Friday, July 31, 2009

The great defenders of reasons ,Mu'tazili school

Mu'tazili theology originated in the 8th century in Basra (Iraq) when Wasil ibn Ata (d. 131 A.H./748 A.D.) left the teaching lessons of al-Hasan al-Basri after a theological dispute regarding the issue of Al-Manzilah bayna al-Manzilatayn (described below); thus he, and his followers, including Amr ibn Ubayd (d. 144 A.H./ 761 A.D.), were labelled Mu'tazili [1]. Later, Mu'tazilis called themselves Ahl al-Tawhid wa al-'Adl ("People of Divine Unity and Justice") based on the theology they advocated, which sought to ground Islamic creedal system in reason.

Though Mu'tazilis later relied on logic and different aspects of early Islamic philosophy, Greek philosophy, and Hellenistic philosophy, the truths of Islam were their starting point and ultimate reference.[2] The accusations leveled against them by rival schools of theology that they gave absolute authority to extra-Islamic paradigms reflect more the fierce polemics between various schools of theology than any objective reality. For instance, Mu'tazilis adopted unanimously the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, contrary to certain Muslim philosophers who, with the exception of al-Kindi, believed in the eternity of the world in some form or another.[3] It was usually Muslim philosophers, not the Muslim theologians generally speaking, who took Greek and Hellenistic philosophy as a starting point and master conceptual framework for analyzing and investigating reality.

From early days of Islamic civilization, and because of both internal factors including intra-Muslim conflicts and external factors including interfaith debates, several questions were being debated by Muslim theologians, such as whether the Qur'an was created or eternal, whether evil was created by God, the issue of predestination versus free will, whether God's attributes in the Qur'an were to be interpreted allegorically or literally, etc. Mu'tazili thought attempted to address all these issues.

[edit] Tenets

Mu'tazili tenets focus on the Five Principles:

(1) Al-Tawhid التوحيد - Divine Unity. Mu'tazilis believed in the absolute unity and oneness of God. In this regard, they are no different from the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Nevertheless, the different Muslim schools of theology have differed as to how to uphold Divine unity in a way that is consistent with the dictates of both scripture and sound reasoning — a task that is extremely sophisticated given that God is ontologically different and categorically distinct from nature, humans, and material causality. All attempts to talk about the Divine face the severe, perhaps utterly insurmountable, barrier of using limited human language to conceptualize the Transcendent.

One example: All Muslim schools of theology faced the dilemma of affirming Divine transcendence and Divine attributes, without falling into anthropomorphism on the one hand, or emptying Divine attributes, mentioned in scripture, of any concrete meaning on the other [4]. The Mu'tazili way of doing this was to deny the existence of attributes distinct from Divine essence. In other words, God is, for instance, omniscient, but He knows through His essence rather than by having separate knowledge apart from Him. This assertion was to avoid the multiplicity of co-eternals — something that may impugn the absolute unity and oneness of God, according to Mu'tazilis. In addition, they resorted to metaphorical interpretations of Qur'anic verses or Prophetic reports with seemingly anthropomorphic content. Many other Muslim theologians did likewise. Others opted for either abstaining from making judgments concerning these texts, or to affirm them "without knowing how."

The doctrine of Tawhid in the words of the Mu’tazili prominent scholar, chief justice Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmed (d. 415 A.H./1025 A.D.), in an original Mu’tazili work translated in Martin et al. (1997): It is the knowledge that God, being unique, has attributes that no creature shares with Him. This is explained by the fact that you know that the world has a creator (sani`) who created it and that: He existed eternally in the past and He cannot perish (fana'), while we exist after being non-existent, and we can perish. And you know that He was and is eternally all-powerful (qadir) and that impotence (al`ajz) is not possible for Him. And you know that He is omniscient of the past and present and that ignorance (jahl) is not possible for Him. And you know that He knows everything that was, everything that is, and how things that are not would be if they were. And you know that He is eternally in the past and future living (hayy), and that calamities and pain are not possible for Him. And you know that He sees visible things (mar'iyat), and perceives perceptibles, and that He does not have need of sense organs. And you know that He is eternally past and in future sufficient (ghani) and it is not possible for Him to be in need. And you know that He is not like physical bodies, and that it is not possible for Him to get up or down, move about, change, be composite, have a form, limbs and body members. And you know that He is not like the accidents of motion, rest, color, food or smells. And you know that He is One throughout eternity and there is no second beside Him, and that everything other than He is contingent, made, dependent (muhtaj), structured (mudabbar), and governed by someone/thing else. Thus, if you know all of that you know God's oneness.

(2) Al-'Adl العدل - Divine Justice. Facing the problem of existence of evil in the world, the Mu'tazilis pointed at the free will of human beings, so that evil was defined as something that stems from the errors in human acts. God does no evil, and He demands not from any human to perform any evil act. If man's evil acts had been from the will of God, then punishment would have been meaningless, as man performed God's will no matter what he did. Mu'tazilis did not deny the existence of suffering that goes beyond human abuse and misuse of their free will granted to them by God. In order to explain this type of "apparent" evil, Mu'tazilis relied on the Islamic doctrine of taklif — that life is a test for beings possessing free will, i.e., the capacity for choice.

Humans are required to have belief, iman, faith and conviction in and about God, and do good works, amal saleh, to have iman reflected in their moral choices, deeds, and relationship with God, fellow humans, and all creatures in this world. If everyone is healthy and wealthy, then there will be no meaning for the obligations imposed on humans to, for example, be generous, help the needy, and have compassion for the deprived and trivialized. The inequalities in human fortunes and the calamities that befell them are, thus, an integral part of the test of life. Everyone is being tested. The powerful, the rich, and the healthy are required to use all their powers and privileges to help those who suffer and to alleviate their suffering. In the Qiyamah (Judgment Day), they will be questioned about their response to Divine blessings and bounties they enjoyed in their lives. The less fortunate are required to patiently persevere and are promised a compensation for their suffering that, as the Qur'an puts it in 39:10, and as translated by Muhammad Asad, is "beyond all reckoning".

The test of life is specifically for adults in full possession of their mental faculties. Children may suffer, and are observed to suffer, given the nature of life but they are believed to be completely free from sin and liability. Divine justice is affirmed through the theory of compensation. All sufferers will be compensated. This includes non-believers and, more importantly, children who are destined to go to Paradise.

The doctrine of 'Adl in the words of 'Abd al-Jabbar [1]: It is the knowledge that God is removed from all that is morally wrong (qabih) and that all His acts are morally good (hasana). This is explained by the fact that you know that all human acts of injustice (zulm), transgression (jawr), and the like cannot be of His creation (min khalqihi). Whoever attributes that to Him has ascribed to Him injustice and insolence (safah) and thus strays from the doctrine of justice. And you know that God does not impose faith upon the unbeliever without giving him the power (al-qudra) for it, nor does He impose upon a human what he is unable to do, but He only gives to the unbeliever to choose unbelief on his own part, not on the part of God. And you know that God does not will, desire or want disobedience. Rather, He loathes and despises it and only wills obedience, which He wants and chooses and loves. And you know that He does not punish the children of polytheists (al-mushrikin) in Hellfire because of their fathers' sin, for He has said: “Each soul earns but its own due” (Qur'an 6:164); and He does not punish anyone for someone else's sin because that would be morally wrong (qabih), and God is far removed from such. And you know that He does not transgress His rule (hukm) and that He only causes sickness and illness in order to turn them to advantage. Whoever says otherwise has allowed that God is iniquitous and has imputed insolence to Him. And you know that, for their sakes, He does the best for all of His creatures, upon whom He imposes moral and religious obligations (yukallifuhum), and that He has indicated to them what He has imposed upon them and clarified the path of truth so that we could pursue it, and He has clarified the path of falsehood (tariq l-batil) so that we could avoid it. So, whoever perishes does so only after all this has been made clear. And you know that every benefit we have is from God; as He has said: “And you have no good thing that is not from Allah” (Qur'an 16:53); it either comes to us from Him or from elsewhere. Thus, when you know all of this you become knowledgeable about God's justice.

(3) Al-Wa'd wa al-Wa'id الوعد و الوعيد - Promise and Threat. This comprised questions on the Last day and the Qiyamah (Islamic Day of Judgment). According to 'Abd al-Jabbar (Martin et al., 1997): The doctrine of irreversible Divine promises and threats is the knowledge that God promises recompense (al-thawab) to those who obey Him and He threatens punishment to those who disobey Him. He will not go back on His word, nor can He act contrary to His promise and threat nor lie in what He reports, in contrast to what the Postponers (Murjites) hold.

(4) Al-Manzilah bayna al-Manzilatayn المنزلة بين المنزلتين - the intermediate position. That is, Muslims who commit grave sins and die without repentance are not considered as mu'mins (believers), nor are they considered kafirs (non-believers), but in an intermediate position between the two. The reason behind this is that a mu'min is, by definition, a person who has faith and conviction in and about God, and who has his/her faith reflected in his/her deeds and moral choices. Any shortcoming on any of these two fronts makes one, by definition, not a mu'min. On the other hand, one does not become a non-believer, for this entails, inter alia, denying the Creator — something not necessarily done by a committer of a grave sin. The fate of those who commit grave sins and die without repentance is Hell. Hell is not considered a monolithic state of affairs but as encompassing many degrees to accommodate the wide spectrum of human works and choices. Consequently, those in the intermediate position, though in Hell, would have a lesser punishment because of their belief and other good deeds. Mu'tazilites adopted this position as a middle ground between Kharijites and Murjites. In the words of 'Abd al-Jabbar, the doctrine of the intermediate position is (Martin et al., 1997): the knowledge that whoever murders, or fornicates (zana), or commits serious sins is a grave sinner (fasiq) and not a believer, nor is his case the same that of believers with respect to praise and attributing greatness, since he is to be cursed and disregarded. Nonetheless, he is not an unbeliever who can't be buried in our Muslim cemetery, or be prayed for, or marry a Muslim. Rather, he has an intermediate position, in contrast to the Seceders (Kharijites) who say that he is an unbeliever, or the Murjites who say that he is a believer.

(5) Al-amr bil ma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al munkar الأمر بالمعروف و النهي عن المنكر - advocating the good and forbidding the evil. 'Abd al-Jabbar said (Martin et al., 1997): Commanding the good is of two types. One of them is obligatory, which is commanding religious duties (al-fara'id) when someone neglects them (dayya`aha), and the other is supererogatory (al-nafila), which is commanding supererogatory acts of devotion when someone omits to do them (tarakaha). As for prohibiting evil, all of it is obligatory because all evil is ethically wrong (qabih). It is necessary, if possible, to reach a point where evil (al-munkar) does not occur in the easiest of circumstances or lead to something worse, for the goal is for evil simply not to happen. And, if it is possible to reach the point where good (al-ma`ruf) occurs in the easiest of circumstances, then preferring the difficult circumstances would be impermissible. Similarly, God has said: “If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel, make peace between them; but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight against the one who transgresses until he complies with the command of Allah; then, if he complies, make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who act fairly” (Qur'an 49:9). Thus, prohibiting evil is obligatory only if the view does not prevail that prohibiting a particular evil would lead to an increase in disobedience, and if a preference for what was harmful were not predominant. If such a view does prevail, prohibiting evil would not be obligatory, and avoiding it would be more appropriate.

[edit] Historical development

Like all other schools, Mu'tazilism developed over an extensive period of time. Abu al-Hudhayl al-'Allaf (d. 235 A.H./849 A.D.), who came a couple of generations after Wasil ibn 'Ata' and 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd, is considered the theologian who systematized and formalized Mu'tazilism in Basra (Martin et al., 1997). Another branch of the school found a home in Baghdad under the direction of Bishr ibn al-Mu'tamir (d. 210 A.H./825 A.D.).

As the number of Muslims increased throughout the Muslim empire, and in reaction to the excesses of so-called rationalism, theologians began to lose ground. The problem was exacerbated by the Mihna, the inquisition launched under the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (d. 218 A.H./833 A.D.). Mu'tazilis have been accused of being the instigators though it was the Caliph's own scheme (Nawas, 1994; Nawas, 1996; Cooperson 2005; Ess, 2006). The persecution campaign, regardless, cost them and theology in general the sympathy of the Muslim masses.

By the end of the ninth century, Mu'tazilis were subjected to vehement attacks from the traditionalists on one hand, and from the atheists, deists, philosophers, non-Muslim thinkers, etc. on the other. It is important to note that the traditionalists, as opposed to Mu'tazili rationalists, were not irrationalists. Both groups operated on the basis of some synthesis between reason and revelation. (See below for Mu'tazili view of the role and interaction of reason and revelation.) Jackson (2002) argued against the "fiction" of a strict traditionalist/rationalist dichotomy, and asserted instead that traditionalism and rationalism, in the Islamic context, should be regarded as "different traditions of reason."

In response to the attacks, Mu'tazili theologians refined and made more coherent and systematic their idea system. In Basra, this task was accomplished by the father and son team, Abu 'Ali al-Jubba'i (d. 303 A.H./915 A.D.) and Abu Hashim al-Jubba'i (d. 321 A.H./933 A.D.). The two differed on several issues and it was Abu Hashim who was to have the greatest influence on later scholars in Basra, including the prominent Abd al-Jabbar who became the most celebrated proponent of Mu'tazilism in the late tenth and early eleventh century (Martin et al., 1997). Mu'tazilism did not disappear from the Islamic intellectual life after the demise of 'Abd al-Jabbar, but it declined steadily and significantly. Many of the Mu'tazili doctrines and methodologies, nonetheless, survived in the other Islamic schools.

[edit] Theory of interpretation

Mu'tazilah relied on a synthesis between reason and revelation. That is, their rationalism operated in the service of scripture and Islamic theological framework. They, as the majority of Muslim jurist-theologians, validated allegorical readings of scripture whenever necessary. Justice 'Abd al-Jabbar (1965) said in his Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsa (The Explication of the Five Principles):

إن الكلام متى لم يمكن حمله على ظاهره و حقيقته، و هناك مجازان أحدهما أقرب و الآخر أبعد، فإن الواجب حمله على المجاز الأقرب دون الأبعد، لأن المجاز الأبعد من الأقرب كالمجاز مع الحقيقة، و كما لا يجوز فى خطاب الله تعالى أن يحمل على المجاز مع إمكان حمله على الحقيقة، فكذلك لا يحمل على المجاز الأبعد و هناك ما هو أقرب منه

The hermeneutic methodology proceeds as follows: if the literal meaning of an ayah (verse) is consistent with the rest of scripture, the main themes of the Qur'an, the basic tenets of the Islamic creed, and the well-known facts, then interpretation, in the sense of moving away from the literal meaning, is not justified. If a contradiction results from adopting the literal meaning, such as a literal understanding of the "hand" of God that contravenes His transcendence and the Qur'anic mention of His categorical difference from all other things, then an interpretation is warranted. In the above quote, Justice 'Abd al-Jabbar emphatically mentioned that if there are two possible interpretations, both capable of resolving the apparent contradiction created by literal understanding of a verse, then the interpretation closer to the literal meaning should take precedence, for the relationship between the interpretations, close and distant, becomes the same as the literal understanding and the interpretation.

Note: Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsah may be a paraphrase or supercommentary made by Abd al-Jabbar's student Mankdim (Gimaret, 1979).

[edit] First obligation

Mu'tazilis believed that the first obligation on humans, specifically adults in full possession of their mental faculties, is to use their intellectual power to ascertain the existence of God, and to become knowledgeable of His attributes. One must wonder about the whole existence, that is, about why something exists rather than nothing. If one comes to know that there is a being who caused this universe to exist, not reliant on anything else and absolutely free from any type of need, then one realizes that this being is all-wise and morally perfect. If this being is all-wise, then his very act of creation cannot be haphazard or in vain. One must then be motivated to ascertain what this being wants from humans, for one may harm oneself by simply ignoring the whole mystery of existence and, consequently, the plan of the Creator. This paradigm is known in Islamic theology as wujub al-nazar, i.e., the obligation to use one's speculative reasoning to attain ontological truths. About the "first duty," 'Abd al-Jabbar said (Martin et al., 1997): It is speculative reasoning (al-nazar) which leads to knowledge of God, because He is not known by the way of necessity (daruratan) nor by the senses (bi l-mushahada). Thus, He must be known by reflection and speculation.

The difference between Mu'tazilis and other Muslim theologians is that Mu'tazilis consider al-nazar an obligation even if one does not encounter a fellow human being claiming to be a messenger from the Creator, and even if one does not have access to any alleged God-inspired or God-revealed scripture. On the other hand, the obligation of nazar to other Muslim theologians materializes upon encountering prophets or scripture.

[edit] Reason and revelation

The Mu'tazilis had a nuanced theory regarding reason, Divine revelation, and the relationship between them. They celebrated power of reason and human intellectual power. To them, it is the human intellect that guides a human to know God, His attributes, and the very basics of morality. Once this foundational knowledge is attained and one ascertains the truth of Islam and the Divine origins of the Qur'an, the intellect then interacts with scripture such that both reason and revelation come together to be the main source of guidance and knowledge for Muslims. Harun Nasution in the Mu'tazila and Rational Philosophy, translated in Martin (1997), commented on Mu'tazili extensive use of rationality in the development of their religious views saying: "It is not surprising that opponents of the Mu'tazila often charge the Mu'tazila with the view that humanity does not need revelation, that everything can be known through reason, that there is a conflict between reason and revelation, that they cling to reason and put revelation aside, and even that the Mu'tazila do not believe in revelation. But is it true that the Mu'tazila are of the opinion that everything can be known through reason and therefore that revelation is unnecessary? The writings of the Mu`tazila give exactly the opposite portrait. In their opinion, human reason is not sufficiently powerful to know everything and for this reason humans need revelation in order to reach conclusions concerning what is good and what is bad for them.

The Mu'tazili position on the roles of reason and revelation is well captured by what Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324 A.H./935 A.D.), the eponym of the Ash'ari school of theology, attributed to the Mu'tazili scholar Ibrahim an-Nazzam (d. 231 A.H./845 A.D.) (1969):

كل معصية كان يجوز أن يأمر الله سبحانه بها فهي قبيحة للنهي، وكل معصية كان لا يجوز أن يبيحها الله سبحانه فهي قبيحة لنفسها كالجهل به والاعتقاد بخلافه، وكذلك كل ما جاز أن لا يأمر الله سبحانه فهو حسن للأمر به وكل ما لم يجز إلا أن يأمر به فهو حسن لنفسه

That is, there are three classes of acts. The first is what the intellect is competent on its own to discover its morality. For instance, the intellect, according to Mu'tazilis, can know, independently of revelation, that justice and telling the truth (sidq) are morally good. God is under an ethical obligation to order humanity to abide by these. The second class of deeds is what the intellect can discover their inherent evil and ugliness (qubh), such as injustice, mendacity, or, according to al-Nazzam as reported in the above quote, being in a state of ignorance of the Creator. God cannot but prohibit these. The third class is comprised of the acts that the human intellect is incapable of assigning moral values to them. These are only known through revelation and they become known to be morally good if God orders them, or morally wrong if God forbids them. In short, the human intellect is capable of knowing what is right and what is wrong in a very general sense. Revelation comes from God to detail what the intellect summarizes, and to elaborate on the broad essentials. Revelation and reason complement each other and cannot dispense with one another.

In the above formulation, a problem emerged, which is rendering something obligatory on the Divine being — something that seems to directly conflict with Divine omnipotence. The Mu'tazili argument is predicated on absolute Divine power and self-sufficiency, however. Replying to a hypothetical question as to why God does not do that which is ethically wrong (la yaf`alu al-qabih), 'Abd al-Jabbar replied (as translated in Martin et al., 1997): Because He knows the immorality of all unethical acts and that He is self-sufficient without them…For one of us who knows the immorality of injustice and lying, if he knows that he is self-sufficient without them and has no need of them, it would be impossible for him to choose them, insofar as he knows of their immorality and his sufficiency without them. Therefore, if God is sufficient without need of any unethical thing it necessarily follows that He would not choose the unethical based on His knowledge of its immorality. Thus every immoral thing that happens in the world must be a human act, for God transcends doing immoral acts. Indeed, God has distanced Himself from that with His saying: “But Allah wills no injustice to His servants” (Qur’an 40:31), and His saying: “Verily Allah will not deal unjustly with humankind in anything” (Qur’an 10:44).

The thrust of `Abd al-Jabbar's argument is that acting immorally or unwisely stems from need and deficiency. One acts in a repugnant way when one does not know the ugliness of one's deeds, i.e., because of lack of knowledge, or when one knows but one has some need, material, psychological, or otherwise. Since God is absolutely self-sufficient (a result from the cosmological "proof" of His existence), all-knowing, and all-powerful, He is categorically free from any type of need and, consequently, He never does anything that is ridiculous, unwise, ugly, or evil.

The conflict between Mu'tazilis and Ash'aris concerning this point was a matter of the focus of obsession. Mu'tazilis were obsessed with Divine justice, whereas the Ash'aris were obsessed with Divine omnipotence. Nevertheless, Divine self-restraint in Mu'tazili discourse is because of, not a negation of, Divine omnipotence.

[edit] Validity of tradition

In the Islamic sciences, reports are classified into two types regarding their authenticity. The first type is diffusely recurrent (mutawatir) reports — those that have come down to later generations through a large number of chains of narration, involving diverse transmitters such that it is virtually impossible that all these people, living in different localities and espousing (at times radically) different views, would come together, fabricate the exact same lie and attribute it to the Prophet of Islam or any other authority. A large number of narrators is not a sufficient criterion for authenticating a report because people belonging to some sect or party may have an interest in fabricating reports that promote their agendas. The power of this mode of transmission, tawatur, rests on both the number and diversity of narrators at each stage of transmission. On the other hand, the authenticity of the second type of reports, those which do not meet the criteria for tawatur, is considered speculative.

'Abd al-Jabbar commented on the issue of reports saying (Martin et al., 1997): Mu'tazilis declare as true all that is established by mutawatir reports, by which we know what the Messenger of God has said. And that which was narrated by one or two transmitters only, or by one for whom error was possible, such reports are unacceptable in religions (al-diyanat) but they are acceptable in the proceedings of positive law (furu` l-fiqh), as long as the narrator is trustworthy, competent, just, and he has not contradicted what is narrated in the Qur'an.

Thus, the non-mutawatir reports are accepted by Mu'tazilis, according to 'Abd al-Jabbar, when it comes to the details or branches of law. When it comes to basic tenets, these reports are not considered authentic enough to establish a belief central to the Islamic faith. That is, the Mu'tazilis main issue is with reports of speculative authenticity that have a theological, rather than legal, content, when these seem to contravene the definitives of the Qur'an and rational proof. Since the doctrines that Mu'tazilis hated most were anthropomorphism and unqualified predestination (Ess, 2006), it were reports supporting these and resisting all hermeneutical attempts at harmonizing and reconciliation that were criticized and rejected by Mu'tazilis.

The great Ash'ari schhol

The Ashʿari theology (Arabic الأشاعرة al-asha`irah) is a school of early Muslim speculative theology founded by the theologian Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH / 936 AD). The disciples of the school are known as Ash'arites, and the school is also referred to as Ash'arite school.

It was instrumental in drastically changing the direction of Islamic theology, separating its development radically from that of theology in the Christian world.


Overview

In contrast to the Mutazilite school of Islamic theology, the Asharite view was that comprehension of unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human capability. And that, while man had free will, he had no power to create anything. It was a taqlid ("faith" or "imitation") based view which did not assume that human reason could discern morality. This doctrine is now known as occasionalism. However, a critical spirit of inquiry was far from absent in the Asharite school. Rather, what they lacked, was a trust in reason itself, separate from a moral code, to decide what experiments or what knowledge to pursue.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Asharites (or "traditionalists") were not completely traditionalist and anti-rationalist, nor were the Mutazilites (or "rationalists") completely rationalist and anti-traditionalist, as the Asharites did depend on rationality and the Mutazilites did depend on tradition. Their goals were the same, to affirm the transcendence and unity of God, but their doctrines were different, with the Asharites supporting an Islamic occasionalist doctrine and the Mutazilites supporting an Islamic metaphysics influenced by Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism. For Asharites, taqlid only applied to the Islamic tradition and not to any other, whereas for Mutazilites, taqlid applied equally to both the Islamic and Aristotelian-Neoplatonic traditions. In his introduction to Al-Ghazālī’s The Decisive Criterion of Distinction Between Unbelief and Masked Infidelity, Sherman Jackson writes:[1]

Meanwhile, rationalist writings reflect a clear and sustained recognition of the authority of the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tradition, including the propriety of following it by way of taqlīd. Traditionalists, on the other hand, use reason – even aspects of Aristotelian reason – but they do not recognize the tradition of Aristotelian reason as an ultimate authority.

Factors affecting the spread of the school of thought include a drastic shift in historical initiative, foreshadowing the later loss of Muslim Spain and Columbus' landing in the Western Hemisphere - both in 1492. But the decisive influence was most likely that of the new Ottoman Empire, which found the Asharite views politically useful, and were to a degree taking the advantages of Islamic technologies, sciences, and openness for granted. Which, for some centuries after as the Ottomans pushed forth into Europe, they were able to do - losing those advantages gradually up until The Enlightenment when European innovation finally surpassed and eventually overwhelmed that of the Muslims.

[edit] Promoting figures

[edit] Al-Ash'ari

Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari was noted for his teachings on atomism, among the earliest Islamic philosophies, and for al-Ash'ari this was the basis for propagating a deterministic view that Allah created every moment in time and every particle of matter. Thus cause and effect was an illusion. He nonetheless believed in free will, elaborating the thoughts of Dirar ibn Amr' and Abu Hanifa into a "dual agent" or "acquisition" (iktisab) account of free will.[2]

While al-Ash'ari was opposed to the views of the Mu'tazili school for its over-emphasis on reason, he was also opposed to the views of certain orthodox schools such as the Zahiri (literalist), Mujassimite (anthropomorphist) and Muhaddithin (traditionalist) schools for their over-emphasis on taqlid (imitation) in his Istihsan al‑Khaud:[3]

"A section of the people (i.e., the Zahirites and other orthodox people) made capital out of their own ignorance; discussions and rational thinking about matters of faith became a heavy burden for them, and, therefore, they became inclined to blind faith and blind following (taqlid). They condemned those who tried to rationalize the principles of religion as `innovators.' They considered discussion about motion, rest, body, accident, colour, space, atom, the leaping of atoms, and attributes of God, to be an innovation and a sin. They said that had such discussions been the right thing, the Prophet and his Companions would have definitely done so; they further pointed out that the Prophet, before his death, discussed and fully explained all those matters which were necessary from the religious point of view, leaving none of them to be discussed by his followers; and since he did not discuss the problems mentioned above, it was evident that to discuss them must be regarded as an innovation."

[edit] Al-Ghazali

Despite being named after Ash'ari, the most influential work of this school's thought was The Incoherence of the Philosophers, by the Persian polymath al-Ghazali (d. 1111). He was a pioneer of the methods of doubt and skepticism,[4] and he changed the course of early Islamic philosophy, shifting it away from an Islamic metaphysics influenced by ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy, and towards an Islamic philosophy based on cause-and-effect that were determined by God or intermediate angels, a theory now known as occasionalism.

He is famous for defending the theory of occasionalism using logic. Al-Ghazali famously claimed that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire, a claim which he defended using logic. He argued that because God is usually seen as rational, rather than arbitrary, his behaviour in normally causing events in the same sequence (ie, what appears to us to be efficient causation) can be understood as a natural outworking of that principle of reason, which we then describe as the laws of nature. Properly speaking, however, these are not laws of nature but laws by which God chooses to govern his own behaviour (his autonomy, in the strict sense) - in other words, his rational will.

Al-Ghazali nevertheless expresses support for a scientific methodology based on demonstration and mathematics, while discussing astronomy. After describing the scientific facts of the solar eclipse resulting from the Moon coming between the Sun and Earth and the lunar eclipse from the Earth coming between the Sun and Moon, he writes:[1]

Whosoever thinks that to engage in a disputation for refuting such a theory is a religious duty harms religion and weakens it. For these matters rest on demonstrations, geometrical and arithmetical, that leave no room for doubt.

Ibn Rushd (Averroes), a philosopher, famously responded that "to say that philosophers are incoherent is itself to make an incoherent statement." Ibn Rushd's book, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, attempted to refute Al-Ghazali's views. Though the work was not well received in the Muslim community, Averroism went on to have a profound influence in European thought.[5]

Al-Ghazali also wrote The Revival of the Religious Sciences in Islam, a cornerstone of the Ashari school's thinking.[citation needed] It combined theology, skepticism, mysticism, Islam and other conceptions, discussed in depth in the article on Islamic philosophy.

[edit] Other figures

Other works of universal history from al-Tabari, al-Masudi, Ibn al-Athir, and Ibn Khaldun himself, were quite influential in what we now call archaeology and ethnology. They worked in a relatively modern style that historians of the present would recognize.

[edit] Influence and modern assessment

The influence of the Asharites is still hotly debated today. It was commonly believed that the Asharites put an end to philosophy as such in the Muslim world, with the death of Averroes at the end of the 12th century. While philosophy did indeed decline in the western Islamic world (Al-Andalus and the Maghreb), recent research has shown that philosophy continued long after in the eastern Islamic world (Persia and India), where the Avicennian, Illuminationist and Sufi schools predominated, until Islamic philosophy reached its zenith with Mulla Sadra's existentialist school of transcendent theosophy in the 17th century.[8][9]

The 12th to 14th centuries marked the peak of innovation in Muslim civilization, and this continued through to the 16th century. During this period many remarkable achievements in science, engineering and social organization were made, while the ulema began to generate a fiqh based on taqlid ("imitation based on authority") rather than on the old ijtihad. Eventually, however, modern historians think that lack of improvements in basic processes and confusion with theology and law degraded methods. The rigorous means by which the Asharites had reached their conclusions were largely forgotten by Muslims before the Renaissance, due in large part to the success of their effort to subordinate inquiry to a prior ethics - and assume ignorance was the norm for humankind.

Modern commentators blame or laud Asharites for curtailing much of the Islamic world's innovation in sciences and technology, then leading the world. This innovation was not in general revived in the West until the Renaissance, and emergence of scientific method - which was based on traditional Islamic methods of ijtihad and isnad (backing or scientific citation).[citation needed] The Asharites did not reject these, amongst the ulema or learned, but they stifled these in the mosque and discouraged their application by the lay public.

The Asharites may have succeeded in laying the groundwork for a stable empire, and for subordinating philosophy as a process to fixed notions of ethics derived directly from Islam - perhaps this even improved the quality of life of average citizens. But it seems the historical impact was to yield the initiative of Western civilization to Christians in Europe.

Others, however, argue that the Asharites not only did not reject scientific methods, but indeed promoted them. Ziauddin Sardar points out that some of the greatest Muslim scientists, such as Ibn al-Haytham and Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī who were pioneers of scientific method, were themselves followers of the orthodox Ash'ari school of Islamic theology.[6] Like other Asharites who believed that faith or taqlid should only apply to Islam and not to any ancient Hellenistic authorities,[1] Ibn al-Haytham's view that taqlid should only apply to prophets of Islam and not to any other authorities formed the basis for much of his scientific skepticism and criticism against Ptolemy and other ancient authorities in his Doubts Concerning Ptolemy and Book of Optics.


Tuesday, June 16, 2009

(The Demonstration of the Truth-in English)The infamous book , that inspired Ahmed Deedat

The Demonstration of the Truth'

By

Rahmatullah Kairanvi [1864]




six-volume book was later summarized into English

Contents

  • Part 1: The Books of the Bible
    • The Divisions Of The New Testament
    • Review Of The Books By the Councils
    • The Books Rejected By The Protestants
    • The Absence Of Certainty In The Bible
    • The Present Pentateuch Is Not The Book Of Moses
    • Errors In The Calculation Of The Israelites's Number
    • Status Of The Books In The Old Testament
    • The New Testament And The Status Of The Four Gospels
    • The Epistles And The Revelation
  • Part 2: Contradictions and Errors in the Biblical Text
    • Contradictions 1 - 119
    • Errors 1 - 110
  • Part 3: Distortion and Abrogation in the Bible. The Trinity Refuted
    • The Biblical Texts : Are they revealed
      • The Arguments
      • Distortions
      • The Admission of Christian Scholars
      • The Opinion of Encyclopaedia Britannica
      • Watson’s Admission
      • Beausobre and Lenfant’s opinion
      • The Views of Christian Scholars on Pentateuch
      • The Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation
      • The Admission of Clement
      • Admissions of Protestant Scholars
      • Admissions of German Scholars
      • Views on the Subject of the Chronicles
      • The Muslim Attitude towards the Gospels
    • The Opinion Of The Muslim Scholar
      • The Opinion of Imam Ar-Razi
      • The Opinion of Imam Al-Qurtubi
      • The Opinion of Al-Maqrizi
      • Two Claims to the Aunthintcity of the Gospels
      • Answer the First Claim
      • The Source of Clement's Letter
      • The Second Passage of Clement's Letter
      • The Third Passage of Clement's Letter
      • The Letters of Ignatius
      • The Cannons of Nicaea
      • Answer to the Second Clain to the Authenticity of the Gospels
      • The Gospel of Luke was Not Seen by Paul
    • Human Distortion of the Bible
      • Alterations in the Text of the Bible
      • Alterations 1 - 14
      • First Conclusion to Sixth Conclusion
      • Alterations 15 - 32
      • Additions to the Text of the Bible
      • Distortion in Luther’s Translation
      • Omissions in the Text of the Bible
    • Refutation of Misleading Protestant Statements Regarding the Authenticity of the Bible
      • First Contention
      • Observations of Non-Christian Scholars
      • Observations of Heretical Christian Scholars
      • Observations of Christians Theologians
      • Second Contention
      • The Fourth Answer
      • Third Contention
      • Fourth Contention
      • Historicity of the Bible
      • The Fifth Contention
  • Part 4: Authenticity of The Holy Traditions. Authenticity of Hadith and The Holy Quran
    • Chapter One: The Holy QUR’AN
    • Chapter Two: Christians Objections To The Holy QUR’AN
    • Chapter Three: Authenticity of The Holy Traditions (HADITH)
      • The Status of Oral Tradition in the Bible
      • The Gospels and Oral Tradition
      • What Protestant Scholars say
      • A Historical View of the Hadith Collections
download:

http://www.mediafire.com/?fmygqyzj4z2

Sunday, June 14, 2009

التأثير المسيحي في علم التفسير - د مصطفى بو هندي -Exposing&refuting The christian influence on the science of Tafsir

هذا عنوان رسالة علمية نال بها الدكتور مصطفى بوهندي درجة الدكتوراه في العقيدة ومقارنة الأديان من كلية الآداب والعلوم الإنسانية بجامعة الحسن الثاني بالمحمدية، المغرب للسنة الدراسية 1419/1420هـ، و.

يعدّ هذا البحث محاولة جادّة من صاحبه للتنقيب في كتب التفسير عن الدخيل من الإسرائيليات وثقافات أهل الكتاب. ويتسم أسلوب الباحث بجرأة كبيرة على نقد النصوص، وغيرة واضحة على سلامة النص القرآني مما يراه الباحث خطأ في الفهم والتأويل، كما ينم ذلك الأسلوب عن ثقة الباحث الكبيرة فيما تكون لديه من آراء في فهم نصوص القرآن الكريم، جعلته يتكلم بمنطق الذي استوعب معاني تلك النصوص وتكشّفت له أسرارها وخباياها، وهو الأمر الذي جعل أسلوبه يتّسم بحماسة واضحة في عرض ما تبنّاه من آراء أو توصّل إليه بفهمه وتفنيد كل ما يخالفه. قسّم الباحث رسالته إلى أربعة أبواب: الأول عن مقدمات في أصول التفسير، والثاني عن الألوهية والنبوة، والثالث عن المعاد، والرابع عن القضاء والقدر والحكمة والتعليل.
وقد لخص الباحث في المقدمة السؤال المحوري لبحثه في: "إلى أي حد استطاع علم التفسير أن يعين القارئ على التعامل الجيد مع النص القرآني" (ص1)، حيث يرى "أن ما يوجد في كتب التفسير والتراث من عقائد ومفاهيم وأفكار منحرفة مأخوذة عن الإسرائيليات، لم يكن سببه هو ما راج في المجتمع الإسلامي من هذه العقائد والأفكار والمفاهيم فقط، وإنما يرجع وبشكل أساسي إلى العلوم الإسلامية نفسها، وعلى رأسها علم التفسير، حيث ساهمت بقواعدها وأصولها ومناهجها ومصادرها ورجالاتها في رواية هذه الأخبار والترويج لها وتزكيتها وتقديسها ورفعها إلى درجة النص النازل من السماء، بل إلى درحة تأطير النص القرآني نفسه، فلا يُفهم إلا في ضوئها"



لا شك أن البحث محاولة جريئة لنقد التراث التفسيري، وهي محاولات مطلوبة في الأصل ولا ينبغي الحجر عليها، وقد أصاب الباحث في مواضع من نقده للتراث التفسيري، وأخطأ في أخرى.

http://rapidshare.com/files/244569500/alta2ther_almasi7i.pdf.html

Download ALL classic Quran tafseers here




Let's begin with the greatest ,most profound Tafsirs


تفسير الفخر الرازي1
وهو أكبر تفسير بالرأي والمعقول ويذكر فيه المؤلف مناسبة السورة مع غيرها ويذكر المناسبات بين الآيات ويستطرد في العلوم الكونية ويتوسع بها كما يذكر المسائل الأصولية والنحوية والبلاغية والاستنباطات العقلية


http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/alraaazi.zip


2- "تفسير المنار لعلامة الدهر ومصلح العصر - محمد رشيد رضا


جاء القرآن الكريم حاوياً لأحكام الشريعة الإسلامية مبيناً لها أحسن ما يكون التبيين، وقد تلقفه الصحابة على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالفهم والحفظ، فعملوا بأوامره وانتهوا عمّا نها عنه وكانوا يعودون إلى الرسول الكريم صلى الله عليه وسلم ليبين لهم ما أشكل عليهم أو ما تعسر عليهم فهمه ، فكانت السنة المطهرة مؤكدة ومبنية وموضحة لكل ما ورد في القرآن من أحكام.

وما أن بعدت المسافة بين الناس وبين الصحابة وتابعيهم وتابعي التابعين، ومع دخول الأعاجم في الإسلام واتساع الدولة الإسلامية وشيوع الضعف في لغة العرب بما خالطها من لغات العجم ولهجاتهم، حتى شق الكثيرين من أبناء العروبة والإسلام أن يفهموا مقاصد الشرع ومعاني السور والآيات وأبح أمر إيضاح معاني القرآن وتفسيره ملقى على عاتق العلماء والفقهاء الذين حياهم الله من فضله ما جعلهم ورثة للأنبياء بحق فتصدوا لهذه المهمة بصدق وبهمة، فجاءت كتبهم مفسرة لكتاب الله العزيز مبينة لأحكامه.

وقد حفلت بعض هذه التفسيرات بالكثير من الإسرائيليات التي أقحمت على الإسلام وأخذها البعض على أنها حقيقة مسلمة لاجدال فيها. وقد عمد العلامة الشيخ محمد رشيد رضا إلى جمع ما تناثر هنا وهناك من دروس أستاذه الشيخ الإمام محمد عبده في التفسير فجمعها في التفسير المسمى بتفسير المنار وهو تفسير شامل جامع لصحيح المأثور وصريح المعقول، وازن مبين ما عليه المسلمون اليوم وبين متطلبات التشريع العظيمة التي جاء بها الكتاب المبين وقد راعى المؤلف في تفسيره هذا سهولة العبارة وطلاوتها ولم يثقل على القارئ بذكر المصطلحات والعبارات التي لا يدرك مععناها إلا المشتغلون بهذا الفن، وقد جعله في إثني عشر كتاباً بتفسير فاتحة القرآن الكريم مبيناً وجوه الإعجاز في آيات الله من حيث الأسلوب والبلاغة وبما فيه من علم الغيب، وسلامته من الإختلاف، موضحاً وجه دلالة القرآن على نبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم.

من أوسع كتب التفسير حظاً وأكثرها رواجاً. لم يصنف مثله قبله كما قال ابن خلكان.
قال السيوطي في (نواهد الأبكار) عند حديثه عن أصحاب النظر في وجوه إعجاز القرآن: (وصاحب الكشاف هو سلطان هذه الطريقة، فلذا طار كتابه في أقصى المشرق والمغرب).

ألفه في مكة سنة (526هـ) لأميرها: ابن وهاس الحسني، ونعت هذه النسخة بالنسخة الحرمية المباركة المتمسح بها، المحقوقة أن تستنزل بها بركات السماء، ويستمطر بها في السنة الشهباء. انظر (منهج الزمخشري في تفسير القرآن، ص76) د. مصطفى الصاوي الجويني، وفيه (ص261) حول ما أثاره الكشاف من نشاط فكري.

Excellent work - A classic Qur'anic exgesis by a great scholar of the early 20th Century. This is a rare edition that has long been out of print.

http://www.archive.org/details/tfseer_manar




تفسير لم يسبق مؤلفه إليه، لما أبان فيه من وجوه الإعجاز في غير ما آية من القرآن، ولما أظهر فيه من جمال النظم القرآني وبلاغته، وليس كالزمخشري من يستطيع أن يكشف لنا عن جمال القرآن وسحر بلاغته، لما برع فيه من المعرفة بكثير من العلوم، لاسيما ما برز فيه من الإلمام بلغة العرب، والمعرفة بأشعارهم، وما امتاز به من الإحاطة بعلوم البلاغة، والبيان، والإعراب، والأدب، ولقد أضفى هذا النبوغ العلمي والأدبي على تفسير الكشاف ثوباً جميلاً لفت إليه أنظار العلماء وعلق به قلوب المفسرين. ن قيمة الكتاب إذاً تبرز من خلال علمين مختصين بالقرآن الكريم وهما: علم المعاني، وعلم البيان، وبهما برع الزمخشري حتى أصبح سلطان هذا الفن، فلذا طار كتابه إلى أقصى المشرق والمغرب .



http://s203995553.onlinehome.us/waqfeya/books/21/12/kshaf.rar



روح المعاني في تفسير القرآن العظيم والسبع المثاني للعلامة الألوسي4


كتاب جمع بين التفسير بالمأثور والتفسير بالمعقول ، فاشتمل على آراء السلف رواية ودراية ، وأقوال الخلف بأمانة وعناية ، فجمع خلاصة التفاسير السابقة ، وبين فيه أسباب النزول ، والمناسبة بين السور ، والمناسبات بين الآيات , وعرض لذكر القراءات ، ويستشهد بأشعار العرب ، ويعتني بالآيات الكونية ، والإعراب والنحو ، ويبين أقوال الفقهاء وأدلتهم في آيات الأحكام


http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/rooh%20almaani.zip



تفسير الطبري 5-


http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/TF_%20altbri3.zip


تفسير القرطبي 6-


http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/alkortobi6.zip


7-
تفسير ابن كثير ( تفسير القرأن العظيم


http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/ebn-kahteer3.zip




http://www.archive.org/details/alhelawy03


الوجيز في تفسير الكتاب العزيز للواحدي9-
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/alwahdi.zip)



10
الكشف والبيان في تفسير القرآن للثعلبي
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/alkshf%20walbyan.zip)



11
تفسير البغوي ( معالم التنزيل )
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/al%20bkawi%20m.zip)


12
فتح القدير للشوكاني
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/fath%20alkader.zip)


13
تفسير القرآن الكريم للشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/othimin.zip)


14
الدر المنثور (جلال الدين السيوطي)
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/dor.zip)



15
تفسير الجلالين (جلال الدين السيوطي)
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/galalein3.zip)




16
البحر المحيط ( أبو حيان الأندلسي)
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/muheet.zip)




17
زاد المسير في علم التفسير ( ابن الجوزي)
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/zaad%20almseer.zip)



18
تفسير إبن أبي حاتم
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/hateem_t.zip)



19
تفسير السمعاني
تحميل (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/alsmaani_t.zip














A chapter of my book (A critical study of Old&new testament prophecies),الفصل الاول من كتابى دراسة نقدية لنبؤات العهدين القديم والجديد

جزء من دراستى النقدية لنبؤات العهدين القديم والجديد


http://rapidshare.com/files/1237457/proph.rar

Saturday, June 13, 2009

peace be upon you

peace be upon you



I intend to post all the rare and interesting Islamic books in that blog inshaAllah


Fi aman Allah