of the Umayyad regime. Nevertheless it took nearly two more centuries before a full system of wiring containing all the vowels and other diacritical marks was generally accepted. The history of the Qurn text, then, indicates that there were as many varieties of readings as there were Qurn

40 scholars, even though some degree of uniformity emerged within particular schools or cities. Fundamentally Sunna, or living tradition, together with consensus (ijm'), determined which reading was acceptable; and Sunna, as will be seen varied from school to school and place to place. In the `Abbsid period Qurnic studies gave Sunnism further definition. Interpretation (tafsr) gained some stability in this period especially because of the voluminous commentary of at-Tabar (d. 923). The major development, however, came in the field of qir. This refers to the selection of vowels and other distinguishing marks to be inserted into the consonantal text. A system of writing vowels, doubling consonants etc. had been devised, as seen above, in the time of 'Abdalmalik (d. 705), but a great deal of variety continued to exist in the vowels used in Qurn recitation. Trying to meet the general desire for uniformity, Ibn-Mujhid (d. 935) collected many traditions of Qurn recitation and came to the conclusion that complete agreement would be impossible, since different cities were attached to different readings. He achieved a limited success, however, by reducing the various sets of readings to seven basic sets which were all to be considered equally valid. To justify accepting seven readings, he appealed to a Hadth which states that Muhammad was taught to recite the Qurn according to seven letters (ahruf). The seven readings were based, like Hadth, on chains of transmitting authorities (isnds). Of the seven authorities he selected, three were from Kfa and one each was from Mecca, Medina, Damascus and Basra. Yet even these seven readings were not enough to accommodate the diversity of accepted readings; so the readings of two disciples of each of the seven authorities were acknowledged as legitimate variants. In this way the number of legitimate readings became fourteen. Ibn-Mujhids work was challenged by some scholars, but it soon caught on and in various court cases scholars were condemned for using other traditional readings (as those of Ibn-Mas'd or Ubayy ibn-Ka`b) not included in the seven or fourteen, and for proposing that any reading which was grammatical and made reasonable sense could be accepted without regard for Tradition. Hadth The Hadth collections which we have today were written down only in the 9th century. These collections present problems of authenticity even to conservative Muslim scholars. During the Umayyad period certainly there were related traditions concerning things the Prophet said or did, but these were few and fragmentary, and not used to settle theological or legal disputes. The practice of giving and isnd, or chain of authority, did not exist until the time of az-Zuhr (d. 742), according to one account, and such chains were only partial, citing one or another notable scholar who used a particular tradition in his teaching. Only later, under the influence of political and theological controversy, were the isnds completed backwards to a Companion of the Prophet or the mouth of Muhammad himself. If the position of Hadth was not particularly important at this time, Islamic tradition in a wider sense, nevertheless, was very influential in all aspects of life, and there were numerous full time scholars devoted to explaining and developing this living tradition. The Hadith movement in the first `Abbsid century also saw the formulation of some basic positions which became part of later Sunnism. Sunna, as we saw above, meant the beaten path, and thus normative custom or standard practice. It included the Qurn (but was later distinguished from it) and the practice of Muhammad, his Companions and their successors. In its early stages Sunna grew as a result of the ijtihd (individual reasoning, or original thinking) of these

41 Companions and the following generations of Muslim scholars, as their thinking was accepted by consensus (ijm') of scholars. Ijtihd at first simply stood for considered personal opinion (ray, istihsn), but this gave rise to many disagreements and criticism; so that the secretary ibn-alMuqaffa' vainly urged al-Mansr to impose a revised uniform Sunna on the whole empire. Jurists then tried to make their legal reasoning more systematic, and so gave more emphasis to the method of analogy (qiys); new cases were solved in the light of previous cases which had a common ground. Even this method, however, came under criticism because it did not provide uniform permanent solutions to legal problems, and opponents to such reasoning appealed instead to the authority of early Muslim masters and eventually to Muhammad himself. Before they would accept any practice they required a Hadth, or verbal tradition, stating something that Muhammad said or did to authorize such a practice. Ash-Shfi` (d. 820) was the man who assured the final victory of Hadth over living tradition and any form of reasoning. By insisting on a Hadth equipped with ad complete isnd going back to Muhammad wherever the Qurn is silent about a particular matter, he established a totally new approach to the sources of faith and practice. Sunna was no longer in the fourth place, the culminating result of the Qurn, ijtihd and consensus, but was transferred to the second place, just after the Qurn. It thereby lost its wider meaning of living tradition, and became interchangeable with Hadth. Consensus and qiys became the third and fourth principles, but were very much subsidiary to the first two. Consensus, for ash-Shfi`, as opposed to earlier theory and later Sunnite theory, was not that of scholars, but of the whole Muslim community, and was limited to their agreement about the conclusions of qiys reasoning. The fourth and weakest principle, qiys, was the only form of ijtihd ash-Shfi` would allow; it was a form of argumentation consisting of applying Hadth to new similar situations. If the whole community could agree about the conclusion of a qiys argument, the conclusion would have the added force of consensus, but to find consensus of the whole community about something not in the Qurn or any Hadth is so rare in ash-Shfi`s system that it would practically be eliminated as a source of law. The only change later Sunnites made in ash-Shfi`s scheme was to redefine consensus as the agreement only of the scholars of a particular generation, and to apply it not simply to the results of qiys argumentation, but primarily to the acceptance of the Qurn and Hadth (in so far as the various collections of Hadth are accepted). Ash-Shfi` was not as careful in his own use of Hadth and qiys as his theory demanded; frequently he gives a Hadth from hearsay or without a proper isnd and violates his own rules of qiys. The realization that not all accepted practice could be justified by a Hadth with an isnd gave impetus to the invention of a new type of Hadth, the mutawtir, or widely-transmitted Hadth. This is one which does not have a proper isnd, but reflects widely accepted practice; the assumption was that Muhammad must have sanctioned such a practice, since so many people could not be mistaken. In the second `Abbsid century the authoritative position of Hadth gave impetus to the collection of Hadth and the formulation and critique of isnds. Shortly, after sifting the hundreds of thousands of Hadths then in circulation, al-Bukhr (d. 870) and Muslim (d. 875) each produced a collection with the same title, al-Jmi' as-Sahh (the sound collection). Four other collections appeared soon

42 afterwards, the Sunan (sunnas) of Ibn-Mja (d. 886), of Ab-Dwd (d. 888) and of an-Nas (d. 915), and the Jmi' of at-Tirmidh (d. 892). These six collections came to be accepted as authoritative by practically all Sunnite Muslims, although they were subject to some criticism, especially Ibn-Mja, for some time. Besides these six collections, respect was also given to the Musnad of ad-Drim (d. 869), the Musnad of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal (d. 855), and the Muwatta' of Mlik ibn-Anas (d. 795). The Musnad of Ibn-Hanbal, in spite of his great repute, was not included with the six authoritative collections probably because of its inconvenient arrangement of Hadths according to the men who related them rather than by topic. Mliks Muwatta', although containing many Hadths, was written before the time of ash-Shfi`, and therefore does not have the same concern for isnds and whether a practice goes all the way back to Muhammad. As a legal work it is content to quote distinguished jurists or even Companions of Muhammad, not worrying whether their opinions were innovations or not. The accepted collections of Hadth resulted in a unified Sunna throughout the Sunnite world. This was in contrast to the situation before ash-Shfi`, when each major town had its own Sunna. Legal studies Legal practice was the area where these scholars particularly developed Islamic tradition. During the lifetime of Muhammad a considerable amount of legislation took shape, particularly in the Qurn, but also in the precedents set by cases the Muhammad settled on his own authority. Both forms of legislation, however, were for the most part circumstantial and did not constitute a complete legal system even for their own time. They nevertheless were a beginning of the beaten path, or sunna, which future generations would follow and beat further. After the death of Muhammad the entirely new situation of a far-flung empire forced a vast development of legislation which was both new and somehow in continuity with the past. Sunna was in continuity with the past in that its ideal and intention was to follow the spirit of Muhammad and what he would have done in such new circumstances. It was new because it originated from decisions of the caliphs, from public opinion, or from the considered personal opinion (ray) of scholars or from what they thought reasonable and good (istihsn). Accepted scholarly opinion differed from place to place, and it soon became evident that there was no one uniform Sunna, but that the schools of Medina, Kfa, Basra, Damascus etc. each had its own Sunna, representing the ideal practice of the place, even though actual practice fell short of the ideal. From conflicts between these schools and also between majority and minority parties in a single city there gradually emerged opposition groups which did not accept the identification of Sunna or tradition with established custom, and appealed to the authority of Hadth instead. Only then did Hadth multiply and become and important branch of study, and that was in the `Abbsid period. The second `Abbsid century saw the formation of the four legal schools or rites (madhhab) of Sunnite Islam which have lasted to the present day. During the first Islamic century different legal practices grew up in the different cities of the Islamic world, practices which became the Sunna of these cities and were eventually formulated in Hadth. Just as the collections of Hadth are the work of certain great scholars, so also legal practice was systematized and popularized by certain great jurists who dominated their own towns and gained followers in many other places as well.

43 The somewhat liberal Hanafite school, named after Ab-Hanfa (d. 867), prevailed in Kfa and is now followed in Lower Egypt, Western Asia, Pakistan and India. Kfa also had the rival school of Sufyn ath-Thawr (d. 778) which died out after a short time. The Mlikite school, named after Mlik ibn-Anas (d. 795), prevailed in Medina and is now followed in Upper Egypt, North and West Africa. The Shfi`ite school was named after the Hadth master ash-Shfi` (d. 820), who originally belonged to the Medina school but developed his own legal system, which gained a following in Cairo and also prevails in Indonesia. The Hanbalite school, which follows its founder Ahmad ibnHanbal (d. 855) in emphasizing Tradition and opposing the use of reasoning, is followed in northern and central Arabia by the Wahbs. Several other schools formed during this period but did not last long. All these schools, even those with an earlier history, took definite shape as a result of ash-Shfi`s fixing the role of the Qurn, Hadth, Ijtihd and Ijm'. These four roots of law (usl al-fiqh) served as reference points for argument among the schools and a way of bridging their differences. At first each school considered the others heretical or at least erroneous, but as discussion among them proceeded they came to tolerate one another. By at least the year 1300 any of the schools was considered a legitimate option for Muslims to follow, although an eclectic choosing of some points from one school and some from another was frowned upon.

Government influence Governmental pressure had minimal influence on the formation of Islamic theology. The government intervened if there was a clear abandonment of Islam, but tried to enforce doctrinal assent only in matters it considered affecting public security or vital interests. In the case of alMamns mihna (inquisition) the point of insisting on the createdness of the Qurn (to be discussed in chapter 5) was its connection with the Zaydite (Sh`ite) theory of the absolute power of the caliph, which al-Mamn wanted to maintain. At this time of theological controversies people easily used takfr (declaration of being an unbeliever) against their opponents. In the trial of the Sf al-Hallj this did not lead to the courts condemning him to death until the additional charge of zandaqa was made. This originally meant the Manichaean dualism held by many Persians, but later came to mean any doctrinal error threatening the security of the state. Even when the courts condemned the use of Qurn readings not included in Ibn-Mujhids list, the reason seems to have been to preserve public order in worship, not to define a matter of religion. In Islam there is nothing comparable to a doctrinal Magisterium, or teaching authority, such as is found in traditional Christian Churches which have ecumenical councils, bishops synod or the papacy. In Islam doctrinal definition can only come by consensus (ijm'). Some say that this consensus must be of all Muslims, others that it need only be of the `ulam, which is equally difficult if not impossible to achieve; some also say that any consensus thus achieved is valid only for its generation, and may be overturned by dissent in another generation. Consequently, apart from the uncontroverted meaning of certain essentials expressed in the Qurn, there is no strict orthodoxy in Sunnite Islam, only more common or pervasive beliefs and practices for which many writers claim consensus, but their opponents often contest. In such cases we can only speak of the prevalent or majority viewpoint, or the sunnite view, remembering that there are variant views which are not strictly heretical.

44 Sfism Sfism has sometimes been credited, by Louis Massignon for instance, with an important influence on the formation of Sunnite theology. Yet no significant points of Sunnite doctrine can be traced to Sfic inspiration. Sfism is a movement concentrating on personal experience in religion. It has its mystical aspects in personal prayer often associated with altered states of consciousness, such as trances and visions; it also has a social dimension in that it has been organized in various orders or brotherhoods (tarqa) with an initiation rite and different stages of mystical initiation under the guidance of an elder (shaykh). Such orders at times were a refuge for people disgusted with the corruption prevailing in a society that claimed to be Islamic. Yet, true to their Islamic nature, they were not limited to purely spiritual purposes, but also served social and economic needs and at times became combat forces to rectify injustices or infringements against the Islamic order of society. As could be expected, Sfism lent itself to many different expressions, ideas and practices. Towards the year 900, at the same time that Qurnic, Hadth and juridical sciences were taking shape, Sfism was given a formal theoretical foundation in the writings of al-Junayd (d. 910) and al-Hallj (d. 922). The status of Sfism in Islam was not clear until the time of al-Ghazl (d. 1111). In the meantime it suffered suspicion and at times persecution at the hands of the theologians and jurists. As a whole, however, the movement was tolerated, possibly because of its opposition to Sh`ism. Like Sh`ism, Sfism was based on experiential divine enlightenment. But, whereas Sh`ism restricted visionary experience and divine inspiration to the imms or members of the family of `Al, Sfism extended the validity of this experience to ordinary Muslims. In so doing, Sfism also challenges fundamentalist Sunnism as well, which closes all divine inspiration with Muhammad, leaving scholarship Qurnic, Hadth and legal studies as the only way to get at the message of revelation and the reality it represents. Sfism offers direct access to the divine reality as well as inspired enlightenment about many aspects of his revealed word.

4. REVELATION AND REASON

The relationship between revelation and reason became a subject of debate as a result of exposure to foreign tought in the Abasid period. Only at this time did Persian and Greek influence have a major impact on Muslim thinking. Persian Influence During the Umayyad period the Arabs maintained a position of supremacy, but the growing number of non-Arab converts, called Mawali, particularly of Persian extraction, could not be long ignored, and by their support the Abassids came to power. Large number 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 culture zone, either because many cultured people fled before the invaders or because those who remained were more strongly attached to Christianity. The Abassids were not only obliged to compensate the Mawali by giving them equal status with the Arabs, but also had to depend on the

45 Persian Mawali for the administration of the islamic empire, particularly as Secretaries or civil servants. Persian political traditions changed the style of government, making the kalif more regal, aloof and inclined to absolutism. This change was fostered by translations, especially those by Ibn-alMuqaffa`, of Persian literature and books concerning government. Persian also was absorbed into Islamic 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 Quran; this was likely one reason for his execution by al-Mansur. Apart from the accusation of zandaqa, the Persian secretarial class found themselves the rivals of the Proto-Sunnite `Ulama, the masters of Hadith and jurisprudence. They expressed their disdain for the `Ulama through the Shu`biyya movement (from shu`ub, people), which glorified the culture and the achievements of non-Arabs, especially Persian, people of the empire and belittled arabic Quranic 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`ubiyya movement. For Islam what was at stake was not just the question of literary style or even some doctrinal points, but the fundamental question 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`ubiyya forced the Arabs or Arabized Muslims to develop an Arabic religious culture of high quality. Al-Jahiz (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 zandaqa and Shu`ubiyya trends was the political context between people of constitutionalist or of absolutist persuasion. The Ulama, who included Persians as well as Arabs, represented the constitutional block, because they were the interpreters of the Quran and the hadith which were the constition of the Empire. The secretaries , who were joined by some Arabs, particularly from Yeman of Proto-Shi`ite sympathies, represented the absolutist block. The Kaliphs found it advantageous to tap the strong points of both blocks. In general, they will welcome an acceptance of their absolute power, but had to check the exclusively `Alid trend among the Shi`ites and ant-Islamic and anti-Arab trend among the secretaries. We saw how alMamun attempted to win the Shi`ites by nominating Ali ar-Rida as his heir apparent and adopting what amounted to the zaidite compromise, which allowed the best Hashimite (including himself) to the be recognized as an Imam. By another move, the adoption of the Mu`tazilite teaching that the Quran is created, al-Mamun attempted to win the absolutist sympathies of the Shi`ites and the secretaries and check the power of the `Ulama. The teaching that the Quran is the uncreated speech of God implied that it was sacred and unchangeable in all its implications, as interpreted by the `ulama, whereas to say that it is created implies that its provisions may overruled by the decree of an inspired imam. Likewise the Mu`tazilite Qadirite position squared with the teaching that the Quran is created, because the historical events mentioned in the Quran would have been determined from eternity, and room would be left for free human choice.

46 Greek philosophical influence before considering Greek influence, we must remark that Islamic systematic theology, or Kalaam, did not originate solely from interaction with Greek thought, but had already been prepared by the growth systematic juridical science and the method of qiyas. Qiyas, Schachtobserves, 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, 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 analyse 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 Greek of Alexandria were won over to Christianity in the 2nd century by 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 instructions in syriac (Aramaic) language. Especially in Gondeshapur, in Iraq, the chief Greek philosophical treatises had been translated in the syriac and much original literature was being written. We must note, however, that the Neoplatonic form of Greek philosophy was dominant in these shools. Greek logical, physical and metaphysical 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 Quran. 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 in the defensive when Christians used philosophical learning to bolster their position, particularly about the implication of the term Word of God, applied by the Quran 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. Yet the discussion between educated Muslims with St. John of Damascus (d. 749), his disciple Theodore Abu-Qura (d.826)) and the Nestorian Catholicus (Bishop) Timothy I (d. 823 at the age of 95) are well known. For Christians such debated were mostly defensive, since Muslims were protected

47 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 Quranic passages such as 2:75-79 and 5:13-15, which refer for forging, distortion, concealing and effacing of the Scriptures. The Quran is clear to what extent such distortion (tahrif) affect the scriptural texts themselves, but various Hadiths warn Muslims against reading Jewish or Christian books. Also, according to at-Tabari (d.923), the earlier Quran commentators held that the Bible as a whole is corrupt. At-Tabari himself rejected this view, as did al-Baydawi (d. 1388). Such partial acceptance of the Bible may have begun during the first Abassid century, when Muslims were looking for passages to prove that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible according to Quran 61:6 and 7:157. At the beginning of the Abassid period, around 782, the Nestorian Timothy I mentions only three passages used by al-Madhi to prove his point, namely John 15:23, 16,1 and Isaiah 21:9, and deuteromy 18:18. Yet a century later, Ibn Qutayba (d. 889) and others were able to quote many passages. Muslim scholras generally, however, have not been prepared to accept the Bible except in so far as it agrees with the Quran, and even when they seem to accept certain passages their acceptance is often only hypothetical, for the sake of arguing with the 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 Kaliphs. 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 human sciences, such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine and technology. 3. The third reason is that the Kaliphs, 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 rival to the Ulama, constitutionalist religious scholars who considered themselves the proprietors of Quranic learning and hence of the legislation which must guide the Kaliphs in ruling the Islamic Community. Accordingly, the Kaliph al-Mamun (reigned from 813-833) established in Bagdad the Bayt-al-Hikma (house of wisdom), which as a translation and research center for philosophy, a kind of university where Muslim and non-Muslim scholars freely mingled. Iraq became the intellectual center of the Muslim World. So that the Christian Alexandrian school moved again from Antioch to Haran around 850, where the Sabians ) a religious sect), had a philosophical school. It moved to Bagdad 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 Isntruction in these schools. To make this work accessible to readers of Arabic, al-Mamun maintained a team of translators at the Bayt alKikma. As a result, a vast amount of translation was done, mostly by Christians. The environment created by al-Mamun permitted the rise of the first notable Muslim philosopher and the only one of Arab descent: al-Kindi )800-866). He had a huge library and mastered all the Greek sciences available. Neoplatonism with some correction such as creation form nothing rather

48 than natural emanation, to him seemed in harmony with Islamic revelation. Al-Kindi influenced the Mu`tazilites, the first philosophical theologians of Islam, who also had the official support of the `Abassid Kaliphs until 849. The religious scholrs and Hadith-Master, Ibn-Hanbal, was persecuted by the `Abassids for not subscribing to the Mu`tazilite view of the createdness of the Quran. The hostile reaction of the Hanbilite people of Bagdad led the Kaliph al-Mutawakkil in 849 to expel the Mu`talites 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-Ashari (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 the Hanbalistes, who wanted to stick to the Quran and Hadith and avoid rational arguments and philosophical terminology altogether. The rise of Kalam Muslim religious scholars and other 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 all is important to know is in the Quran 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 Harun ar-Rashid and al-Mamun, where for some years Muslim and Christian philosophers were freely mixing, and Christian theologians wre sometimes to be seen. The result of this contact was a new kind of theology called Kalam. This word means speech, and was used by critics who called this kind of theology just a talk. The aim of Kalam was to provide, with the help of philosophical analysis, a thematic or systematic presentation and defense of Islamic teachings. It was used first in debates with nonMuslims, and afterwards brought into disputes between differing Muslim theologians or schools of thought. Al-Kindi 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 with notions which were central to Mu`tazalite positions on ceratin 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 (jawahir al-ajsan), related to the same question; 3. Nature or quidity (mahiyya). Which was used in the discussions of Gods attributes; and 4. ability to act (istata`a), which was used in the discussion concerning free will. These notions were discussed among philosophers and theologians well before the time of Al-Kindi and the Mu`tazilites, certainly during the time of Harun ar-Rashid, but the relationship between alKindi and the Mu`tazilites shows how far the influence of philosophy on Kalam had progressed. A few prominent Mutakalimun (practitioners of Kalam) who made inovative theological speculation with philosophical concepts were: Hisham ibn-Hakam (d.805), Dirar ibn-`Amr (a contemporary of the latter), Bishr al-Marisi (d. 833), and Husayn an-Najar (of the same time).

49 The new theology , or Kalam, was not well received by a large body of traditional religious scholars because of its use of non-Quranic philosophical concepts. The Hanafite judge, Abu-Yusuf (d.798), equated it with zandaqa. The Hanbalite school was the most opposed to Kalam, as it was to philosophy, and al-Ashari, who had a Hanbalite background, had to write a defense 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 reign of Harun ar-Rashid and al-Mamun; the second was during the life of al-Ghazali (d.1111). In between this time there was virtually complete isolation, and the concepts and problems brought into Islamic theology prior to 849 remained the same until al-Ghazalis 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. Some philosophers of the `Abassid period To indicate the importance of the philosophical movement, some notable philosophers or scientists can be pointed out: Qusta ibn-Luqa (d.919), a translator, Abu Bishr Matta (d.940), a translator and logician; Thabit ibn-Qura (d.910), a mathematician; Sinan (d.942), son of the latter, a mathematician and astronomer; an-Nayrizi (d.921), a mathematician and authority on Euclid, known to the West as Anaritius; Abu-ma`shar (d.886), an astronomer known to the West as Albumasar; al-battani (d.929), an astronomer, known to the West as Albategnius; ibn-masara, a Spanish metaphysician and Sufi. Another philosopher of this time is Muhammad ar-Razi (865-932). He was most famous as a physician, but also wrote on ethics and metaphysics; for him philosophy took a 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-farabi (875-950), however, held the contrary view that all things emanate from God in a hierachichal 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-farabi 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 succeeded him. The Kaliph should be a man of wisdom, and hence a philosopher, a role which in al-farabis time could also coincide with that of a Shi`ite Imam. Ibn-Sina (980-1037), known to the Latins as Avicenna, was once of the greatest Muslim philosopher. 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-farabi. Ibn-Sina served various princes in the fragmentized islamic Kaliphate of his time and upheld the role of a prophet in the foundation of an ideal state. He did not theorize, however, as al-farabi did, on the role of successors of the prophet, fatimid propaganda was at that time disturbing the realms loyal to the `Abassids.

50

In metaphysics, ibn-Sina maintained that God is a pure and simple being, as opposed to the composite being of creatures, yet, following Plotinus Tgheology of Aristotle (which he believed to be Aristotles), he taught a creation as necessary and eternal emanation, rather a free act of God. Ibn-Sina maintained the immortality of thye soul (even without personal agent intellectual), 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 taught that Quranic 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 Quranic language, but the philosopher (who is also a Sufi) stands at the apex of human understanding. The position of a philosopher would seem to be superior to that of a prophet, yet, ibn-Sina, 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 Quranic passages to suit their position. Louis Gardet is right in saying that it is essentially of platonic-Aristotelian inspiration. In Arabic language, with Islamic influence. It is not surprising that the theologians opposed the philosophical movement; the chief combatant was alGhazali (1058-1111), who will be discussed later. The Mu`tazilites The word Mu`tazilite means someone who withdraws. But withdrew from whom, for what reason? Muslim historians relating Mu`tazilite accounts of their origins give various versions. One is the Wasil may have been the originator of the theory of the intermediate position regarding the status of a sinner, the five principles of the Mu`tazilites containing this theory were not fully developed in his time, nor were they agreed upon by group of people as a unified set of tenets. A more accurate history, if we follow the reconstruction made by W. M. Watt, is that the term Mu`tazilite was most likely first applied by proto-Shi`tes in a pejorative sense to those who were neutral regarding Ali, neither supporting nor opposing him. Later, Qatada called `Amr ibn-Ubayd by this time, and he accepted it in a favorable sense, since in the Quran Abaraham (19:48) and the men of the Cave (18:16) are praised for withdrawing from the worship of false gods. Finally, when Abu-l-Hudhayl and his followers agreed upon the five principles, the looked back to Wasil and `Amr for their ancestral legitimacy and adopted their name of Mu`tazilites, since these also taught theintermediate position of a sinner. Some Mu`tazilites fabricated an even better account of their ancestral legitimacy. According to theis account, Abu-l-Hudhayl received the teaching of justice and unity from Uthman at-Tawil and the latter told him that he had received it from Wasil who had it from Abu-Hashim ibnMuhammad ibn-Hanafiyya who had it from his father Muhammad ibn-al-hanifiyya who had it from Ali who had it from the Messenger of God, to whom Gabriel had brought it from God. What is clear is that Abu-Hudhayl is the founder of Mu`tazilism properly so-called, yet he adopted the name which already existed and had been applied to Wasil and `arm, who could be claimed as suitable forefathers of the movement, giving it respectability and legitimacy. Basra and Bagdad were the two centers of Mu`tazilites. Abu-Hdhayl was the successor of Dirar as the leader the Basra theologians. Although he died in 842, he was not well in his later years, and

51 did most of his greater works before 800. Other Mu`tazilites who followed him in Basra were: anNazam (d.836), Mu`amar (d.830), al-Asamm (d.816), Hisham al-Fuwati (d.830), al-Jahiz (776-869, a black man, probably from Ethiopia, and master of arabic literature), and Ash-Shaham (d.880). The Bagdad school, which constituted the court theologinas of al-Mamun and his two successors, was founded by Bishr ibn-al-Mu`tamir, who may have learned Mu`tazilism from Mu`amar in Basra, and then lived in Bagdad during the reign of al-Mamun. Bishr criticised some of the view of members of the Basra school and was a supporter of al-Mamuns declaration of Ali ar-Rida as his successor. Other Bagdad theologians were: Thumama (d.828), a man of great political influence), Ibn-abi-Duad (776-854, grand qadi and administrator of the Mihna under al-Mu`tasin), al-Murdar (840, an ascetic and student of Bishr), Ja`far ibn-Hrab (d.800, a follower of al-Murdar, who was at the court of al-Wathiq), Ja`far ibn-Mubashir (d.848, a companion of the previous Ja`fa), and alIshkafi (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 chap.1. Mu`tazilism is distinguished by its five principles: 1) Tawhid (unity), 2) Adl (Justice), 3) al-wad wa-lwaid (the promise and the threat), 4) al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn (the intermediate position), and 5) al-amr bi-l-ma`ruf wa-n-nahyan 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 chap. 1. Number 1 in chap2, and number 2 will be discussed in chap.5. Number 5 was interpretaed 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 `Abassids. 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 the autonomy of reason (except inpreliminary 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 `Abassid century even after it lost the official support it had during the mihna. Some important Mu`tazilites of this period are al-Jubbai (d.915), Abu-Hashim (d.933), and al-Kabi (d.929 or 931). Some of their teachings will be mentioned in chap.5. Hanbalism Mu`tazilism was opposed by the break-away Ash`arite school, but even more fundamentally by Hanbalim, which aslo opposed Ash`arism. Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.855) has been mentioned already, he was important not only in the area of Hadith and jurisprudence, but also, even though he rejected Kalam, for this theological positions. These are summarized in the creed (`aqida), of which number 16 and 17 interest us in here.

52 Religions is only the Book of God, the athar (sayings or acts of pious men), the sunan (standard practices), and sound narratives from reliable men about recognized sound valid Traditions (akbar) 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 Imams (Scholars) who are taking as examplars, who hold to the Sunna and keep to the athar, who do recognize heresy and are not accused of falsehood or of divergence (from one another). They are upholders of Qiyas (analogical reasoning) and Ra`y (personal opinion), for Qiyas in religion is worthless, and Ra`y is the same and worse. The upholders of Ra`y and Qiyas in religion are heretical and in error, except where there is an Athar from any of the reliable Imams. He who supposes that Taqlid (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 Kalam 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 Kalam for abandoning the primacy of the Quran and the Hadith, and secondly for anthropomorphism (tashbih) in positing analogies between God and creation. The second criticism is opposed to the Hanbalite approach to God of bi-la-kayf (do not say how). Hanbalism was very important not only theologically but also politically. In bagdad the masses of people followed the Hanbalite leaders and could hold the kaliph to ransom whenever they made any demands. Two famous medieval Hanbalite writers are Ibn-batta (d.997) and Ibn-Taymiyya (d.1328). Ash`arism Al-Ash`ari (873-935) was the culminating figure in the development of Sunnite theology. He studies Law, and is claimed bi both the Hanafite and the Shafi`ite schools (although in the beginning the Hanifites opposed Ash`arite kalam). He studied Mu`tazilite thology under al-Jubbai and might have succeeded him as master in Basra school had he not abandon Mu`tazilism about 912. The story of his conversion comes in various versions, all of which associate it with three dream he had during the month of Ramadan. In the first dream the prophet Muhhamad commanded him to defend the teachings handed down from himself in the Hadiths. In the second he inquired how he was carrying out his command. Al-Ash`ari then gave up the study of Kalam and devoted himself interely to the Hadith study. Thereupon in the third dream the prophet angrily said he commanded him to study the hadith, but not to give up Kalam. Another story of Al-Ash`aris conversion is a supposed debate he had with Juba`i about three brothers, one who was a good believer, the other a wicked unbeliever and the tird 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 will be wicked, then he should have made the second brother die before he became wicked. Al-Ash`ari supposedly abandoned Mu`tazilism because of his inconsistency in this problem. Yet the story is suspect because it was attributed first to Al-Ash`ari only in the 14th century by as-Subki (d.1370), secondly it did not argue against al-Jubbai, whose teaching about lutf, or Gods free generosity, was close to al0Ash`aris ideas, but against some of the Mu`tazilites of Bagdad, and thirdl because there are other stories about his conversion and the possible factors influencing it.

53

Al-Ash`aris theological style relies heavily on comparison of Quran verses and to some extent Hadiths, in addition to rational arguments. This might be surprising after hearing how the Hanbalites condemned him for sellinf out to philosophical thinking. But the stories of Louis Gardet and Georges Anawati, R.McCarthy and Michel Allard have pointed out that al-Ash`ari is very much in the style of the Mu`tazilites who relied heavily on Quran quotations to support their rational srguments. Al-Ash`ari agreed with the basic teaching of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal. The only difference was his use of rational arguments. This led him to treat the questions 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 Quran 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`aris importance should not obscure the fact that there were theologians before him (especially Ibn Kullab) who defended Sunnite positions with rational methods. Moreover al-Ash`ari did not dominate the scene of Sunnite Kalam during his lifetime, but had many influential companions, such as al-Qalanisi. Yet al-Ash`ari lft writings which were the inspiration of later theologians who therefore looked to him as their father. Some ofhis immediate pupils were Abusahl as-Su`luki of Nishapur (d.979), Abu-l-Hasan al-bahili of Basra, and Abu-Abdalad ibn-Mujahid of Basra and Bagdad (d.980), different from Ibn Mujahid, the Quranic scholar). These, however, are not well known. Al-Marurudi (d.944), although regarded fromn the 16th century as equal in importance to al-Ash`ari, 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 Hanifites who cultivated his theology were not much interested in biographies or the history of the theological movements and heresies. Al-Maturudi entered into prominence when the Seljud and Ottoman Turks brought Hanafism to the forefront. Al-Maturudi differed from al-Ash`ari in three areas, discussed in this work: the first is the relationship between faith and practice (chap 1). The second is Qadar (chap 2), and the third concerns the attributes of God (chap5). Better know are three second generations Ash`arites, namely al-Baqilani (d.1013), ibn-Furak (d.1015) and al-Isfara`ini (d.1027). These were all students of al-bahili, while al-baqilani also studied under ibn Mujahid, and ibn-Furak under as-Su`luki. Concerning the question of scriptural authority, al-baqilani developed the concept of mu`jiza, or miracle. A controversy had arisen as a result of the Sufi who were reputed to have visions or revelations and to work miracles. These, however, were considered to be the exclusive prerogatives of prophets. Al-baqilani distinguished between a mu1`jiza, a miracle adduced evidence of prophecy, confounding any attempt to imitate it, and a karama, 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 Quran, of all its aspects (style, teaching content,

54 prophesy of the future etc.) Al-baqilani saw its superior literary quality as the aspect, which defies imitation. On the same question, al-Isfara`ini held that the Quran was miraculous only because God obstructed any attempt at imitation, not that it is inimitable in itself. Al-Juwayni (d.1085) was another important Ash`arite who lived in Nishapur in Seljuq period. He had to go into exile to Makka and Madina hence gaining the name imam al-haramayn (Imam of the two shrines). With the accession of Alp-Arslan to the Seljuq throne, the famous Nizamalmuk was appointed Wazir. The numerous Nizamiyya schools he founded were centers of ash`arism, and to head the one in Nishapur he called al-Juwayni back from exile. Al-Juwayni was a theologian in his won right, but is known chiefly as the teacher of al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali At the age of 19 Abu-hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali began to study under al-Juwayni at Nishapur, mastering all branches of legal and theological studies. When his master died in 1085, he joinded the scholars surrounding Nizamalmuk. His good performance in debates won him an appointment as chief professor at the Nizamiyya College in Bagdad in 1091, at the age of 33. He lectured on Jurisprudence to classes op to 300 students. In the meantime he set himself to reading the works of al-Farabi and ibn-Sina, and wrote a polemical aatck on their views in his Tahafut al-Falasifa (Incoherence of the philosophers). Psychological tensions, together with fear of hell fire, came to his crisis in 1096, producing a speech impediment which prevented him from lecturing. He then decided to make a pilgrimage to Makka, but spent a year of retreat in Damascus and Jerusalem before doing so. Back in his home town of Tus, he adopted a kind of monastic sufi 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 Nizamalmuk, to return to teaching. They were convinced he was the Mujadid (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-Ghazali autobiography, al-Munqidl min ad-dalal (deliverance from error), tells how in his crisis he sought relief from his scepticism by testing the various movements of his time: philosophical theology (Kalam), philosophy, Batiniyya (Isma`ili Shi`ism), and Sufism, He discovered that only Sufism could and did deliver him from his breakdown and restore him to health. The fullest exposition of al-Ghazalis thought is in his legtly Ihayaulum ad-din (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: . Many new philosophical elements were absorbed into theology, particulrly most of Aristoltelial syllogistic logic. The result was an enrichment of systematic theology. . He helped kill philosophy as an autonomous study, at the least in the East. In spite of his own exposure to philosophy, al-Ghazali was 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-kifaya). 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 physical universe).

55

Only in Spain, which was always independent of the `Abbasids, first under the Umayyads, then under the Murabits (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-Ghazali also attacked indiscriminate study of theology and Islamic legal science, insisting that only a few people should have specialized knowledge of these subjects. . His anti-Isma`ili polemic neutralized Fatimid propaganda. .He reconcilied Sufism with Sunnite practice, 1) by allowing Sufi to talk about Love of God which brings nearness (muqaraba) to him, but not union or indwelling, 2) by demanding the Sufi subjection to the Shar`ia as the advance of their tariqa towards the haqiqa, and 3) by insisting on their disavowal of any claims to work strick miracles (mu`jizat), which is the prerogative of a prophet. They could only work Karamat by Gods permission. . 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-Ghazalis fame in the next two centuries came not from his theology but from his earlier contribution on the field of jurisprudence. Today, however, he is regarded as the greatest of the medieval Muslim Theologians. Philosophy in Spain after al-Ghazali The earliest philosopher of note in Spain was ibn-Bajja (d.1138), known to the Latins as Avempace. Much indebted to al-Farabi, he studied all branches of knowledge and knew Aristotle thoroughly. His ethical treatise, Tabdir al-Mutawahhid (Guidance of the solitary), urges philosophers to keep aloof from ordinary society and be friends with one another, indicating the isolated stutus of philosophers in Spain of that time. Abu-Nakr M. ibn-Tufayl (in Latin Abubacer, d. 1185) was a physician familiar with all branches of science, but he is famous for his etical novel Hayy ibn-Yaqzan which contasts the philosophical and sufic wisdom of an island solitary to the ignorance of the crowd of people on another island who can understand only the sensible language of the Quran. The great ibn-Rushd (1126-1198), is a Spanish Arab known to the Latins as Averroes, wrote a refutation of al-Ghazalis Tahafu, called Tahafut at-Tahafut (the incoherence of the incoherence), . In his Fasl al-Maqal (The harmony of religion and philosophy) he proposes his cvonvistion 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 the philosophy and the need for reinterpretation of the Quran. Ibn Rushd, like ibn Sina, trough spanish translators had tremendous influence on Europian thooght, culminating in Thomas Aquinas. Thomas worked out permanent principles for the

56 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 tought of the philosophers. Philosophy, including scientific and technological research, died out of 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 cause a reawakening. We may summirize 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 Sh`ites and the Susis, who held to revelation but gave it an exoteric interpretation based on divine inspiration and expressed in poetic or sometimes philosophical language.

5. THE UNITY AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

The createdness of the Quran The question of the createdness of the Quran probably arose from discussion with Christians. Since the Quran calls Jesus the Word of God (4:171), Christians asked whether he was created (implying that God was one once without a word) or uncreated (and therefore divine). The argument was most transferred to the Quran because of the question of Qadar. Since the Quran is said to have pre-existed on a a preserved Tablet )lawh mahfuz, 85:22) or as the mother of the Book (umm al-kitab, 13:39; 43:4) and was sent down on the night of destiny (97:1), it would seem that the historical events described in the Quran were predestined. To counter the idea of predestination, the Mu`tazilites argued that the Quran was created. They appealed to various Quranic expressions such as, We have made it (ja`alna-hu) an Arabic Quran (43:3), or it is on a preserved tablet (85,22), which implied that it finite and therefore created, falsehood does not come to it from in front or from behind (41,42), which also implies finitude. They also argued by raising speculative questions such as, how can a man hear, read or go over inhis memory the eternal speech of god, and is this speech, the Quran, Gods very substance or an accident distinct from his substance? The quetion of the createdness or the uncreatedness of the Quran was prominent at the beginning of the 2d `Abbasid century, echoing the focus of this question during the mihna. Among early defendants of the Sunnite position who used Kalam were `Abdal`aziz al-Makki (d.849 or 854) and the Sufi al-Mahasibi (d.857). Al-Khuraybi (d.828), however, followed by many others, avoided the use of Kalam in this subject and supported al-Mutawakkils prohibition of discussing the intricacies of what is created and what is uncreated in the copy or vocal recitation of the Quran.

57 Al-Karabisi (d.859 or 862) is regarded as the founder of the theory called lafziyya. Lafz means Utterance, and according to this theory, the Quran is uncreated, but anyones utterance or recitation is created. Ahmad ibn-Hanbal bitterly opposed this theory and attacked its proponents. He quoted Quran 9:6 which speaks of an unbeliever being granted protection so that he may hear the Word of God. But if he is hearing only a created representation of the Word of God (as the Mu`tazilite Ja`far ibn-Harb (d.850) and Ja`far ibn-MUbashshir (d.848) maintained, he is not nearing the real Word of God. Some people avoided taking sides on this question, like the Hadith collector al-Bukhari (d.870), who said: The Quran is the speech of god uncreated, the acts of men are created, and inquiry into the master is heresy. Similar caution was shown by the Hanifite at-Tahawi (d.933) and al-Ah`ari. Yet the Hanifite creed, the Wasiyya (written around 850), while avoiding the word lafs, says that the pen, paper and writing are created manifestations of the Quran. Another Hanifite creed of the late 10th century, Al-Fiqh al-akbar II, explicitly says that the lfs of the Quran is created. Al-Ash`ari followers took a similar line and introduced the concept of Kalam nafsi, the Quranic speech which is the soul (nafs) before it is expressed; this they maintained was created.

The Mu`tazilites and Gods unity The question whether the Quran is created came up only in the time of Harun ar-Rashid, and a short time afterwards the question of Gos attributes arose. The influence of philosophy led theologians to ask what it meant by the assertion that God has knowledge, speech, power,ect. The opponents of the Mu`tazilites said tha these attributes were somehow distinct from Gods essence, whereas the Mu`tazilites retorted that if they were distinct, there would be several eternal beings, and therefore several gods or hypostases as in the Christian Trinity. The Mu`tazilites said that all Gods attributes are identical with one another and with Gods essence. Only his speech is not identical with his essence; in fact it is not part of God at all, but creation. The Mu`tazilites went on to teach that anthromosphic expressions in the Quran should be given a metaphorical interpretation (ta`wil). Thus Gods hands mean his grace or power, and his face means his essence. Al-Jubba`i (d.915), among the later Mu`taziliets, held strictly to the Mu`tazilite idea of Gods unity, saying that god knows and acts by his essence and not by any attribute such as knowledge, even if this is equivalent to his essence. Al-Jubba`i also held strictly to rational or linguistic criteria and not the Quran in deciding whether any name was fitting for God. He rejected, for instance, the name `aqil (intelligent) because it derives from the word `iqal, the tether of a camel, and this might imply that God was subject to some impediment. Al-Jubba`i also distinguished essential and active attributes, but his whole discussion of divine names appears to be strict linguistic nominalism; in other words, the names are merely a matter of human language and not reflect anything of the reality of God and the richness of his being. Abu-Hashim (d.933), son of al-Jubba`i and his successor as leader of the Basra Mu`tazilites, introduced the idea of states (ahwal, sg. Hal). Originally a grammatical term indicating a modifying action word, like a participle, it was applied to adjectival attributes of God (e.g knowing), and these he said were distinct from Gods essence, while existing only in (and not apart from)

58 Gods essence. This teaching about ahwal, or adjectival attributes, was accepted by later Ash`arite theologians, who also maintained a distinct existence for Gods sifat al-ma`ani, or substantial attributes. Al;-Ka`bi (d.929 or 931) was at a time leader of the Mu`tazilites of Bagdad. He tried to reduce the many names applied to God to just a few basic ones. Thus willing is simply a combination of knowing and creating, while hearing and seeing are just aspects of hnowing. In spite of these mens allowing of a real disatinction among the attributes of God, the general Mu`tazilite position was that God and his attributes are all identical, with no real distinction in him whatsoever. Those who distinguished Gods attributes One of the earliest speculators of Gods unity was Hisham ibn-Hakam (d.805). He used the term jism, which usually means body, in the wider sense of susbatance and applied to God (for which he was criticized). He was also the first to use the term ma`na (literally meaning) in the technical sense of an inseparable attribute, and in this way spoke of the attributes of God, such as power and knowledge. Bishr al-Marisi (d.833) introduced a distinction between essential and active attributes, and among the latter he recognized four: will (mashi`a), knowledge (`ilm), power (qudra) and creativity (takhlid). Anthropomorphic attributes mentioned in the Quran he interpreted away. Ibn-Kullab (d.855) took this speculation a step further by positing for each adjectival attribute (sifa ma`nawiyya), such as power or knowledge, a corresponding substance attribute (sifa al-ma`na), such as power and knowledge. Furthermore he distinguished attributes, such as all the foregoing, which pertain to action, and attributes which discribe Gods essence, such as existence or eternity. Ibn-Kullab had a student named al-Qalanisi who, using Kalam to defend these and other Sunnite teachings, brought them to the attention of al-Ash`ari, who adopted them. In the meantime ibnKarram (d.869) in Persia tried to face the problem of relationship between the eternal and the temporal, or the uncreated and the created. He and his followers asserted that God was Creator or creating )khaliq) through the attribute of creativeness (kaliqiyya) evn before creation existed. This attribute they interpreted as a power over creation. Yet when any creature comes into being, they said that this requires some change (hudud) in God, which the addition of the decision and the command that the creature come into being. Such a position was criticized in many quarters as leading to pantheism, since it sets up a continuity of mutual dependence between God and creatures. Al-Ash`ari accepted the ideas of various kinds of attributes in God, distinct from one another and from Gods essence, but he himself did not systematize his teaching with the precision of later Ash`arites. Al-Maturidi (d.944), as noted in the previous chapter, differed from al-Ash`ari on some points. One of then concerns the discussion on creation. Al-Maturidi held that all attributes are eternal, while Ash`ari and his immediate followers said that the active attributes are not eternal; for instance God is creating only when creatures exist. A late exponent of Ash`arite theology who had been very influential in North and West Africa is Muhammad ibn-Yusuf as-sanusi (d.1490). Inhis umm albarahim or small catechism, he lists what has become a standard list of 20 attributes: Among what is necessary to our Lord -the majestic and mighty- are twenty attributes. These are: 1) existence (wujud), 2) being from eternity 3) being everlasting 4) otherness from thing that come

59 into being, 5)self-subsistence, that is, he does not need a subject-of-inherence nor a determining agency, 6) oneness, that is, there is no duplication of his essence, attributes or acts. The first of these six attributes, existence, pertains to the essence itself (nafsiyya), whereas the other five are negative attributes (salbiyya). Then the most high necessarly possesses seven attributes called substantive attributes (sifat al-ma`ani). They are 7)power and 8) will, which are related to all possible things, 10) life, which is related to nothing, 11) hearing and 12) sight, which are rekated to all existing things, and 13) speech, which is without letters or sound, and is related to the same things knowledge is related to. The most High necessarily possesses seven attributes called adjectival attributes (sifat ma`nawiyya). They follow upon the first seven, and are the most highs being: 14)powerful, 15 willing, 16) knowing, 17) living, 18) hearing, 19) seeing, 20) speaking.

The first part is conceived and written by Frederic Ntedika Mvumbi, Op The second part is a revised course (revised by Frederic Ntedika) taught by Joseph Kenny, O.P Professor of Islamic studies University of Ibadan Nigeria