لطفا منتظر باشید ...
UnTransliterated
Message of Thaqalayn
Relations Between
and Shi'i Islam
The history of the Sh?ah and Christian
cultural relations is comparatively old. Of these, relations may be mentioned
inter-religious dialogue in the area of Kal?m that took place
in a spirit of complete mutual understanding. In the works of the Sh?ah
this is discussed in detail. Among such dialogues one may refer to discussions
between the spiritual leaders of the two creeds, particularly dialectic
between the Muslims and Catholicos, preserved in the oldest Sh??
books. The commentators of <ad?th have explained Catholicos
in the following manner: "Catholicos, is the greatest spiritual leader
of Christianity of every age." Most probably this word is the same as Catholic
in the present sense, though for an author it is difficult to say which
term is an alternative of the other.
Mu<ammad bin Al? bin B?bwayh
al-Qumm?, known as al-Shaykh al-@ad?q (d. 280/901 A.D.),
has recorded four polemical discussions between the highest spiritual leader
of Christians and Sh?ah scholars of eminence and Mutakallim?n
in his works.
It is probable that dialogue of Cathilicos with
Im?m Al? (a) took place during 657 A.D.[1]
But the culminating point of these controversies has been during the early
10th century A.D.,[2] i.e., in the 2nd century
Hijrah, during the periods of Im?m al-@?diq (a) and Im?m
al-Ri_? (a),[3] the 6th and 8th Im?ms
of the Sh?ah.
2-- Another point that is indicative of the close
cultural relations between the Sh?ah and Christianity is recording
of the sayings, character and biographical accounts of Christ in the books
of the Sh?ah, which surpasses all such accounts of Christ in the
works of all other sects of Islam. It is noteworthy that the name of ?s?
has occurred in the Qur'?n 25 times and the name of Mas?<
(a) recurs 36 times in the Qur'?n. And the circumstances of his
birth and his way of preaching and his ascension are repeatedly narrated
in the Qur'?n. But despite this emphasis the books of non-Sh??
authors do not contain detailed accounts of Christ's sayings and character.
For instance, in @?<ah al-Sittah,
i.e., six authentic compendia of <ad?th of Ahl
al-Sunnah we do not come across even a single utterance of Christ. On the
other hand in the books of the Sh?ah, even some of the oldest,
utterances of him are found in abundance.
Im?m Al? (a), the first Imam of
the Sh?ah, has narrated the ascetic style of the life of Christ
in one of his sermons, given under No. 160, in Nahj al-Bal?ghah.
After him, in the 2nd century A.H., Im?m al-@?diq has quoted
the preaching of Christ, as found exactly in the Bible of Mathew, while
delivering his advice to Abdullah bin Jandab in New Testament, book of
Mathew, chapter 6, sentences 2,3,6,7,16 and 18. During the period from
the 2nd to the 4th century A.H., al-Jahiz, in al-Bay?n wa al-Tab'?n,
nine short sayings and one detailed speech of Christ were recorded. During
the middle of the 4th century an eminent Sh?? author, Ab?
Mu<ammad \asan bin Al? bin al-\usayn bin Shubah al-\ar?n?
(d. 38 A.H. = 1001 A.D.) in his book, Tuhf al-Uqul an Al al-Ras?l,
had devoted about 16 pages to record the sayings of Christ. These utterances
consist of two parts: the first, which is briefer, second, which is comparatively
detailed, quote parts of Christ's sermons. According to the researches
done in this regard, same words are accessible to us at present, in some
of an?j?l (i.e., Book of New Testaments). For
example one may refer to the following:
Book of Mathew, sentences 1-7, 14-17 and 44-45
in chapter 5, sentences 12-19, 24, 30 in chapter 6, sentence 16 in the
chapter 7, and 29-36 in chapter 22; Book of Luke, sentences 17-49 in chapter
6; 44-45 in chapter 6, 4-17 in chapter 8 and 37-53 in chapter 11; Book
of Mark, sentence 30 in chapter 12.
Ibn Shubah was a resident of \arr?n and
since \arr?n was a center of learning for the Christians, he had
access to a majority of the Christian primary source. Of course, most of
the sentences that Ibn Shubah has quoted are specifically from the books
of Mathew, Luke and Mark. It remains unknown why he has not quoted from
all the books of New Testament.
However, it is a distinct feature of the Sh??
works that they have been forerunners in the matter of referring to and
quoting profusely from the sayings and sermons of Christ as compared to
all other Muslim sects.
3-- In the books of the Sh?ah special
attempt has been made to deal with the life and character of Christ [Mas?<
(a)]. In the sermon 159 in Nahj al-Bal?ghah, Al?
(a), while highlighting the piety of great prophets, writes about Christ:
"\a_rat Mas?< (a) laid his head
on a stone, put on dress made of coarse material, took tough food. His
main diet was hunger, at night the moon provided him only light; during
winter he slept under the sun at times when it shone or set down; his fruit
and vegetable was none other than what the earth grows for animals. He
neither had wife that could instigate him to do follies nor did have a
child that could make him sorrowful with concern; nor had any property
which might have taken away from him; nor had he any kind of greed (for
worldly things) that could cause him humiliation. He had no means of moving
except his own feet, his servants were his own hands."
On another occasion, addressing one of his companions,
Nuf Buk?l?, \a_rat Al? (a), says: "Blessing be
on those pious persons who have turned away from the worldly attachments
like Christ."
Mutual Influences in Kal?m? (Theological) Polemics
As it is generally accepted by researchers and
scholars that Islamic Kal?m has exercised influence on Jewish
and Christian Scholasticism. In a similar way, it is also incontrovertible
that on the land the views of Muslim Mutakallim?n, with regard
to the Divine Attributes, in the course of their polemics and discussions
with the Christian scholastics, particularly in the issue of trinity have
developed and attained maturity of thought. Undoubtedly, the use of the
term Attribute (#ifat) and emergence of the concept of universal
(kull?y?t), during the medieval period of Christianity,
through the Latin translation of the work of Ibn Hayman, Hid?yat
al-Mu_all?n (A Guide for Wayward) (530-601 A.H./1135-1204 A.D.),[5]
were influenced immensely by Islamic ilm al-Kal?m. He and
before him Sadiya Gawun (Sa?d al-Fayum? - 271-331 A.H./892-922
A.D.), had acquired their knowledge of the Greek philosophy indirectly
from Arab?c translations and their Islamic commentaries. They themselves
wrote in Arab?c (which was the academic language of that period).
The ground conducive for the acceptance of the teachings of Muslim Mutakallim?n,
particularly al-Ghazz?l?, through Sadiy?, who might
be justifiably regarded as Ashairah of Judaism, for he not only
adopts the method of Ashar?yyah but also in specific issues,
makes use of their arguments. Yah?d Ahlaw? from Totedo, born
in 479 A.H., who was a contemporary of al-Ghazz?l?, like
him felt that philosophy in questioning the fundamentals of faith by interpreting
them on the basis of logical argument results in weakening of the creed.
With this view he embarked upon writing a book on refutation of philosophers,
entitled al-Khazar?,[6] briefly called
Khazr?. Yahud-e Ahlaw?, in his book, Logical and
Philosophical Jargons, followed the same method and arguments that
were advanced by al-Ghazz?l? against philosophers.
Much more than him another scholastic thinker
of the Jewish creed, Hasd?'i Kar?sk? was undoubtedly
influenced by Tah?fut al-Fal?sifah of al-Ghazz?l?
though Wolfson, the Professor of Harvard University, rejects this view,
arguing that Tah?fut al-Fal?sifah was translated into
Hebrew after the death of Kar?sk?.[7]
His argument seems to be baseless, for Tah?fut al-Tah?fut
by Ibn Rushd was translated before 729/1328 by Qal?nimus bin D?w?d
and was published under the title Hapatlat Hapala, while Kar?sk?
died in 814/1210. Even on this ground if we accept that there was no possibility
of his direct access to the arguments of al-Ghazz?l?, forwarded
in Tah?fut al-Fal?sifah, it may be conjectured that
undoubtedly he could have possibly referred to al-Ghazz?l?'s
arguments by means of the translation of Al-Ghazz?l?'s Tah?fut
al-Fal?sifah.
Raymond Martin, one of the eminent Christian scholastics,
who died in 1285 A.D., is the person who worked as a link between European
Christianity and al-Ghazz?l?, because in his works, Interpretation
of the Secrets of the Disciples of Jesus, and The Sword of Faith, he
has evidently borrowed ideas from al-Ghazz?l?. The influence
of Ibn S?n? on B. Spinoza's various views, particularly
his doctrine of emanation (if?_ah), serves as irrefutable
in the view of the thinkers of the East and the West.[8]
From these examples it may be inferred that the
scholastics of other religions, particularly the Christianity, have benefited
from Muslim mutakkalim?n in the middle ages without doubt.
But the question arises as to whether non-Muslim scholastic thinkers have
also influenced in a similar way of the Muslim scholastics.
5-- The Mutazilah claimed[9]
that the Ash?irah in preaching uncreatedness of the Qur'?n,
were advocating the Christian doctrine about Logos, and as a result have
fallen prey to a kind of pluralistic heresy (shirk). The Mutazilah
argued that the emphasis of the Ash?irah on the uncreatedness
of the Qur'?n cause them in believing the doctrine of the eternity
of the Qur'?n and its coexistence in pre-eternity with Allah. Thus
they attributed eternity to the Qur'?n along with the Eternity of
Divine Essence. Shaykh al-Muf?d says:
"A man from Basra was talking about one of
Ashar?ah beliefs which was against monotheism. He was of the view
that God's Eternal Attributes are not the Divine Essence and not otherwise
as well. That is why God is ascribed to be All-Knowing, the Living, the
Omnipotent, the Hearing, the Seeing and the Speaker. That man was of the
view that God possesses eternal face, eternal hearing, eternal seeing and
eternal hands, such ideas are against the ideas of the monotheists what
to talk of Islam."[10]
This is interesting to note that the Ash?irah
made a similar allegation against the Mutazilah and dubbed them
as the greatest of atheists (k?fir?n). They argued
that whosoever maintains emphatically that the Qur'?n is created
comes closer to the views of the atheists, since the atheists said that
the Qur'?n was a creation of the Prophet's mind. To support their
argument they site a verse from the Qur'?n, in which Allah Himself
explains the unbelievers' faith by saying:
"This (the Qur'?n) is saying of man."
(25:74)
Al-Ashari writes:
"Anybody who maintains that Qur'?n is
created, verily believes that Qur'?n is man's words. Such idea is
like the ideas of unbelievers."[11]
The criticism of the Mutazilah seems to
be a criticism far from truth. They say that the Ash?irah,
supported by some orientalists, borrowed this doctrine of the eternity
of the Qur'?n and its uncreatedness from Jewish or Christian interpretation
of the term "Logos".
As the Ash?irah have based their
doctrine on the apparent meanings of some of the Qur'?nic verses
per se, they may not be blamed for adopting this view from alien
sources and then reconcile it with the Qur'?nic verses. But we have
to concede to some extent that the issues concerning the Divine Attributes
in general, and the controversy regarding the Qur'?n in particular,
have emerged and developed in the course of controversies and discourses
among mutakallim?n of Islam and the use of other religions,
during which they came in contact with the works of each other. The same
is applicable in the context of the medieval Christian scholasticism and
the role of Descartes, and in the context of Medieval philosophy of Judaism
and its impact on the modern philosophy of Europe through Spinoza.
6-- The word of God (Kalimat Allah): It
may be said that the image of the Prophet of Islam, Mu<ammad bin
Abdullah in Muslims' view and the Christian view of the personality of
Christ (a) may not be compared reasonably, since the concept of prophethood
of ?s? bin Maryam (a) in the Christian milieu and the concept
of the Prophet in Islam is also different. Whenever we want to compare
and contrast some sacred things in Islam and Christianity, we should try
to compare the image of Christ in the Christian view with the words of
the Qur'?n and their nature, because both the Qur'?n and
?s? Mas?< are called Kalimat Allah (The
Word of Allah). It occurs in the Qur'?n:
"When the angels said: O Mariam surely Allah
gives you good news with a word from him (of one) whose name is the Messiah
?s? son of Mariam, worthy of regard in this world and the
hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah)." (3:44)
In Christianity ?s? Mas?<
is the embodiment and incarnation of the "Word of God" (Kalimat Allah).
His embodiment and anthropomorphisation is similar to what is meant by
the revelation and descent and consequently written form of the Qur'?n.
This matter is discussed in the history of Ilm
al-Kal?m in the same way and sense. The Qur'?n described
itself as having the attributes according to which it is indicated that
the existence of the Qur'?n precedes its revelation in historical
time to the Prophet (s). For instance:
"Most surely it is an honored Qur'?n,
in a book that is protected." (56:77-78)
"Most of it is a glorious Qur'?n, in
a guarded tablet." (85:22)
"And surely it is in the original of the Book
with us, truly elevated, full of wisdom." (43:3)
A number of verses in the Qur'?n throw
light on this issue, that is, the Qur'?n has been revealed (in time),
and despite this its existence precedes its revelation.
7-- Accordingly "The Preserved Tablet" is considered
as contingent and created. The problem of revelation and written form of
the Qur'?n, that is, the issue of the relationship of the revealed
word to the Mother Book (Umm al-Kit?b), does not give rise
to any philosophical difficulty. The philosophical difficulty arises when
in the light of some Qur'?nic verses. The Qur'?n is referred
to as existing in the realm of Divine Knowledge.
"And if you follow their low desires after
what has come to you of knowledge, you shall not have against Allah any
guardian or a protector." (13:37)
"And if you follow their desires after the
knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah,
nor any helper." (2:120)
These verses led some Mutakallim?n
to confuse the Qur'?n with the Divine Attributes of Knowledge, and
they were compelled to believe that the Qur'?n as created in time,
revealed and written, is an accident of the Attribute of Eternal Divine
Knowledge that preceded the written revelation.
This confusion is like the problem that arose
in Christianity particularly regarding the embodiment and incarnation of
Christ. It is interesting that this issue too was interpreted in a similar
way, since the Christian scholastics considered Christ as embodiment of
Divinity in the person of a human being and called the second member of
the Trinity.
When the Sh?i Mutakallim?n
came to know that the use of the term "created" (makhl?q)
created difficulties, so in accordance with the way the Holy Family (Ahl
al-Bayt) of the Prophet , they avoided to make use of the word Mu<addith
and instead of it used the word mu<dath. This term is used in
the Qur'?n for itself
"Never comes there unto them a new reminder
from their Lord but they listen to it while they play." (21:2)
"Never comes there into them a fresh reminder
from the Beneficent One but they turn away from it." (26:5)
Al Shaykh al-Muf?d, says:
"In my view, Qur'?n is the God's word
and revelation. It is created in time (<ad?th), as is described
by God, I do not wish to call it Mukhl?q. There are certain <ad?th
from Im?m B?qir (a) and Im?m @?diq (a) supporting
such meaning."
8- Divine Attributes: Some of the Mutakallim?n
(Ashar?ah) are of the view that Divine Attributes are like the
persons in Christian doctrine of Trinity. For they believe that Divine
Attributes are distinct beings separate from the Divine Essence and are
eternal as well. Yet, other Mutakallim?n (Mutazilah)
and those who followed the School of Ahl al-Bayt denying the eternity
of the Qur'?n and by meticulous philosophical arguments, so that
not to be entrapped into the embodiment and incarnation of Christianity.
Of course, they believe in eternity of Divine Attributes, not as distinct
beings, but as identical with Divine Essence and deny any polytheism. Thus,
they are free from any shirk.These scholars of Kal?m
are of the view that to believe in eternal distinct Divine Attributes would
lead to certain dilemma that Christian face it by believing in Trinity.
For to be eternal and at the same time to be distinct from the Divine Essence
would result in belief in many eternal beings which impair Divine Unity
(Taw<?d), as al- Shaykh al-Muf?d held that such
idea would lead to believe in many eternal beings.[13]
9- In order to believe in eternal and distinct
Divine Attributes and at the same time keep on believing in Divine Unity
and discard the ascription of any unreal attributes to God, al-Shaykh al-Muf?d
propounded the following rational matters:
"If God is ascribed to the attributes of the
living, the powerful, the knowing. The such attributes contain rational
matters that is, they are not identical with Divine Essence."
By the meanings of such matters, he means that
attributes are not distinct from ontological point of view but are distinct
from epistemological view point, as he says:
"By rational matters I mean those matters which
are rational in mind not concrete and objective."
With a deep insight into al-Muf?d's views,
one can infer that by Maq?l, he means samething that later
on was called by Sabziw?r? as the primacy of being over quiddity.
In this regard Sabziw?r? says: being and quiddity are, however,
distinct in mind but are identical in the external world.[16]
Similarly, al-Shaykh al-Muf?d also held
that though attributes are distinct in mind but are identical in out side.
Apparently, Martin McDermott also maintains that al-Muf?d's approach
was conceptualism.[17]
10- The issue of distinct Divine Attributes while
holding the Unity of God was discussed by later Islamic thinkers. Ibn Arab?
and Mull? @adr? also like al-Shaykh al-Muf?d had a
kind of conceptualistic approach toward the Divine Names.
Ibn Arab? explicitly denies the existential
status of attributes and says: "What we believe is as relations which
in Shar?ah is called name. Every name bears a meaning different
from others. That meaning is predicated to God. Nazz?r who follows
Kal?m, considers it as attribute not relation... Do names possess
existential status? In this regard there is a debate between Nuzz?r.
In our views, everything is clear. They are only relations and names and
are conceptual, not objective and concrete. Thus, substance can be divided
only by being, not by accidents, attributes and relations."[18]
He further says: "Relations are neither essences
nor things. Regarding the reality of relations, one should say that they
are nothingness in nature."[19]
Mull? @adr? commented the following
points on the levels of being: "Nothing can be found which is not available
among the Divine Names. Names come into being by Divine Being. They come
into being in a best manner, and owing to His necessary Essence they would
be necessary."[20]
... These names are conceptual and simple beings
which depend on Necessary Being. And such multiplicity in unity is one
of the secrets of the Divine Being.[21]
In some other place, he said: "Divine Attributes
are identical with His Divine Essence, not as Ashar?ah believe
in it. For they believe in multiplicity of His Attributes which entails
multiplicity of two eternal beings, not as Mutazilah creed also who denied
the reality of the attributes. Yet, while believing in its effects, he
considers essence as second to the attributes."[22]
Concluding that Ibn Arab? and Mull?
@adr? admit the basis of al-Muf?d ideas though they developed
it in a broad area, they believe that all created beings are conceptual,
and, all creatures possess conceptual entities and like Divine Names they
can be called Divine Word.
11- Difference between the development of Islamic
Thought and that of the Christian doctrine of Trinity is considerable.
In Islamic philosophy, inclination was directed towards multiplying of
the Divine Attributes in a sense to consider all creatures as Divine Attributes.
At the same time such attributes do not impair Divine Unity.[23]
The early Islamic scholars of Kal?m
were aware of modalism in Trinity and believe that common people's perception
is nothing but innovation. The theory of modalism is attributed to Sibelius[24],
who consider God as a person with three attributes which certain Muslim
Sufis also used in their poems.
Modalism approach of Trinity was strongly discarded
in the Christian theology. For they believe in a vertical Trinity, that
is, father and son, according to which son does not possess perfect divinity.
In refuting the modalism approach towards Trinity,
they believe that God not only is three in term of meaning, but is a Triad
personality.[25] According to Mutakallim?n
this idea is a kind of polytheism as the Qur'?n says:
"Believe therefore in Allah and His Apostle, and
say not, three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only One God...."
(4:171)
Kendi argued against the doctrine of Trinity and
Christians tried to reply it. Kendi said: "Three fold personality cannot
be included in the categories of porphyry."
Ya<y? bin Ad?, the well-known
Christian learned-man in return replied as: "Such beings are individual
substances."[26]
Mutakallim?n of Islam like Ghazz?l?
used the argument of Tamama (an argument in kal?m), derived
from the Qur'?n to prove the Divine Unity. Ghazz?l?
says that if there were two gods than if one of them wanted to act, the
other one had to favor it or oppose it. In the former case, he would have
been a follower which impair his omnipotent and in later case one of them
would have been weaker which again impair their omnipotent.
The same argument was applied by Scotus against
a kind of Trinity namely social Trinity. In such Trinity God has three
distinct personalities. Everyone of which possesses certain attributes
which suffice for being a god. The argument of Tam?no applied
by new Christian schotictics as a logical reasoning.
Endnotes:
* This paper was presented at the conferences
of Islam and Orthodox Christianity in the month of Sharivar 1373 (September
1994), in Tehran by the Center of International Studies and Culture.
Al-Shaykh al-@ad?q, Taw<?d,
pp.182, 286, 361.
Ibid., pp.270, 417, 420.
Ibid., p.422.
\arr?ni Ibn Shubah, Tuhfat
al-Uq?l, Tehran, 01.
For more information, please refer
to the book: History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, by Howzile,
New York, 1930. p.24.
The original title of the book is:
Al-Hujjat wal-Dalil f? Na#r al-D?n. Please refer to
Hartwig Mirschefeld, Kit?b al-Khazr?, London, 1931,
p.6.
Wolfson, Crasxa's Critique of
Aristotle, Harvard, 1929, p.12.
On influence of Ibn S?n?
on Jewish Thinkers particularly spinoza refer to the following books: E.I.J.
Rosenthal, Avicenna's Influence on Jewish Thought, "Avicenna:
Scientist and Philosopher", ed., G.M. Wiefens, London, 1952, Ch. IV.
Encyclopedia Britanica, "Studies in Muslim Philosophy", by
Saeed Shaikh.
Refer to "Comparative Studies
in Islamic Philosophy", translated by Sayyid Mu#taf? Mu<aqqiq
D?m?d, Kharazmi Publication, 1369, Tehran, p.48.
Al-Abanah, p.56.
[..]
Wolfson, Philosophy of Kal?m.
The term inlibration' is used for this matter.
Awail al-Maqalat, p.50.
Ibid., p.58.
Ibid.
Sabzaw?r?, Man~?mah.
McDermott, 1978, p.134ff.
Ibn Arab?, Fut?<?t
Makk?yah, vol.4, p.294.
Ibid., vol.2, p.516.
Al-\ikmat al-?sh?ah,
Ibid., p.230.
Ibid., p.223. 23. Refer
to the article: "Influence of Ghazz?l? on Western Thought",
by Sayyid Mu#taf? Mu<aqqiq D?m?d, Maq?l?t
wa Barras?h?, Number Dai, pp.45-46.
[..]
Sabellius.
David F., The Modern Theologians,
volume Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1989, pp.195-198.
Op. cit, Wolfson, p.32.
Quoted from the book: Rationality,
Religious and Moral Commitment, by J.W. Right, 1986, pp.2-301. In this
book the over-mentioned text in quoted from the book Tract on Dogmatic
Theology, which is the translation of, F? U#?l al-Aq?id,
by Ghazz?l?.
p.229.
