Makdisi Source: Studia Islamica, No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Maisonneuve & Larose Ash'arī and the Ash'arites in Islamic Religious History II Author(s): George Makdisi Source: Studia Islamica, No. 18 (1963), pp. 19-39 Published by: Maisonneuve & Larose Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595177 Accessed: 06/01/2010 12:42 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mal. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica. http://www.jstor.org ASH'ARIAND THE ASH'ARITES IN ISLAMICRELIGIOUS HISTORY II THE PROBLEM OF ASH'ARi Ash'arl poses a problem as author of a work entitled Istihsdn al-khaud fT 'ilm al-kalam. This work was published in Haidarabad in 1323/1905-6. Goldziher does not mention it in his Vorlesungen of 1910, nor in the French translation of this work reviewed by him and published in 1920 (1). In any case, Goldizher's position is that the Ibana represents the last definitive exposition of Ash'arl's doctrine (2). Two years after the publication of Goldziher's Vorlesungen, M. Horten published a German translation of an extract of Isfihsan al-khaui as an appropriate piece of literature in favor of speculative theology with which to conclude his work Die philosophischen Sysieme der spekulativen Theologen im Islam (3). Twenty years later, as we have already seen, the question (1) Nor is it in the edition revised by Franz Babinger and published in 1925. (2) See Vorlesungen,113 (line 22) and n. 99, Dogme, 95 (line 18), and n. 48. Cf. Father R. J. McCarthywho does not agree with Goldziher, pointing out that he gives no reason for calling it K the last , see Theology,231. Perhaps Goldziher's reason was derived from, or at least supported by, that of Muhammadb. al-Mausill, who is cited as having made a statement to this effect in his Saif al-sunna. See ar-Rasa'il as-sab' ft 'l-'aqa'id (Hyderabad : Da'irat al-Ma'arif, 1367/1948), the sixth treatise entitled a4- )pamima ath-thdniya li 'l-Ibana by Muhammad 'Inlyat 'All HlaidarfbadI,45 (lines 17-18). For Muhammad al-Mausill, see Ddris, I, 95 and Ibn al'Imad, Shadhardt,VI, 236. For this work, Saif as-sunna, cf. Kashf, II, 1017, as Saif as-sunna wa-diga' al-;ulma, where there are lacunae in the text. (3) Bonn, 1912; see pp. 623-626. 20 GEORGE MAKDISI of Ash'arI's role was raised very forcefully by A. J. Wensinck in his Muslim Creed. For Wensinck, Ash'arI's rationalism as described by JuwainI was supported by the certain fact that Ash'arl had adopted kaldm as a method. The certainty of this fact, as far as Wensinck was concerned, was demonstrated by Ash'arI's work Islihsan al-khaud (1). Wensinck could not answer the question as to what Ash'arl's role really was as far as Ash'arism was concerned. Was Ash'arl the tradition- alist of the Ibdna and of the Maqaldt who later elaborated such Ash'arite doctrines as those of kasb and tanzTh?Wensinck felt that the answer to such a question and a clearer distinction between Ash'arl and the Ash'arite school would perhaps have to wait until other works by Ash'arl were found (2). At the present time, there are two different attitudes on Wensinck's suggestion. One is that of impatience. It con- siders Wensinck's question as to a two-faced position of Ash'arI as typical of an attitude held by the Western scholar of the last century who has tended to be out of sympathy with Ash'arl. According to this view, there is no longer any reason to cast doubt on Ash'arl, what with the increasing number of his works which have come to light; the attitude to adopt should be one of sympathy (8). The other attitude is one in line with Wensinck's suggestion for new sources, in the hope of solving some of the great problems of Muslim theology (4). (1) A. J. Wensinck, Muslim Creed, 93 (a That he (Ash'arl) adopted kaldm as a method is certain. D), and n. 2 (, Cf. his Risala fl 'stihsan al-Khawd fl 'l-Kalam. '). (2) Op. cit., 94. (3) See W. M. Watt, Free Will, 135. (4) See J. Schacht, a New Sources , in Studia Islamica, I, 23 if. From a study of the Kitab al-Luma', Joseph Schacht sees the forerunners of Ash'arI as a group of men who employed a speculative method of reasoning, while sharing many of the opinions of the Traditionalists. These, he said, were a kind of c orthodox Mu'tazila D. These a must have been the forerunners and even the true founders of that scholastic school of theology which we know as the Ash'arite school. Ash'arI himself counts for little in this; he was chosen as the eponym at a later date, when the school needed some one of recognized orthodoxy in order to repel the attacks of the extreme Traditionalists. And what better name could they find than that of a good Traditionalist who had himself admitted the legitimacy of reasoning in theology ? D Schacht is alluding here, I believe, to the Istihsan al- khaui attributed to Ash'arl. ASH'ARi AND THE ASH'ARITES 21 As for the Islihsdn al-khaud it has held its ground as a work by Ash'arl since its appearance. Since M. Horten (1) and A. J. Wensinck (2), who called our attention to this work as proof of Ash'ari's endorsement of kaldm, there has been a ten- dency to minimize his traditionalism. Thus doubt has been cast on Ash'ari's authorship of the Ibdna (3); whereas no reason could be seen to doubt Ash'ari's rationalism as evidenced in his authorship of Istihsdn al-khaud or the Luma' (4). However, it will always be necessary to establish the authorship of a text, especially one attributed to Ash'arl, in view of the doubt which has been cast on his role in Ash'arism as it came to be known since Baqillanl. Admittedly, it is not a simple task to establish the authorship of a work in the case of so controversial an author as Ash'arl. Perhaps we shall never be able to achieve certainty Goldziher does not consider the Islihsdn when he makes of Ash'arI a thorough going Traditionalist. Wensinck sees in it the proof, along with JuwainI's des- cription, of Ash'arI's rationalism, which, when considered with his traditionalism based on his Ibdna, gives us two faces for one man. Schacht reconciles both views by seeing in Ash'arI ( a good Traditionalist who had himself admitted the legitimacy of reasoning in theology D (p. 34). What the Luma' contains of untra- ditionalist doctrines are not necessarily his own but rather those of the (Iorthodox Mu'tazila , (cf. p. 33). The doctrine of tanzih is a variant of the Mu'tazilite inter- pretation by metaphor (p. 34). In other words, Schacht accepts Ash'arI's authorship of the rationalistic Risdla and reconciles it with Ash'arI's traditiona- lism. We thus emerge with two new views : Mu'tazilites with traditionalist ten- dencies, and Ash'arl with a rationalist tendency. - Father Richard J. McCarthy has published the full text of Kitdb al-Luma', which is attributed to Ash'arI, in The Theology of Ash'arl, in which he also gives a very good outline of Ibn 'Asakir's Tabyin and a reprint of the text of Istihsdn al-khaud with his English translation of that work. (1) See Die philosophischen Systeme der spekulativen Theologen im Islam, 622 ff., where Horten finds that in concluding this work on speculative theologians in Islam, he could do no better than quote Ash'arI's treatise in vindication of kaldm (i. e., Istihsdn al-khaud) which he accepts as Ash'arI's without questioning the authenticity of authorship. (2) Wensinck, like Horten before him, did not raise the question of authorship regarding Istihsdn al-khaud; he simply accepted it as Ash'arI's work, and used it as proof of Ash'arI's adoption of ( kaldm as a method ,; see Wensinck, Muslim Creed, 93 and n. 2. (3) See Theology, 232. (4) Op. cit., p. xxvI and p. xxv, respectively. 22 GEORGE MAKDISI in the matter of each of his works. But the task is no less necessary for being difficult or for appearing hopeless. What must be avoided are the two extremes of textual criticism: credulity and hypercriticism.