Classical Islamic Theology

[SalamKhan]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

Allah knows, whether this is the right time to start such a topic, for I myself am still a student of knowledge and novice in this science.

I will start off by asking, what do you know about Classical Islamic theology, and would you like to know (more) about it?

 

[SalamKhan]

What is Sunni Islam’s relationship with Sufism, and what is its view of the mystic, Mansur Al-Hallaj?

Sufism is accepted and encouraged, but can only be based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Modern perennialist Sufism is rejected, and Batini Sufism (esoteric Sufism which absolves the elite from practicing Islam) is rejected.

From ‘Correct Islamic Doctrine’ (Al-`Aqida al-Sahiha) by Ibn Khafif:

1. Prophethood is greater than sainthood, but prophethood cannot be obtained through effort.

1. Freedom from the bond of servanthood is null and void, but freedom from the bond of egotism is possible. Servanthood can never be cancelled out.

Ibn Khafif however, was one of the rare few who considered Mansur al Hallaj to be orthodox (after having met him personally), whereas the overwhelming majority are agreed that Mansur al Hallaj was a heretic.

And Allah knows best.

 

[SalamKhan]

If I were to become Muslim (which I really want to do), I would probably be a heretic. How would that factor into my relationship with Sunni Islam, especially if I wanted to do the Hajj?

What makes you believe you would be a heretic, friend?

 

[SalamKhan]

I go out of my way to be a heretic in whatever setting I’m in.

Ah, I just realised who is asking these questions. If your enquiries are genuine, then please keep the questions related to orthodoxy, not to how you can justify “going out of your way to be a heretic”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

Allah knows, whether this is the right time to start such a topic, for I myself am still a student of knowledge and novice in this science.

I will start off by asking, what do you know about Classical Islamic theology, and would you like to know (more) about it?

Since Islam is within itself divided equally, if not more so than protestantism, how can one really know orthodoxy from heterodoxy?

 

[Latias]

As salamu alaykum, SalamKhan.

What is the classical view on ocassionalism?

How many classical Islamic scholars neglected natural law in favor of divine positivism? I ask because I loved this article (although I only read it once).

How compatible Islam is with Hume’s moral philosophy?

 

[Latias]

Also, is watching and listening to this video haram?

I love Max’s windup and eyes. Up to 3:20 is Rush’s “Limelight”.

 

[HCTC]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

Allah knows, whether this is the right time to start such a topic, for I myself am still a student of knowledge and novice in this science.

I will start off by asking, what do you know about Classical Islamic theology, and would you like to know (more) about it?

Do you believe that the Prophet Muhammad was a descendent of Ishmael the first born son of Abraham and Hagar the Egyptian slave of Abraham’s wife Sarah?

 

[SalamKhan]

Since Islam is within itself divided equally, if not more so than protestantism, how can one really know orthodoxy from heterodoxy?

That is a false assertion. And the answer is aql (intellect) and naql (transmission). Classical Ashari theologians, such as Imam Ghazali, answered the likes of the Ismailis who insisted on the necessity of an infallible teaching authority.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That is a false assertion. And the answer is aql (intellect) and naql (transmission). Classical Ashari theologians, such as Imam Ghazali, answered the likes of the Ismailis who insisted on the necessity of an infallible teaching authority.

So either whatever sect you are thinks the others are intellectually lacking, or failed to receive transmission?

 

[SalamKhan]

As salamu alaykum, SalamKhan.

What is the classical view on ocassionalism?

How many classical Islamic scholars neglected natural law in favor of divine positivism? I ask because I loved this article (although I only read it once).

How compatible Islam is with Hume’s moral philosophy?

More from ‘Correct Islamic Doctrine’ (Al-`Aqida al-Sahiha) of Ibn Khafif:

1. Things do not act of their own nature. Neither does water quench thirst, nor does bread sate hunger, nor does fire burn, but Allah creates satedness simultaneously with eating, and hunger at other times. Likewise, drinking is the drinker’s doing while quenchedness is from Allah, and killing is the killer’s doing while death is from Allah.

Demonstration of this is from the account of Ibrahim (A), when his people sought to harm him by throwing him into fire, but the fire did not burn him.

To answer your second question (from the same source):

1. Reason alone cannot determine right and wrong. It is the Law that holds sway over reason (in determining the licit and the unlawful).

In Sha Allah, I will answer your third question when I get the time. Thank you for asking relevant questions.

 

[Ontheway]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

Allah knows, whether this is the right time to start such a topic, for I myself am still a student of knowledge and novice in this science.

I will start off by asking, what do you know about Classical Islamic theology, and would you like to know (more) about it?

Is there a non-classical Islamic theology that would be distinct from the classical?

 

[SalamKhan]

Is there a non-classical Islamic theology that would be distinct from the classical?

Theology (kalam) started to decline in the later period (and to this very day). And because of this, creed (aqeedah) was more influenced by the Muhadditheen (scholars of tradition), rather than by the Mutakallimun (theologians). Something else worth noting is that, later Ashari theology (kalam) is much more simpler compared to classical Ashari theology, which is not a bad thing, but classical Asha`ri theologians had a lot more intellectual and ideological opponents; so it’s easy to see why it was a lot more in depth.

The main texts of the later Ashari theologians would be the creed of Imam Sanusi and its commentaries. A good introduction to later Ashari theology is The Essential Islamic Creed and after that I would recommend reading A Refined Explanation of the Sanusi Creed. It might be a good idea to read these first as an introduction to Ashari theology in general if you're planning to study classical Ashari theology in depth, due to the difficulty of the classical works.

The classical period ended when the Caliphate finally came to an end, after the Mongols sacked Baghdad. Theological works from the classical period are vast, and I have only read a few of them. Ashari theologians from this period were Imam al Haramayn al Juwayni, Imam Abu Hamid al Ghazali, Imam al Bayhaqi, Imam al Shahrastani, Abu Mansur al Baghdadi, Fakhr ad Din Razi, Imam al Baydawi (whose works reflect classical Ashari theology), etc.

 

[SalamKhan]

So either whatever sect you are thinks the others are intellectually lacking, or failed to receive transmission?

If your questions are genuine then see the following:

Baydawi said:

b. Argumentation structured on authoritative tradition

In the second [form of argumentation, that is, argumentation structured upon the basis of authoritative tradition, proof demonstration is premised on]

1. that which has been transmitted validly

1. from those whose truthfulness has been recognized intellectually, namely, the prophets, peace be upon them. However, this [authoritative tradition] provides us with a conviction of certainty only
   (1.) when it is transmitted to us [by a line of witnesses] in a succession without interruption, and
   (2.) [when] we know that those who narrated this history in Arabic have been preserved from error, [their records] lacking homonymous ambiguity, figurative language, concealed meanings, and peculiar idioms, [as well as] slanderous gossip, cancellations [of divine statements], and any intellectual inconsistency.

[Indeed], if there should be anything [of such an inconsistency], then [that factor] would gradually gain preponderance [in the balance of judgment]. [This would be true] because the intellect is the source of authoritative tradition. Therefore, it would be an absurdity to deny the source as false in order to give a judgmental assent to some derived corollary, because the necessary implication [of the primary action] requires denying [the secondary action] as false.

Baydawi said:

2. Sound logical reasoning is sufficient for knowledge of God

Sound logical reasoning is sufficient for knowledge of God, and there is no need here for a teacher, [the principles] we have set forth being a proof demonstration of its truth.

The Ismailiyah present an [opposing] argument with the following points.

a. Contradiction and disputation persist among thinking people in this matter, and so if the intellect were sufficient then that would not be the case.
b. Moreover, man does not find it a trifling matter to achieve mastery of the least demanding of the sciences, and so how [will it be] with the most difficult?

a.—a. The reply to the first point is that if [thinking people] had used sound logic then that situation would not have befallen them.
b.-a. The difficulty [of mastering the sciences] is granted; and there is no doubt that if there had been a teacher to instruct [mankind] in the first principles [of knowledge] and in the building of rational arguments, as well as in removing doubts and specious argument, then it would have been more agreeable. However, the disputation is only about the impossibility [of the enterprise].

Also, read this book.

Watch this video, and be sure to watch part 2 mentioned in the description.

Finally, watch this video, from 8 minutes until 1 hour 15 minutes, and then finally from 1 hour 54 minutes onwards (as there is a long break between the time periods I mentioned).

I will not answer anymore questions on this matter until you have read and watched everything in this post.

 

[HCTC]

I would like for you please to answer a question that it will not be necessary to read a book or watch a video to understand. According to “classical Islamic theology” is the Prophet Muhammad a descendent of Ishmael the first born son of Abraham (Ibrahim) and Hagar? According to “classical Islamic theology” are Abraham and Ishmael themselves prophets?

 

[SalamKhan]

I would like for you please to answer a question that it will not be necessary to read a book or watch a video to understand. According to “classical Islamic theology” is the Prophet Muhammad a descendent of Ishmael the first born son of Abraham (Ibrahim) and Hagar? According to “classical Islamic theology” are Abraham and Ishmael themselves prophets?

That’s a matter of creed (aqeedah), and the answer is yes to those questions. I don’t understand why you needed an answer from me specifically, for an elementary level question of creed. This view is held unanimously by Muslims, whether they are Mutakallimun, Muhadditheen or laymen. It’s not specifically related to classical theology (kalam).

Edit- If your question was genuine, then I apologise if I may have seemed to come across as rude, but I was confused by the subject matter of your question on the topic of classical theology.

 

[HCTC]

That’s a matter of creed (aqeedah), and the answer is yes to those questions. I don’t understand why you needed an answer from me specifically, for an elementary level question of creed. This view is held unanimously by Muslims, whether they are Mutakallimun, Muhadditheen or laymen. It’s not specifically related to classical theology (kalam).

Edit- If your question was genuine, then I apologise if I may have seemed to come across as rude, but I was confused by the subject matter of your question on the topic of classical theology.

Thank you for your answer. After some reflection, I did realize that I might need to rephrase my question. I in no way intended to be be rude. I did think that maybe you were being dismissive of my particular question- which is what caused me to reconsider how I had phrased the question.

I did not know, and I find it very interesting that the view expressed in my question “is held unanimously by Muslims” - Sunni, Shi’a, Sufi, et al - because it is encouraging to me that this particular matter is a shared, very basic stable datum for you. In my humble opinion, it is a particularly significant shared belief for all of Islam because Abraham is a prophet to all of Christianity (as far as I know) and Judaism as well. In this sense we are family; we are all children Ibrahim - as well as children of God. That should inform how we treat each other.

For me, understanding Islam is about understanding Muslims and offering myself to be understood so that we are able to be more comfortable, kind, and charitable to each other. I have a follow up question, but first I am wondering if you have a question of me.

 

[Wesrock]

More from ‘Correct Islamic Doctrine’ (Al-`Aqida al-Sahiha) of Ibn Khafif:

Demonstration of this is from the account of Ibrahim (A), when his people sought to harm him by throwing him into fire, but the fire did not burn him.

To answer your second question (from the same source):

In Sha Allah, I will answer your third question when I get the time. Thank you for asking relevant questions.

Is this the majority or consensus view in Islam? Classical Christianity has supported the view that things behave according to their nature, that this is inherent in a given thing. Is that contrary to all Islamic theology?

 

[Captain_America]

I have a difficult time taking anything Islam seriously: they started out with a screwy, wrong, messed up understanding of Christianity and embroidered plenty from there.

Mormons are increasingly questioning the odd aspects in their history and moving away from their belief.

In 2017, with the internet and plenty of communications, I expect muslims to do the same: to find their faith less credible than before.

 

[HCTC]

In 2017, with the internet and plenty of communications, I expect muslims to do the same: to find their faith less credible than before.

In my humble opinion, having expecations regarding the religion of others is doomed to end in disappointment for you.