Kalaam in Islam
Within the Dawah [calling and proselytising people to Islam] space an old conflict is re-brewing.
At a high level, the house (the traditionalists) are against what they perceive as the Westernisation of Islam itself.
Context
The Sunni sect of Islam makes up around 87–90% of Muslims globally [1]. In this piece ‘Muslim’ refers to the Sunnis. No not because I consider other sects are heretical. It is just because the online discourse I refer to is overwhelmingly among Sunni.
Of course historically scholars of a great diversity of sects have chimed in on this issue. To the best of my knowledge all Shia schools enjoin or at least tolerate secular philosophy , more specifically Neoplatonism.
The standard approach to Dawah in post enlightenment Western nations is to argue for Islam, its concept of God and its book on their (Westerners) own rationalist terms.
You will have heard of the same famous arguments from the Christian arsenal. Such as the ‘anything that begins to exist has a cause’ Kalaam cosmological argument , the physical fine tuning argument and the moral argument for God. These are deployed to the front line of both Muslims and Christians trying to convert Atheist types. This approach is the dominant one from the Dawah organisations.
This is the approach that is disputed. It might seem strange and you may think if making philosophical arguments for a worldview is unacceptable then “What else would be acceptable for Muslims to use?”.
The pudding is what you pack into those 2 terms. ‘Philosophy’ and ‘reasoning’.
The use of philosophy to defend, understand and spread Islam is termed Kalaam which translates to ‘speech’. Philosophy involves a lot dialogue and thus speaking. Sothe pro philosophy Muslims are termed Ilm al Kalaam [the people of speach].
All schools and creeds of Sunni Islam the unanimously take the Qur’an as the literal word of God. Muhammad is also taken to be the final ,perfect and absolute in all matters of religion. Muslims believe his message and the Qur’an were uncorrupted and unlike other traditions such as the Hebrew bible and New testament. Everything we get from Muhammad abrogates these previous revelations.
The traditionalist opponents of Kalaam are usually termed Athari after the Athar [Qur’an and Hadith], who make the majority of them at least. They argue the innate disposition (fitra) of humans to believe in God is the primary way to persuade a non-believer to believe in one God and Muhammad.
The Qur’an and the Hadith[recorded actions and sayings of Muhammad] are the primary way to persuade people of his prophethood. The best interpreter of these are the early companions of the prophet. The Athar use their rejection to using Greek origin style secular philosophical arguments to convert people to Islam as an evidence that Muslims should not do it today.
That loaded term ‘philosophy’ plays critical importance and is put under the green lenses of the Islamic tradition.
The scholars of Kalaam and the Mutafalsafa , the philosophers
It is important to note there is also a third group, the mutafalsafa [philosophers] who are usually neo-platonic and are not the same as the Islamic scholars of kalaam. A useful way of defining the philosophers apart from the kalaam scholars in this context is as follows.
The Kalaam scholars are theologians which , from a secularist perspective , is someone who uses the methods and tools of philosophy to defend and clarify a set of non-negotiable premises of a tradition that are usually taken on faith. They start with faith and use philosophy as a means. In a sense the people of Kalaam are a synthesis between Athari traditionalists and philosophers. Both Kalaam scholars and Athari traditionalists often takfir [excommunicate] the philosophers due to their often highly allegorical methodologies and non-Orthodox views.
The philosophers on the other hand are akin to the concept of a philosopher in the non-Islamic Western traditions (since Islam is Western). Someone that uses philosophy and rational enquiry to arrive at new conclusions and could abandon or evolve their understanding of a set of premises of a tradition. A set of premises that is not taken on faith. They put reason as the foundation and philosophy as the means. Instead scripture is for internal, mystical sources that convey deeper truths in more than one way and not dogma.
Origins of dispute
Some Athari comment that historically the label Kalaam was pushed somewhat as a mockery when Kalaam was being birthed. The people of Kalaam talk ultimately useless talk like the Greek philosophers about the unknowable parts of God.
They merely speculate ; and hence are just people of speech. “What could their bickering philosophising and argumentation reach about God ? In comparison to studying the word of God. Which is the best way to know God and about God”.
And of course they often pry to the Kalaam “what is stopping you going a step further into the realm of the heretical philosophers if you already use philosophy ?”.
This dispute on using philosophical arguments for and within Islam actually goes back almost a thousand years. The absolute giants of Islamic scholarship namely Ibn Taymiyyah, regarded to be the father of conservative Islamic traditionalism by the Athari ; Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Al Ghazali, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Abu Hanifa and on the other side Hassan Ibn al Ashari , Ibn-Khullaab, al-Suyuti and the famous ‘second teacher of logic’ Fakhr al-Din al Razi to name a few have written on this topic. Some even changing positions within their lifetime.
Muslims are even still debating what the actual stances some of these scholars had let alone the correctness of the stances themselves [2] [3]. Yet another complexity in understanding this long historical dialogue.
Both camps today refer to scholars of the past to make their case on these two issues
- The permissibility of using secular rational philosophy to make arguments for God’s existence, other tenets of Islam and refuting other religions.
- The permissibility of its use by Muslims to develop their own theological creed and how they understand the tenets of Islam. Especially for conclusions about God’s nature.
The touchy part is this. Given agreement of preservation of the Qur’an and Sunnah. What is to be made of the fact that Muhammad and co never used such Kalaami philosophical arguments of Greek style to spread Islam ? That is something both sides agree that he did not do.
The Athari see Kalaam as a doorway to innovation and polytheism and that this was the view of Muhammad and his companions. If allowed this would negate the whole reason Muhammad was sent as a prophet on the first place. To abrogate previous revelation that changed ; one great mechanism of change being philosophy.
Philosophy, reasoning and logic
I often see conflation about the difference between reason, logic and philosophy in these discussions between each side. The Athari traditionalist side usually accuse the rationalist (Kalaam) leaning side of a false equivalency.
Suppose I am going to the supermarket on behalf of my mother , who is a great cook, who told me ‘If there is butter then get butter, milk and sugar. Otherwise get chocolate’. Suppose I correctly get butter , milk and sugar. That would be me using reason and executing logic to come to a concrete answer but I did not engage in a philosophical inquiry.
Reason is the method of using rational inquiry to come to conclusions. Logic is the set of rules that determines if the reasoning is sound.
On the other hand philosophy is a subject. Where one uses reason in certain issues, questions and topics. Usually the questions are those that arise after you’re asked “Why ?” from annoyingly inquisitive 5 year old enough times. So what is referred to as ‘Kalaam’ is inclusive of using all three.
For the Athari reason and logic themselves are A ok under cetain conditions. It is mainly philosophy of the type originating in Greece they aim at.
The framework of metaphysics initiated by the Greeks is adopted and developed to determine the parameters that one reasons within. Islamic philosophy produced some of the greatest and influential works of metaphysics which exploded after the translation movement within the Abbasid empire.
Such scholars of Kalaam did not really preseve (historically) Greek texts as we still have many Latina and Greek originals Rather they did something greater which was continue them.
Al Kindi and Fakr al Din al Razi especially being influenced by Aristotle for example. It is this metaphysical framework that the traditionalist Athari see as placing the intellect above God and his prophet. Which they view is inferior to the Qur’an and Hadith [historical reports of saying and actions of Muhammad].
Not just metaphysics but even with regards to scientific challenges there is a buffet of contention and views. Acceptance of biological evolution, universal common ancestry and natural selection making the most noise.
Where one places philosophy and the mind will have input in this. The Athari put the apparent meaning of the Qur’an and Hadith above the science. Rejecting human chimp ancestry.
An example of a moderate Kalaam counter position is that yes , Muslims have to accept miraculous creation of Adam but can entertain his descendants mating with other primates who then evolve into us Homo Sapeins.
The pro Kalaam schools posit that being in opposition to Kalaam is a circular argument. Since to be in opposition to philosophy you need to use philosophy to make an argument to oppose it. Which is known as ‘Aristotle’s protreptic argument for the necessity of philosophy’. One can clearly see how the understanding in the 3 paragraphs before the above nulls this strawman response often directed to traditionalists.
They also posit that without Kalaam you are forced to employ appeals to mystery to sidestep assigning creation like attributes to God that exist in the hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) corpus and even arguably the Qur’an. This hadith for example mentioning the ‘foot’ of God.
This would be considered to be the in net of Shirk [Associating partners to God] the biggest sin in Islam. This renders the Athari unable to refute the Christian trinity without special pleading or appealing to mystery. Because the Christian can then also appeal to mystery to deter metaphysical criticisms of the impossibility of the trinity being one God and not 3. See the below tweet for example.
https://twitter.com/bayhaqiyyah/status/1681388649638658061
The Athari traditionalists re-iterate the superiority historical tradition ,revelation and inheritance [4]. For them this alone is to be on the same path as the pious companions of Muhammad who took the perfect understanding of religion from him. They actually do allow the teaching of logic called muntiq. However it is usually studied lightly in an Athari curriculum.
That is to say their epistemology is based on historicity and literalistic methodologies of hadith and Qur’an alone and not a metaphysical analysis of its content. Standing on the foundation that what the companions and their children and grand children have carried and have consensus on from Muhammad is as close to perfect on Islam you can get. [5]. The further back you go the better the understanding becomes.
In Fiqh [Islamic law] — not itself considered philosophy, creed or theology — the consensus of the companions of Muhammad and the 2 generations below him is agreed by both camps and all 4 Sunni legal schools to be the highest source of legislation below the Qur’an and Hadith itself. Both the Athari and Kalaam schools accept this in jurisprudence.
So the Athari interrogate “If we agree to this in Islamic law then why does this stop when it comes to theology ?”. The Athari would posit that by necessity of infinite and ultimate transcendence ; anything God does not tell us about himself is frankly unknowable other than what he tells us through revelation.
The Athari can say they are simply submitting to the Qur’an and Sunnah in being opposed to philosophy since it leads to innovation. This would be a way to oppose philosophy without engaging in philosophy itself. [6]
People of Kalaam argue that the Qur’an allows the use of the mind for example 23:78 ‘He is the One Who created for you hearing, sight, and intellect. Yet you hardly give any thanks.’ So philosophy does not constitute innovation provided one does not adopt position(s) that contradict the clear verses of the Qur’an.
The Athari respond that this is only encompasses reasoning such as Qiyas and Itjihad in Islamic law and certain rational arguments but not adopting the type of philosophy and framework of the Western Greeks and later Romans. Which is a certain way of thinking about everything with scope for corruption in it [7]. It would be a fallacy of false equivalency to mistake this for philosophy. They say they accept the use of reason or rationality but oppose Islam having its field of metaphysics.
This is of the reasons the great Kalaam scholar of Islam al-Ghazali declared ibn Sina (Avicenna) ,the falsafa, a heretic. Ibn Sina affirmed the eternity of the universe and denied the resurrection of the physical body.
Athari also posit that grasping at philosophy is a contradiction to the idea that the hadith and especially the Qur’an are perfect. The essence of perfection is something that cannot be improved.
With respect to Dawah [inviting people to Islam] the Athari claim that it is not necessarily about converting people but simply calling and conveying the message of Islam. Then it is upon the agency of the listener to accept or reject it. However it all needs to be done on the base of the Qur’an, Sunnah and understanding of the pious companions.
The engrossed pursuit of debating and bickering with new Atheists and Christians that scholars of Kalaam do is something many Athari view as something that causes and reflects arrogance of the people of Kalaam.
Today
Outside of current online spaces, Gulf Arab governments seem to changing in some faint sense to the side of Kalaam. The UAE and Saudi especially are secularising [8] . Not just politically but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) which is arguably where the Athari creed originated are aiming to get 3 of their universities in the top 200 in the world as part of vision 2030 [9]. This combined with the fact many of their youth currently study abroad in Europe and the USA may see the rise of non-Islamic education and possibly a stream of secular philosophy or non-Islamic theology in the kingdom. For example to refer back to evolutionary theory which is already being taught in the UAE.
The battle over whether to philosophize Islam will continue as it did. It’s prevalence will become more important due to the explosions in information access, education access, IQ , mixing of people and eradication of poverty from technology and AI.
Much of the Islamic world is also the developing world so it will see a great share of impact from this over decades. Creating a conflict and need to address the issue in the minds of lay Muslims in these nations let alone Educated Muslims or both in developed nations.
I often see data indicate fluctuation between increasing or decreasing religiosity in Muslim majority nations. I cannot predict the future but I hope this serves as a very basic primer on the arguments laid forth and what will be expanded upon in years to come.
[2] youtube.com/watch?v=RbMG23UgH0Q
[3] youtube.com/warch?v=DQnBfnIZPLo?t=8219
[4] youtube.com/watch?v=BOq0GDYd3_E
[5] youtube.com/watch?v=oHbZu_4PJs
[6] https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/287425 page 8 The Philosophy of Antiphilosophy in Islam , Associate Professor of Philosophy Imran Aijaz ; The University of Michigan-Dearborn
