The Methods of Religious Thought in Islam [Electronic resources]

UnTransliterated

Message of Thaqalayn

Cultural Relations Between Christianity and Shi'i Islam Dr. Sayyid Mustafa Muhaqqiq Damad Translated by Dr. A. N. Baqirshahi Vol. 2, Nos. 2 & 3 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.

1. Al-Shaykh al-@ad?q, Taw<?d, pp.182, 286, 361.
2. Ibid., pp.270, 417, 420.
3. Ibid., p.422.
4. \arr?ni Ibn Shubah, Tuhfat al-Uq?l, Tehran, 01.
5. For more information, please refer to the book: History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, by Howzile, New York, 1930. p.24.
6. 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.
7. Wolfson, Crasxa's Critique of Aristotle, Harvard, 1929, p.12.
8. 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.
9. Refer to "Comparative Studies in Islamic Philosophy", translated by Sayyid Mu#taf? Mu<aqqiq D?m?d, Kharazmi Publication, 1369, Tehran, p.48.
10. Al-Abanah, p.56.
11. [..]
12. Wolfson, Philosophy of Kal?m. The term inlibration' is used for this matter.
13. Awail al-Maqalat, p.50.
14. Ibid., p.58.
15. Ibid.
16. Sabzaw?r?, Man~?mah.
17. McDermott, 1978, p.134ff.
18. Ibn Arab?, Fut?<?t Makk?yah, vol.4, p.294.
19. Ibid., vol.2, p.516.
20. Al-\ikmat al-?sh?ah,
p.229.
21. Ibid., p.230.
22. 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.
23. [..]
24. Sabellius.
25. David F., The Modern Theologians, volume Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1989, pp.195-198.
26. Op. cit, Wolfson, p.32.
27. 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?.