لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Method in
Mufid's Kalam and in Christian Theology
By
Martin McDermott
I do not think I can tell you anything new about
al-Shaykh. Most of you are scholars in his tradition and you study his
works and know his sources to a degree and with a facility that I shall
never attain. I have, though, and do, make an effort to understand his
kalD.m as best I can, and to understand what he was doing, and what
he meant to do and tried to do.
In a book I wrote about al-Shaykh al-Mufid, I
provisionally translated 'ilm al-kalD.m by the word "theology", as
its closest equivalent in the languages of the West. It is not a very
satisfactory translation, for 'ilm al-kalD.m is not quite the same
as what Christians call "theology." Now my purpose is to come back to
these two terms and consider a few differences between what al-Mufid, the
mutakallim was doing in his discipline and what Christians mean by
theology. To be quite plain, I am thinking inside my own tradition, which
is that of a Catholic Christian whose model and ideal in theology is
Thomas Aquinas.
I admit that my aim here is personal, simply to answer a
question I have long ago asked myself but have not investigated before. I
am trying today to see the two methods in comparison: that of 'ilm
al-kalD.m and of theology. Noting the differences helps me to
understand al-Mufid better, what he is aiming to do and what he is not
aiming to do. Perhaps also it may help you to understand Christian
theology more, what it does and does not try to do.
My guide in all this has been the monumental study by
Louis Gardet and Georges Anawati, Introduction D. la Thologie
Musulmane, which however suffers from the defect, recognized by its
authors, of not considering the Shi'ite mutakallimR.n.[1]
It is commonly said of 'ilm al-kalD.m in general
that it is a defensive apologetic, good in the opinion of some Muslims,
but not all. Al-GazzD.li thought 'ilm al-kalD.m to be a dangerous
remedy, useful only for protecting the faith of the people and silencing
heretics.[2]
Ibn KhaldR.n's definition of 'ilm al-kalD.m is well
known: "It is a science that involves arguing with rational proofs in
defence of articles of faith and refuting innovators who deviate in their
dogmas from the doctrines of the early generations and the people of
tradition. The core of these dogmas is the oneness of God."[3]
And yet surely the mutakallim, in elaborating his
defence of the propositions to be believed, is at the same time making an
effort to understand and to illuminate what it is that he believes.
This is what interests me in al-Mufid.
Here is the fundamental difference between kalD.m
and theology. KalD.m aims primarily to defend and secondarily to
illuminate; theology aims primarily to illuminate: to come to some
understanding of a mystery which the human mind cannot fully grasp, and
only secondarily to defend. Both hold that God is one. And we both, I
presume, also hold that God is a mystery that cannot be fully understood
by the finite human mind. We both hold that nothing in true revelation can
contradict reason, for God is the author of both reason and revelation.
Yet God can also reveal things about Himself which are beyond our power to
understand fully.
My own interest is in the effort at understanding and
explaining the datum of revelation which al-Mufid makes in his
kalD.m. One of the important things al-Mufid did was to provide a
rational substratum for the Imamite faith during the absence of the Imam.
He had to meet not only the objections of outsiders but also the demands
of believing Shi'ites for explanation of how what is proposed for belief
does not contradict what they already know.
I will try, then, (1) to say something about al-Mufid's
own notion of kalD.m, and (2) then see how he carried it out, and
after that (3) compare it with the theological method.
I.
Al-Mufid's Notion of KalD.m
First of all, kalD.m is for the specialists.
Although ordinary believers were allowed to protect themselves by
taqiyyah, still, says al-Mufid, the Imams had commanded another
group of the more learned, "to face their adversaries openly in argument
and call them to the truth."[4]
For, says al-Mufid, from the first there had been in the
Imamite community some who "used reason (nazar) and disputed for
the truth and repelled falsehood with arguments and proofs, for which the
Imams praised them."[5]
In assessing the method of his teacher Ibn BD.bawayh,
al-Mufid made this reproach, that "he followed the method of the
traditionists, going by surface. meanings and shying away from the paths
of reflection (al-'i'tibD.r). This point of view harms the religion
of the one who holds it, and resting in it blocks rational inquiry
(al-'istibsD.r)."[6]
From this criticism it is possible to infer al-Mufid's
own idea of what a mutakallim should do. He should reflect and try
to understand the meaning of the traditions that he has heard. This will
improve the quality of his own faith and so enable him more effectively to
defend it against the attacks of nonbelievers.
Man's first duty, according to al-Mufid, is to know
God.[7] Apparently, then, this comes even before the
duty to reason to knowledge of His existence.
Mere passive acceptance of traditions on the part of
those who are capable of reasoning, brings no reward, for passive
acceptance is not faith.[8]
This however does not mean to say that all
must be skilled in dialectic or capable of expressing their knowledge in
debate and disputation.[9] For nazar is not the same as
munD.zarah.[10] Many of the common people, says al-Mufid, are able
to have the personal knowledge, based on reasoning, that puts them above
the passive accepters of another's word, without being themselves
mutakallimR.n.
On the other hand, al-Mufid says that "reason
(al-'aql)needs revelation (al-sam') both in its premises and
in its conclusions, and it does not dispense with revelation for informing
the ignorant of how demonstration (al-istidlD.l) works. And an
apostle is necessary for the initial imposition of moral obligation and
its beginning in the world."[11] This interdependence of reason and
revelation is basic in al-Mufid's system, and it is a pity that he did not
theorize about it further in any of the writings we have from him.
II.
Al-Mufid's KalD.m in Practice
It is the contention of this paper that al-Mufid did more
than just argue against external opponents and refute adversaries. While
doing this, he also met to some extent another vital need of the Imamite
believer which had been performed by the Imams when they were available,
but which needed continuation in al-Mufid's time and still needs to be
done along the lines he laid out or along the lines laid out by his pupils
and successors. That task is the rational elaboration of the faith. What
does this or that doctrine mean? How can I justify it against the
objections of my own mind? It is the task of giving an intellectual
substratum to what he believed. For the content of what is to be believed
does not stand on reason alone, but also on revelation (sam').
To this end, for example, al-Mufid elaborates in
al-'IfsD.h a fourfold proof of the need for an Imam: from the
Qur'an, from tradition, consensus, and from reason and experience. And the
last part of the proof, from reason and experience, rests upon two
premises: one, that it is impossible to carry out the legal duties of the
believer without an Imam, and, second, that God does not oblige what is
impossible.[12] So one of the two premises is based on revelation, and the
second, that God does not oblige what is above man's strength, is from
reason.
Al-Mufid also argues agaisnt the Ash'arites that God is
just and does not command man beyond what he is capable of.[13] This leads
him also to consider whether God acts for man's best interests, and
whether God does so because He is obliged in justice, or whether He puts
Himself under a kind of moral obligation rising from His nobility and
generosity.[14] In deciding for the latter, al-Mufid is in agreement with
the Baghdadi Mu'tazilites against the Basran school.
But if God is not held by strict justice, it would seem
rather hazardous to claim that we know by reason what He may and may not
do. Hence this seems to be another reason why al-Mufid's thesis fits in
well with his other doctrine that reason ('aql) needs revelation
(sam') to support it.
This would seem to be in line with the prayer of Ibrahim
to see how God would raise the dead. God replied, " 'Do you not then
believe?' He said, 'Yes! but to satisfy my own heart.' "[15] It is not so
much a question of whether it is so, but an effort to understand how it is
so. And in kalD.m, it is an effort more in the first operation of
the mind (the concept and what it means) rather than the second operation
(the judgement) which deals with the true and the false.
That is, the Imamite already believes what the Imam
says.
But still he wants to know how this accords and
harmonizes with other things which he knows by reason. So he asks, for
example, in al-MasD.'il al-HD.jibiyyah, how this or that Qur'anic
verse can be harmonized with the doctrine of the Imamites, e.g. on the
purity of the People of the House, with the verse: "And God only wishes to
remove all impurity from you, Members of the Family, and to make you pure
and spotless"[16] This is really asking for an explanation of the meaning
of the verse which he can rationally accept along with the doctrine that
the Imams were already pure.
Or how certain actions of the prophets or the Imams
harmonize with their 'ismah, for example: if Ali knew what would
happen, why did he go to the mosque where he was assassinated, and why did
al-Husayn go to Kufah?[17] This leads al-Mufid to explain more fully what
'ismah means and what it does not mean.
Granted. then, that the main purpose of 'ilm
al-kalD.m is to defend one's doctrine against deniers and enemies, it
remains that it also has a secondary function, which is to explain more
fully the meaning of the doctrine in order to meet the need of the
believer for a fuller understanding of what he believes. I think this
second task of kalD.m looms large in al-Mufid's work.
III.
Comparison with Theology
All that I have said so far may perhaps seem obvious to
you. Why do I elaborate on it? Because before coming to a study of
kalD.m and al-Mufid, I had been trained in theology, and my own
curiousity leads me- to ask what are the similarities and what are the
differences between the two sciences. I would like to note three
differences: one of emphasis, another of function, and of subject
matter.
In theology, the function of defensive apologetic is
secondary, relegated to a minor ancillary role. For theology is mainly a
dialogue between believers rather than with unbelievers. Where the
dialogue is with unbelievers, one is in the realm of philosophy or what is
called natural theology, which appeals only to what can be proved by
unaided reason. And in defending one's religious doctrine against outside
attacks, or in seeking to convince a nonbeliever of its truth, one is
using the science called apologetics, not theology proper.
For the primary aim of theology is "understanding of the
faith". Or as Augustine, one of the formers of the theological tradition
said, "I believe in order that I may understand, and I understand in order
that I may believe better."[18] It uses reason in order to try to see the
harmony between the doctrines among themselves, and also how they lead man
to his last end, which is the direct knowledge of God in heaven. In other
words, if the parts of a theological system contradict one another or do
not fit in with one another, the system falls. But the theologian as such
does not make it his business to prove the credibility of what he believes
to a nonbeliever, That is the task of the philosopher or the apologist.
The theologian seeks not so much to defend as to deepen his faith, and by
contemplating with his reason what he believes to be revealed truths, to
see connections between them and draw conclusions from them. In doing this
he aims to know God better, even though God will remain a mystery to him.
And the fruit of this effort should ordinarily be love.
It must be said too that another difference between the
subject matter of kalD.m and that of theology is that kalD.m
does not deal expressly with mysteries that surpass our understanding.
Of course, every Muslim will admit at once that there are
many things about God and what pertains to Him, al-ghayb, beyond
the understanding of His creatures. However the task of kalD.m is
not to treat of those mysteries. The theologian, in fact, treats many of
the same subjects as the mutakallim, but under a different
light:
that of faith. And theology holds of course that many
truths about God (that He exists, that He is One, that He rewards the good
and punishes the evil, etc.) can be proved by reason alone, but that
revelation is necessary in practice so that these truths can be arrived at
by all, more quickly, easily, and certainly and without error being mixed
in.
For faith, in the theologian's view, is a gift which God
offers and man can accept. When he accepts it, it raises him above his own
natural powers and enables him to believe not on the strength of proofs,
which may or may not be present, but because God says so.
What the theologian is trying to do by using his reason
with the aid of this gift of faith is to come to some knowledge of God
which stands between the knowledge of a child, who simply believes, and
the direct knowledge of God which is experienced in love by those who
contemplate Him in heaven.
Notes:
1. Paris: Vrin, 1948. This was translated by Subhi
al-SD.lih and Farid Jabr, Falsafat al-fikr al-dini bayn al-'Islam
wal-masihiyyah" .Beirut, DD.r al-'Ilm lil-MalD.yin, 1969, 3 vols.
2. IhyD.' "ulR.m al-din, 1, 174, cited in Gardet-Anawati,
p. 71.
3. A'l-Muqaddimah, 1164, Gardet-Anawati, p. 309.
4. Tash ih
al-'i'tiqD.dD.t, p. 66, M. McDermott, The Theology of al-Shaikh al-M'ufid,
Beirut: Dar El-Machreq, 1978, p. 317.
5. Tashih pp. 26-7, Theology" p. 315.
6. Tashih, p.
67.
7. Theology" p. 58, citing al-KarD.jaki, Kanz al-fawD.'id.
8.
Al-FusR.l al-mukhtD.rah, p. 78, Theology" p. 243.
9. Al-FusR.l, p. 79,
Theology, p. 245.
10. Tashih, p. 28, Theology" p. 316.
11. AwD.'il,
pp. 11-12, Theology, p. 60.
12. Al-'IfsD.h. fi imD.mat Amir al-Mu'minin,
pp. 3-4, Theology, p. 120.
13. AwD.'il, pp. 24-25, Theology, p.
156.
14. AwD.'il, p. 26, Theology, p. 77.
15. SR.rat al-Baqarah,
2:260.
16. SR.rat al-'AhzD.b, 33:33; al-MasD.'il al-hD.jibiyyah,
Q.l.
17. I bid., Q. 20.
18. Sermon 43, 7, 9.
