Hubbry Logo
KalamKalamMain
Open search
Kalam
Community hub
Kalam
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Kalam
Kalam
Kalam
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Islam
Beliefs
Practices
History
Culture and society
Related topics

Ilm al-kalam[a] or ilm al-lahut,[b] often shortened to kalam, is the scholastic, speculative, or rational study of Islamic theology (aqida).[2] It can also be defined as the science that studies the fundamental doctrines of Islamic faith (usul al-din), proving their validity, or refuting doubts regarding them rationally via logic.[3] Kalām was born out of the need to establish and defend the tenets of Islam against philosophical doubters and non-Muslims,[4][5] and also to defend against heretical and religious innovations (bidʿah).[6] A scholar of kalam is referred to as a mutakallim (plural mutakallimun), a role distinguished from those of Islamic philosophers and jurists.[7]

After its first beginnings in the late Umayyad period, the Kalām experienced its rise in the early Abbasid period, when the Caliph al-Mahdi commissioned Mutakallimūn to write books against the followers of Iranian religions, and the Barmakid vizier Yahya ibn Khalid held Kalām discussions with members of various religions and confessional groups in his house. By the 10th century, the Muʿtazilites were main pioneers of 'Kalam' during the early formative period of Islam. However due to increased criticism by traditionalist Muslim scholars that the Mu'tazilites started departing from mainstream Sunni orthodoxy, they were refuted heavily. Soon after, two new important Sunni Kalām schools emerged: the Ashʿaris and the Maturidis.[7] They positioned themselves against the growing Neoplatonic and Aristotelian philosophy within the Mu'tazilites and elevated the "Kalām science" (ʿilm al-kalām) as an acceptable ranking science in mainstream Sunni discourse.[8] Some of the arguments of these Mutakallimūn also found their way into Jewish and Christian theological discussions in the Middle Ages. Kalām science by the early modern period was essentially limited to the study of manuals and commentaries, from the late 19th century onwards various reform thinkers appeared in British India and the Ottoman Empire who called for the founding of a "new Kalām".

Definition

[edit]

Definitions of Kalām in chronological order

[edit]
Author with death date Region Kalām is… Arabic or Persian original text
al-Farabi (d. 950) Syria "a mental ability through which man can help the established views and actions expressed by the founder of a religion to triumph and can refute everything that contradicts them by statements" malaka yaqtadir bi-hā al-insān ʿalā nuṣrat al-ārā wa-l-afʿāl al-maḥdūda allatī ṣarraḥa bi-hā wāḍiḥ al-milla wa-tazyīf kull mā ḫālafa-hā bi-l-aqāwīl[9]
Abu al-Hassan al-Amiri (d. 992) Baghdad, Nishapur "the linguistic effort to defend religion" al-muǧāhada ʿan ad-dīn bi-l-lisān[10]
Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi (d. 1023) Baghdad, Rayy, Shiraz "a way of considering the foundations of religion, in which the deliberation is based on reason alone." bāb min al-iʿtibār fī uṣūl ad-dīn yadūr an-naẓar fīhi ʿalā maḥḍ al-ʿaql[11]
Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi (d. 1099) Transoxiana "the explanation of those questions which constitute the foundations of religion, which it is an individual duty to learn." bayān al-masāʾil allatī hiya uṣūl ad-dīn allatī hiya taʿallumuhā farḍ ʿain[12]
Sharaf al-Din Ibn al-Tilimsani al-Fihri (d. 1260) Egypt "the knowledge of the evidence of divinity and divine messengership, as well as the things on which their knowledge depends, namely the possibility and temporal origin of the world and the refutation of everything that is incompatible with this" al-ʿilm bi-ṯubūt al-ilāhīya wa-r-risāla wa-mā yatawaqqaf maʿrifatuhumā ʿalaihi min ǧawāz al-ʿālam wa-ḥudūṯihī wa-ibṭāl mā yunāqiḍ ḏālik[13]
Shams al-Din al-Samarqandi (d. 1303) Samarkand "a science that investigates the nature and attributes of God and the states of contingent entities in the beginning and at the return according to the law of Islam" ʿilm yubḥaṯ fīhi ʿan ḏāt Allāh wa-ṣifātihī wa-aḥwāl al-mumkināt fī l-mubtadaʾ wa-l-maʿād ʿalā qānūn al-islām[14]
Adud al-Din al-Iji (d. 1355) Īj near Shiraz "the science by which one can prove religious dogmas by citing arguments and averting doubts" ʿilm yuqtadar maʿa-hū ʿalā iṯbāt al-ʿaqāʾid ad-dīnīya, bi-īrād al-ḥuǧaǧ wa-dafʿ aš-šubah[15]
al-Taftazani (d. 1390) Taftazan "the knowledge of religious dogmas based on certain evidence" al-ʿilm bi-l-ʿaqāʾid ad-dīnīya ʿan al-adilla al-yaqīnīya[16]
Ibn 'Arafa (d. 1401) Tunis "the knowledge of the decrees of divinity, the sending of messengers, their truthfulness in all their communications, and that on which any of them is specifically based, as well as the establishment of their proofs by a skill that is believed to avert doubts and resolve uncertainties" al-ʿilm bi-aḥkām al-ulūhīya wa-irsāl ar-rusul wa-ṣidqihā fī kull aḫbārihā wa-mā yatawaqqaf šaiʾ min ḏālik ʿalaihi ḫāṣṣan bihī wa-taqrīr adillatihā bi-qūwa hiya maẓinna li-radd aš-šubuhāt[17]
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) Tunis "a science that involves the disputation of religious dogmas with rational arguments and the refutation of innovators who deviate from the teachings of the ancients and the Sunnis." ʿilm yataḍamman al-ḥiǧāǧ ʿan al-ʿaqāʾid al-īmānīya bi-l-adilla al-ʿaqlīya wa-r-radd ʿalā l-mubtadiʿa al-munḥarifīn fī l-iʿtiqādāt ʿan maḏāhib as-salaf wa-ahl as-sunna[18]
Ibn al-Humām (d. 1457) Egypt "the knowledge of the individual about the dogmas of the Islamic religion that are incumbent upon him through the evidence" maʿrifat an-nafs mā ʿalaihā min al-ʿaqāʾid al-mansūba ilā dīn al-islām ʿan al-adilla[19]
Taşköprüzade (d. 1561) Ottoman Empire "the science of proving religious truths by providing arguments for them and removing doubts from them" ʿilm yuqtadar maʿa-hū ʿalā iṯbāt al-ḥaqāʾiq ad-dīnīya, bi-īrād al-ḥuǧaǧ ʿalai-hā wa-dafʿ aš-šubah ʿan-hā[20]
Abd al-Razzaq Lahiji (d. 1661) Iran "a theoretical skill with which one can prove religious dogmas" ṣināʿa naẓarīya yuqtadar bi-hā ʿalā iṯbāt al-ʿaqāʾid ad-dīnīya[21]
al-Tahānawī (d. 1745) North India "a science by which one can prove religious dogmas to one's fellow men by citing arguments and averting doubts" ʿilm yuqtadar maʿa-hū ʿalā iṯbāt al-ʿaqāʾid ad-dīnīya ʿalā l-ġair, bi-īrād al-ḥuǧaǧ wa-dafʿ aš-šubah.[22]
Morteza Motahhari (d. 1979) Iran "a science that discusses Islamic dogmas, i.e. what one must believe in from an Islamic point of view, in such a way that it explains, proves and defends them" ʿilmi ast ke darbāre-ye ʿaqāyed-e eslāmī yaʿnī ānče az naẓar-e eslām bāyad bedān moʿtaqed būd va īmān dāšt, baḥs̱ mīkonad be īn naḥw ke ānhā toużīḥ mīdehad va darbāre-ye ānhā estedlāl mīkonad va az ānhā defāʿ mīnamāyad[23]

Kalām as apologetics

[edit]

According to several of the definitions given above, kalām has an apologetic function: it serves to defend one's own religious views. This apologetic function is particularly evident in the philosophers al-Farabi (d. 950) and Abu al-Hassan al-Amiri (d. 992). The former sees it as a mental ability through which man can refute everything that contradicts the views and actions established by the founder of the religion,[9] the latter as "the defence of religion with the tongue".[10] In the definitions of the Ashʿarite scholar Adud al-Din al-Iji (d. 1355), the Ottoman scholar Taşköprüzade (d. 1561) and the Indian scholar at-Tahānawī (around 1745), who worked in Iran, kalām has the task of averting doubts from religious dogmas or truths. Against the background of such definitions, the French orientalist Louis Gardet judged that the function of kalām as a defensive "apology" could not be overestimated.[24] The view that the "fundamental character" of the Kalām consists of "defensive apology" is also the declared leitmotif of the French handbook Introduction à la théologie musulmane, co-authored by Gardet and M.M Anawati in 1948.[25]

The Indian scholar ʿAbd an-Nabī al-Ahmadnagarī (d. 1759) even believed that the value of the Kalam was limited to this apologetic function alone. The great Mutakallimūn, he explains in his encyclopedia Dustūr al-ʿulamā, never justified or authenticated their doctrines with arguments from the Kalam, since the sole purpose of the Kalam was to silence the adversary and bring the stubborn to their knees. The great Mutakallimūn, on the other hand, drew their doctrines solely from the "lamp of prophethood".[26] Such statements can also be found in al-Ghazali. Thus, in his work Jawahir al-Qur'an (The Jewels of the Qur'an ), he judged that the purpose of the science of kalam was "to protect the beliefs of the masses from disruption by innovators". On the other hand, this science was never about "revealing the truths".[27]

Kalām as the science of religious foundations or dogmas

[edit]

Several Muslim authors defined kalām by its relationship to the "fundamentals of religion" (Uṣūl al-Dīn). For example, Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi (d. 1023) described the science of kalām as "a way of contemplating the fundamentals of religion in which deliberation is based on reason alone."[11] Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi (d. 1099) defined it as "the explanation of those questions which constitute the fundamentals of religion, which it is an individual duty to learn."[12]

Ibn al-Athir (d. 1233) in his book al-Lubāb fī Tahḏīb al-Ansāb was the first to define kalām science as "the science of the foundations of religion" (ʿilm Uṣūl al-Dīn).[28] Ibn Khallikan (d. 1282) and Siraj al-Din Urmavi (d. 1283) even equated kalām science with the foundations of religion itself.[29][30] The equation of ʿilm al-kalām and ʿilm uṣūl al-dīn is also found in the catalogue of the Ottoman Palace Library from the beginning of the 16th century, where the section containing the books on kalām was entitled "Section of the Books of the Science of the Foundations of Religion, i.e. the Science of Kalām".[31] This classification probably also influenced the Ottoman scholars Taşköprüzade and Saçaklızāde (d. 1732), who also equated kalām science and the "science of the foundations of religion" in their Arabic scientific encyclopedias.[20] At-Tahānawī explains this equation by saying that the Kalām is the basis of the religious legal sciences and that they are based on it.[32]

Some later scholars defined the kalām science of dogmas. For Adud al-Din al-Iji (d. 1355), kalām is "the science of proving religious dogmas by citing arguments and removing doubts."[15] In a slightly modified form, this definition was also adopted by the Ottoman scholar Tashköprüzāde (d. 1561) and the Indian scholar at-Tahānawī (c. 1745).[20][22] For al-Taftazani (d. 1390), Kalām is "the knowledge of religious dogmas based on certain evidence",[16] for Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) "a science that includes the disputation of the dogmas of faith with rational arguments"[18] and for Morteza Motahhari (d. 1979) "a science that discusses the Islamic dogmas [...] in such a way that it explains, proves and defends them".

Theories about the origin of the term

[edit]

In Arabic, the term Kalām generally means "speech, conversation, debate." There are different theories as to why this term came to be used to describe the discipline that deals with the rational justification of one's own religious doctrines:

  • Al-Shahrastani (d. 1153) suggested that the name was coined by the Mu'tazila. They called this science by this name either because the speech of God was the main question around which their disputations and controversies revolved, so that the whole science was called by it.[33]
  • Ibn at-Tilimsanī (d. 1260) considered three different possibilities: 1. the name Kalām comes from the fact that the Mutakallimūn began the chapters in their books with the phrase: "Chapter of speech about..." ( bāb al-kalām fī... ); 2. When the Zahirites were asked about one of the problems of this science, they replied: "That is that about which we are forbidden to speak". This happened repeatedly, so that after a time it was called "the science of (forbidden) speech", with the expression "forbidden" eventually being dropped; 3. Science was called ʿilm al-kalām because its learning is one of the most important means of bringing out the intellectual power of speech by which man is distinguished from other living beings.[34]
  • Al-Taftazani (d. 1390) gives a total of eight explanations for the name Kalām in his commentary on the confession of an-Nasafī, including the one that this science takes place solely in discussion ( mubāḥaṯa ) and exchange of speech ( idārat al-kalām ) and thus differs from other sciences that can also be practiced in the form of reflection ( taʾammul ) and reading of books ( muṭālaʿat al-kutub ). Another possibility that he discusses is that this science was considered to be speech par excellence because of the strength of its evidence, just as one says of the stronger of two statements: "This is the speech".[35]
  • Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) suggested that the science of kalām was so called either because the fight against innovations did not require action, but was achieved solely through "speech" (kalām).[36]
  • Morteza Motahhari (d. 1979) stated the reason why the name originated from the habit of its scholars speaking (kalām), which is the opposite of silence and the Kalām scholars made statements on questions of faith where silence would have been necessary, imitating the Companions of the Prophet and the Muslims of the second generation, who had also remained silent on the matter.[37]

According to Josef van Ess, the many explanations given by Arab scholars "clearly demonstrate the perplexity of native philologists and theologians when faced with the term kalām".[38] As for Western scholarship, Tjitze de Boer and Duncan Black MacDonald suggested that the term kalām was derived from the Greek word logos.[39][40] Arent Jan Wensinck, on the other hand, rejected the view that the term kalām could have anything to do with logos or its derivatives in 1932, and argued that it had arisen "through the development of Arabic terminology itself".[41] Louis Gardet and M.-M. Anawati considered the first possibility of derivation mentioned by Ibn at-Tilimsānī to be the most likely and suspected that kalām initially meant "speech about..." and then, through antonomasia, became "discourse" per se (about the things of God).[25] W. Montgomery Watt took a similar path of explanation to Ibn Taymiyyah when he wrote about the term mutakalli: "Undoubtedly this was once a derisive name, perhaps creating the image of people 'who talk forever.' Eventually, however, it became accepted as a neutral term."[41]

History

[edit]

The question of origin

[edit]
  1. Maimonides (d. 1204) believed that the Kalām was actually of Christian origin and only later became known to Muslims through translations.[42] Franz August Schmölders rejected this theory as implausible as early as 1840 in his Essai sur les écoles philosophiques chez les Arabes.[43]
  2. According to Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406), the science of kalam arose from the fact that disagreements about the details of the doctrines of faith arose in the period after the first Muslims. Most of these disagreements were, in his opinion, caused by ambiguous Quranic verses (Muḥkam and Mutashabih). They led to dispute, disputation and rational argumentation.[44]
  3. Mohammed Abed al-Jabri (d. 2010) assumes that the Kalam arose in the middle of the 7th century, immediately after the arbitration that ended the war between Ali ibn Abi Talib and Mu'awiya. During this period, Arab political discourse began to use religion as a mediator. The various parties sought religious legitimacy for their positions, which was the first step in the theoretical formation of what was later called the science of Kalam. Thus, in its historical reality, this science is not just a discourse on the doctrine of faith, but a "practice of politics in religion".[45]

In fact, the origins of the kalām are obscure. This is also due to the fact that the specifically theological meaning of the words kalām and mutakallim was very slow to gain acceptance. Mutakallim initially only referred to a "speaker with a specific function".[46]

In the anonymous Aḫbār al-ʿAbbās wa-waladihī, which dates from the eighth century, it is reported that when Abu Muslim (d. 755) wanted to establish himself in Merv, he sent mutakallimūn from his followers into the city to win the population over to their cause and make it clear to them that they were following the Sunnah and acting according to the truth.[47] Shlomo Pines has concluded that the term originally arose in Abū Muslim's army and referred to political and religious propagandists such as the Dawah.[48]

However, there are reports that indicate that the culture of kalām existed before this. The Arab historian Abu Zakariya al-Azdi (d. 945) cites a report according to which the Umayyad caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (r. 717–720) is said to have said: "I have argued and spoken with the people. Indeed, I love to speak with the Shia."[49] The fact that the verb kallama is used here for "to speak with", from which the word kalām is derived, is seen by Josef van Ess as an indication that the specifically theological meaning of the kalām concept may have already developed at this time.[50]

According to a report quoted in the Kitab al-Aghani by Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 967), there were six representatives of the Kalam (aṣḥāb al-kalām) in Basra: the two Muʿtazilites Amr ibn Ubayd and Wasil ibn Ata, the poet Bashshar ibn Burd, Salih ibn Abd al-Quddus and Abdul Karim bin Abi Al-Awja', and a man from the tribe of Azd who was inclined towards Sumanīya, an Indian doctrine, and who made his house available to the group for their meetings.[51] Since Wāsil died around 748, the Kalām must have existed in the late Umayyad period if this report is authentic.

In two narrations cited by Abdullah Ansari (d. 1089), Amr ibn Ubayd is identified as the one who "invented these innovations of kalām". Abu Hanifa is said to have cursed ʿAmr ibn ʿUbaid for "opening the way for people to speak (kalām) about what it is not their business to speak about."[52] Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), on the other hand, believed that the special type of argumentation that characterizes the Kalam first appeared at the beginning of the second Islamic century with Jaʿd ibn Dirham (d. 724) and Jahm bin Safwan (d. 746). From them it then reached Amr ibn Ubayd and Wasil ibn Ata.[53] According to the Ottoman scholar Taşköprüzade (d. 1561), the spread of the Kalam began as early as the year 100 of the Hijra (= 718/19 AD) through the Muʿtazila and the Qadariya, with Wasil ibn Ata again playing the decisive role.[20] However, neither Wasil ibn Ata nor any other persons mentioned here have recorded book titles or sayings that indicate that they themselves used the term kalām as a name for a particular science or knowledge culture.

According to a report quoted by al-Masudi (d. 956) in his work The Meadows of Gold, the Abbasid caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775–785) was the first ruler to commission Mutakallimūn representing Islam to write books against Mulhid from the circle of the Manichaeans, Bardesanites and Marcionites and to refute their arguments. The reason for this was that at that time writings of these groups had spread and were being translated from New Persian and Middle Persian into Arabic.[54]

Formative years

[edit]

In early Islam, the Ahl al-Kalām or "Kalamites" essentially referred to the Muʿtazila. Historian Daniel W. Brown describes Ahl al-Kalām as one of three main groups engaged in polemical disputes over sources of authority in Islamic law during the second century of Islam: the Ahl al-Ra'y and Ahl al-Hadith being the other two. (Brown also describes the Muʿtazila as "the later ahl al-Kalām", suggesting the ahl al-Kalām were forerunners of the Muʿtazilites.[55])

In the times of the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258 AD), the discipline of Kalām arose in an "attempt to grapple" with several "complex problems" early in the history of Islam, according to historian Majid Fakhry.[56] One was how to rebut arguments "leveled at Islam by pagans, Christians and Jews".[56] Another was how to deal with (what some saw as the conflict between) the predestination of sinners to hell on the one hand and "divine justice" on the other (some asserting that to be punished for what is beyond someone's control is unjust). Also Kalam sought to make "a systematic attempt to bring the conflict in data of revelation (in the Quran and the Traditions) into some internal harmony".[56] Other factors that might have led the establishment of kalam was an effort by some Islamic scholars to oppose the thoughts of Zandaqa in the Islamic world.[57]

Later schools of Kalam like the Kullabis, Asharites and Matuiridis representing as Sunni Islam would develop systems that would defend the core orthodox creedal points of Islam completely on rational grounds, and were open to engaging in kalam in accordance to the Quran and Sunnah.[58] This was unlike the Mutazilites, whose kalam instead prioritised reason over revelation to the point where the Quran and hadith would only be accepted if it aligned with their interpretation of rationalism.[59] The Hanbali school and followers of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal would generally avoid kalam and philosophical talk all together, seeing it as an innovation, and only address it out of necessity.[60] However, Ahmad ibn Hanbal also provided an episode of long feud of Mu'tazila Quran creationism doctrine opposed by the scripturalists (Atharism) doctrine that Quran as shifat (attribution) of God which championed by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of Hanbali school.[61][62][63][64] Ibn Battah has recorded in his work, Al-Ibāna , that Ahmad ibn Hanbal has instructed his students of total academic boycott against the scholars of kalam.[65] Furthermore, Ahmad ibn Hanbal also recorded engaged in long debates against the leading Mu'tazilite and qadi of caliphate, Ahmad ibn Abi Du'ad regarding the said matter about the nature of Quran.[66] The Hanbali scholars and followers of Ahmad ibn Hanbal rarely mention about kalam in their teaching, as they consider it as bid'ah (heresy).[60] After the longtime persecution of Mihna towards the Ahl a-Hadith since the time of his great-grandfather, caliph al-Mutawakkil changed the caliphate policy by restoring them to favor, while abandoning Mu'tazilites led by Ahmad ibn Abi Du'ad.[67] The caliph also attempted to reconcile with Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and finally, in March 852, he ordered that all prisoners held on account of the innquisition against the Sunnis be released.[68]

Early Abbasids

[edit]

According to Al-Shahrastani, the golden age of the science of kalam began with the caliphs Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809), al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833), al-Mu'tasim (r. 833–842), al-Wathiq (r. 842–847) and al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861) and ended in the time of Sahib ibn Abbad, who served as vizier of the Buyids of Ray from 979 to 995.[69]

One of the most important promoters of kalam discussions in the early Abbasid period was the Barmakid Yahya ibn Khalid, who served as vizier under Harun al-Rashid. Al-Yaʿqūbī (d. after 905) reports that he loved kalam and discussion (Naẓar), and that in his days the mutakallimūn became numerous and they debated with each other and wrote books. Al-Yaʿqūbī cites Hisham ibn al-Hakam and Dirar ibn Amr (d. 815) as examples of mutakallimīn of this period.[70] According to a report quoted by Ibn Babawayh, Yahya ibn Khalid used to hold a discussion group (maǧlis) at his place on Sundays, in which mutakallimūn from every sect (firqa) and religious community (milla) participated, who then debated with each other about their religions and put forward arguments against each other.[71] This discussion group is also mentioned by al-Masʿūdī . According to his report, many Islamic mutakallimūn participated in this discussion, including Muʿtazilites such as Abu l-Hudhail, Ibrahim al-Nazzam and Bishr ibn al-Muʿtamir, Imamites such as Hisham ibn al-Hakam, one Kharijite and one Murjite each, as well as representatives of other worldviews and faiths, including the Mobed of the Zoroastrians.[72]

The Caliph al-Ma'mun also distinguished himself by promoting the Kalam. Al-Yaʿqūbī reports that he openly professed the "People of Monotheism and Justice" (Ahl al-Tawhid wal 'Adl), that is, the Muʿtazila, attracted Mutakallimūn to his court and paid them maintenance so that their numbers increased. Each one, explains al-Yaʿqūbī, wrote books to defend his own doctrine and to refute his opponents.[73]

Al-Jahiz (d. 869), who wrote one of the first treatises on the kalam, praised the art of the kalam as a "precious jewel" (juhar tamīn), as "the treasure that never perishes" (al-kanz allaḏī lā yafnā wa-lā yablā) and as the "companion who does not bore and does not deceive". It is the standard for every other art, the rein for every expression, the scales with which one can clarify the lack or excess of every thing, and the filter with which one can recognize the purity or impurity of every thing. All scholars depend on it, and it is the tool and model for every acquisition. What could be more important than something without which one cannot prove the glory of God or prophethood, and without which one cannot distinguish the true argument from the false argument and the proof from the false proof. The kalam makes it possible to distinguish the community (jama'a) from the sect (firqa) and the Sunnah from the Bid'ah. Al-Jahiz also compares the kalam to a border fortress, the defence of which requires great personal commitment. It is like a border fortress because all people are hostile towards its followers.[74] Whoever gives this science its due can expect a corresponding reward. [ 85 ] Al-Jāhiz praises the Mutakallimūn for remaining loyal to their discipline out of conviction of its high value, despite the rejection that their discipline experiences in society, and for even being willing to accept the sacrifice of poverty and lack of career opportunities as a Qadi.[75]

In another writing, al-Jahiz stated that without the Kalam, there would be no religion for God and no one would be distinguished from the heretics . There would be no difference between falsehood and truth and no separation between a prophet and a mere pretender to prophethood. Argument could not be distinguished from deceit and proof could not be distinguished from apparent proof. The art of the Kalam was preferable to every other art and education, which is why it was made the standard for all philosophical speculation and the basis of every syllogism. It was only held in such high esteem because every scholar needed it and could not do without it.[76]

10th and 11th centuries: Spread from Iraq to the east and west

[edit]

Until the early 10th century, the Kalam was essentially limited to Iraq and Greater Khorasan . A very important center of the Kalam culture was the Muʿtazilite stronghold of ʿAskar Mukram in Khuzistan, the place of work of Al-Jubba'i and his son Abu Hashim al-Jubba'i. The geographer Ibn Hauqal (d. 977) reports that members of the common people also practiced the Kalam method here and achieved such mastery that they could compete with scholars from other cities. Ibn Hawqal reports in his book Surat Al-Ard that he saw two porters in the city who were carrying heavy loads on their heads or backs and at the same time arguing about the interpretation of the Quran and questions of the Kalam.[77]

During the course of the 10th century, the Kalam also spread more widely to the eastern regions of the Islamic Empire. One of the early Kalam scholars representing the Mu'tazila in Khorasan was Abū al-Qāsim al-Balkhī (d. 931). Other Kalam scholars such as Al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1024) settled in Rayy.[36] In the late 10th century, the two renowned Ash'ari Kalam scholars, Ibn Furak and Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini (d. 1027) having studied in Baghdad arrived to teach in Khurasan at this time. Some of the prominent Shafi'i families in Nishapur took up the cause of Ash'arism and it became well-established in the city, which developed into the main hub of Shafi'ite learning in the East. Ash'arism swiftly proliferated throughout Iran's other Shafi'ite communities. It developed into the mainstream Shafi'ite ideology in the Islamic world during the Seljuk era.[78]

In the Maghreb and al-Andalus, on the other hand, the Kalam was not yet a topic of discussion until the early 11th century. Al-Baqillani a Maliki jurist contributed to the propagation of Ash'arism within the Maliki circles in North Africa.[79] One of his students, Abu Dharr al-Harawi was the first to introduce the Ash'ari doctrine to the Holy Sanctuary of Mecca. Among the hundreds of Andalusi and Maghrebi pupils that Abu Dharr al-Harawi trained to become jurists and judges, and who helped Ash'arism expand to their home countries are Abu al-Walid al-Baji and Abu Imran al-Fasi.[80] However, research shows that his students were not the first to introduce Ash'arism as there were already known Ash'ari presence in the Tunisia such as Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani and Abu al-Hassan al-Qabisi.[80][81][82][83] In al-Andalus, Ash'arism was flourishing since the time of the theologian-philosopher Ibn Hazm (d. 1064). The theologian Abu Bakr al-Baqillani's works were widely circulated in the region, which helped fostered the growth of Ash'arite theology and sparked debates. Eventually, Mu'tazilite beliefs in the region were subdued.[84] Shortly after, the Ash'ari theology became the mainstream doctrine of the Maliki school.[85]

The Mu'tazila, also known as the Ahl al-Tawhid wal-'Adl, or the "People of Divine Unity and Justice", were originally the dominant school of kalam, but by the tenth century, two madhabs—the Ash'ariyya and the Maturidiyya—rose in fierce opposition to the Mu'tazila. Each school bore the names of its founders, Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, and represented Ahl al-Sunnah (People of Prophetic ways). In the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Maturidites flourished in Khurasan and Central Asia, while the Ash'arites posed a threat to Mu'tazila hegemony in central Iraq and Iran. Both schools use kalam to defend what we now refer to as "orthodox Islam" or traditionalist Islamic theological doctrine. Mu'tazalism would eventually fall because of this. This is noted by Western historians, who label the Mu'tazila as a heterodox theological movement and extreme rationalists. The group would continue to exist and primarily follow Shia and Ibadi.[86][87][88]

Post-classical period and “conservatism”

[edit]

The most influential work of the post-classical Kalām was the Kitāb al-Mawāqif by the Iranian Shafi'i theologian Adud al-Din al-Iji (d. 1355). It received a total of five commentaries and 32 supercommentaries and became part of the Dars al-Nizāmī curriculum in the South Asian madrasas.[89] The book also played an important role in Ottoman schools. The Ottoman scholar Sāčaqlızāde recommended it to scholars in the Kalām section of his encyclopedia Tartīb al-ʿulūm, together with the Kitāb al-Maqāṣid by Saʿd ad-Dīn at-Taftāzānī, as a basis for teaching.[90] The work contains an introductory chapter at the beginning in which the author discusses the definition, subject, utility, rank, problems and naming of the science of Kalām.[91]

At the end of the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun believed that the science of Kalam was no longer necessary for students of his time, because the heretics and innovators had since perished and it was sufficient to study what the Sunni imams had written to defend themselves against them.[92] However, the science of Kalam experienced a revival in the 17th and 18th centuries in what is now Mauritania.[93] A particularly zealous follower of the Kalam was the Ash'arite scholar Muhammad ibn 'Umar al-Bartallī (d. 1696) in Walatah. A West African biography collection reports that he was one of the famous Mutakallimūn and was constantly busy reading, copying and teaching Kalam books.[94] The Kalām was also promoted among the Volga-Ural Tatars in Russia . At the end of the 18th century, it became an integral part of madrasa scholarship in villages and small towns, even if it was limited to commentaries and glosses.[95]

However, the early modern period was a phase of "frozen conservatism" for Kalām science, as Louis Gardet writes.[25] Muslim scholars also diagnosed a decline in this discipline. The Ottoman-Turkish scholar İsmail Hakkı İzmirli (d. 1946), for example, complained that in his time there were very few people who really knew the Kalām problems and understood the Kalām riddles. There is hardly a Kalam scholar who understands more than the Kalam questions of a book, and the science of Kalam is limited to the study of the commentary on the ʿAqāʾid of Najm al-Dīn Abū Hafs an-Nasafī (d. 1142) and on the ʿAqāʾid of ʿAdud al-Dīn al-Īji (d. 1355).[96]

Modern attempts at revival

[edit]

Mulla Sadra, 17th AD Twelver Shia philosopher and mystic; has felt that he owed to the greek philosophy, for the development of kalam as Islamic discourse.[97] Modern philosopher Federico Campagna has suspected the similarity between the unique cosmological kalam philosophy taught by Mulla Sadra with Hindu Vedic Upanishads philosophy.[98] In retrospect, Muhammad Kamal from Islamic studies at the Melbourne institute has stated Mulla Sadra philosophy was influenced by Avicenna and Ibn Arabi.[99]

Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranian Islamic revolutionary, politician, religious leader who served as the first Supreme Leader of Iran, founder of modern day Islamic Republic of Iran and the main leader of the Iranian Revolution; has used kalam to facilitate his socio-religious revival of moral spirit of the masses. As he formulate the revolutionary system on his states building, Khomeini's political thoughts was closely linked with kalam discourse.[100]

As an Islamic discipline

[edit]
Part of a series on
Aqidah
Sunni
Six Articles of Iman
Five Pillars of Islam
Schools of theology
Shi'a
Basic Tenets of Faith
Theology of the Twelvers4, 5
Theology of the Ismailis6
Theology of the Zaydis
Muhakkima
Theology of the Ibadis
Other variants

Including:

Islam portal

Although seeking knowledge in Islam is considered a religious obligation, the study of kalam is considered by Muslim scholars to fall beyond the category of necessity and is usually the preserve of qualified scholars, eliciting limited interest from the masses or common people.[101]

The early Muslim scholar al-Shafi'i held that there should be a certain number of men trained in kalam to defend and purify the faith, but that it would be a great evil if their arguments should become known to the mass of the people.[60]

Similarly, the Islamic scholar al-Ghazali held the view that the science of kalam is not a personal duty on Muslims but a collective duty. Like al-Shafi'i, he discouraged the masses from studying it and that only the most able do so.[101]

Criticism

[edit]

Despite the dominance of kalam as an intellectual tradition within Islam, some scholars were critical of its use. For example, Hanbali school and followers of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal would generally avoid kalam and philosophical talk all together, seeing it as an innovation.[102] The same sentiments is also found within the Zahiri school.;[103] The modern Wahhabi and Salafi movements generally consider kalam to be an innovation and reject its usage.[104]

The Hanbali Sufi, Khwaja Abdullah Ansari wrote a treatise entitled Dhamm al-Kalam where he criticized the use of kalam.[59]

Ibn al-Jawzi, 12th AD Hanbali scholar; has explained that that Ulama and Fiqh of his contemporary have considered kalam as "...useless discipline..".[105] He described the kalam scholars progression was at first "because they were exposed to foreign literatures about philosophy...", then in the end they established kalam, which in practice damaged their creed of Islam.[106]

Ibn Qudama, 13th AD Hanbali scholar; harshly criticized kalam as one of the worst of all heresies. He characterized their scholars, the mutakallimūn, as innovators and heretics who had betrayed and deviated from the simple and pious faith of the early Muslims.[107]

Al-Dhahabi, 14th AD Hanbali scholar and historian; has made his derogatory statement towards kalam scholar by comparing them with Abu Jahl, the reviled figure in Islam during the time of Muhammad.[108]

Ibn Taymiyya, 14th AD Hanbali scholar; was notable for his bold stance against the doctrines of Mutakallimin in his works such as ar-Radd 'ala al-mantiqiyyın (Refutation of the Rationalists), and bayan muwafaqat al-'aql al-sarih li al-Naql as-Sahiha. Ibn Taymiyya even further criticize Ash'arite rationalists such as al-Ghazali, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, and al-Shahrastani for their method in discourses by abandoning the scripturalism way.[109] In general, Ibn Taymiyya has detailed his criticism in Ar-Radd 'ala al-Mantiqiyyin. Regarding al-Ghazali in particular, Through the seventh chapter of his book, Mi'yar Al-'Ilm, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote that although he recognized that al-Ghazali's intention are not inherently bad in his attempt to describe the limit of human's mind in metaphysical and esoterical concepts, as it was aimed to oppose the core idea of kalam scholars that everything must be grasped by logic; although he still held that such discourse are moot as it only distract al-Ghazali from the important aspect of literal meanings, while it kept al-Ghazali busy with irrelevant semantic argumentations.[110]

Al-Shawkani, an 18th AD Atharism,[111][112] Zahiri scholar,[113] early Salafi movement figure,[114][115][116][117] and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab contemporary;[118][119] has expressed his view for literal theological interpretation and opposition to kalam (speculative theology).[120][121][122][123][124]

Siddiq Hasan Khan, 19th AD North Indian Salafi scholar,[8] co-founder of Ahl-i Hadith movement,[125][126] and also Nawab (viceroy) of Bhopal State;[127] has rejected kalam as he regards it as "full of speculations". It was stated by himself that his opposition towards kalam were influenced by the thoughts of Al-Shawkani, Al-San'ani and Ibn Taymiyya.[128][8]

Rashid Rida, 19th century AD reformer of Islamics school;[129] in his later years of life has perceived the Athari theology as more rational than Kalam and actively condemning Kalam, as he view the Athari methodology had stronger religious foundations of Islam. Furthermore, he also saw the Ash'arite theology as ineffective against philosophical doubts.[130]

Al-Albani, prominent figure of Salafism and modern era Hadith scholar; considered kalam doctrine as misguided in the Islamic creed due to their Ta'til methodology, which consequently divesting the Names of God in Islam. Al-Albani stated the notable example was the rejection of kalam scholars of the al-ʿAliyy (Most highest) attribute of God.[131]

Manzoor Elahi, 21th century AD Bangladeshi Salafi scholar and academic; has stated in his book "The Importance of Right Aqeedah in Reforming Society" edited by Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria says about Ilmul Kalam,[132]

The Mutaqallimin called the Aqeedah studies "Ilmul Kalam" and the philosophers called "Al-Falsafa al-Islamiyyah" or Islamic philosophy, "Al-Ilahiyat" and "Metaphysics" (supernaturalism). About the latter names, Dr. Nasser al-Aql and many others say that it is not pure to call the Islamic Aqeedah by these names. Explaining the reason, Muhammad Ibrahim Al Hamad said, "Because the source of Ilmul Kalam is human intellect, which is based on Hindu and Greek philosophy. On the other hand, the main source of Tawheed is revelation. Moreover, Ilmul Kalam includes restlessness, imbalance, ignorance and doubt. That is why the Salaf Saleheen condemned Ilmul Kalam. And Tawheed is based on knowledge, conviction and faith,….. Another reason can be said that the foundation of philosophy is based on assumptions, false beliefs, imaginary thoughts and superstitious ideas". Imam Harawi wrote a 5-volume book called ذم الكلام وأهله and Imam Ghazali wrote a book called تهافت الفلاسفة. Besides, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, among other Muslim scholars have discussed in detail that 'Ilmul Kalam' and 'Falsafa' do not represent the correct Islamic belief.

Similar sentiment were also stated by ʻUthmān ibn Jumʻah Ḍumayrīyah, an Islamic theology professor of University of Sharjah and Umm al-Qura University; that kalam science inherently contradicts the Islamic creed of al-Burooj Quran 85:16 chapter regarding the attribute of God's name as omnipotent (al-Jabbār); which contain the attribute of capability to perform any wills (yurīd). ʻUthmān views that kalam's doctrine omitted such attribute by human's logic only.[105]

Schools

[edit]

Sunni kalam schools

[edit]

Shia kalam schools

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Appendix

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Arabic: عِلْم ٱلْكَلَام, romanized: ʿilm al-kalām, lit. 'science of discourse'[1]
  2. ^ Arabic: عِلْم ٱللَّاهُوت, romanized: ʿilm al-lāhūt, lit. 'science of theology'

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Abdel-Haleem, M. A. S. (2008). "Part I: Historical perspectives - Qur'an and hadith". In Winter, Timothy (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–32. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521780582.002. ISBN 978-1-139-00181-6.
  2. ^ Mutahhari, Murtada. "An Introduction to 'Ilm al-Kalam". Muslim Philosophy. Translated by Qara'i, 'Ali Quli. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
  3. ^ Mutahhari, Murtadha (12 March 2013). "An Introduction to Ilm al-Kalam". Retrieved 2023-10-31. For a definition of 'ilm al-kalam, it is sufficient to say that, "It is a science which studies the basic doctrines of the Islamic faith (usul al-Din). It identifies the basic doctrines and seeks to prove their validity and answers any doubts which may be cast upon them."
  4. ^  • Treiger, Alexander (2016) [2014]. "Part I: Islamic Theologies during the Formative and the Early Middle period - Origins of Kalām". In Schmidtke, Sabine (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 27–43. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199696703.013.001. ISBN 978-0-19-969670-3. LCCN 2016935488.
     • Abrahamov, Binyamin (2016) [2014]. "Part I: Islamic Theologies during the Formative and the Early Middle period - Scripturalist and Traditionalist Theology". In Schmidtke, Sabine (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 264–279. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199696703.013.025. ISBN 978-0-19-969670-3. LCCN 2016935488.
  5. ^ Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Linda Gale Jones, Handbook to Life in the Medieval World, p. 391. ISBN 1-4381-0907-5
  6. ^ Abul Quasem, M. (1975). The ethics of al-Ghazali: A composite ethics in Islam. p. 18
  7. ^ a b Clinton Bennett, The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies, p. 119. ISBN 1-4411-2788-7.
  8. ^ a b c Schmidtke, Sabine; El-Rouayheb, Khaled (2014). "Theology and Logic". The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 428. ISBN 978-0-19-969670-3.
  9. ^ a b Al-Farabi 1949, p. 107
  10. ^ a b Abu al-Hassan al-Amiri 1988, p. 95
  11. ^ a b Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi & 1993-4, p. 94
  12. ^ a b Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi 2003, p. 15
  13. ^ Ibn al-Tilimsani 2010, p. 43
  14. ^ Shams al-Din al-Samarqandi (1985). Ahmad Abdurahman al-Sharif (ed.). Al-Sahaʾif al-Ilahiya. Kuwait: Maktabat al-Falah. p. 66.
  15. ^ a b Adud al-Din al-Iji 1966, p. 37
  16. ^ a b al-Taftzani 1998, p. 163
  17. ^ Ibn'Arafa 2004, p. 78
  18. ^ a b Ibn Khaldun 2001, p. 588
  19. ^ Al-Kamal ibn al-Humam (1929). Al-Musayara fi Ilm al-Kalam. Cairo: Al-Maṭbaʿa al-Mahmudiya, Cairo. p. 5.
  20. ^ a b c d Taşköprüzade 2001, p. 148
  21. ^ Abd al-Razzaq Lahiji 2011, p. 51
  22. ^ a b al-Tahānawī 1996, p. 29
  23. ^ Morteza Motahhari 1991, p. 57
  24. ^ Louis Gardet. "Ilm al-kalām" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 3. Brill. p. 1142.
  25. ^ a b c Louis Gardet, M.M Anawati (1981). Introduction à la théologie musulmane. Librairie philosophique J. Vrin. pp. 6–20.
  26. ^ Abd an-Nabī al-Ahmadnagarī (2000). Gami al-Ulum fi Istilahat al-Funan, al-Mulaqqab bi-Dustur al-Ulama. Vol. 3. Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-'Ilmiyya. p. 95.
  27. ^ Al-Ghazali (2000). Rashid Rida (ed.). Gawahir al-Qur'an. Beirut: Dar Iḥya al-Ulum. p. 39.
  28. ^ Ibn al-Athir (1980). Al-Lubab fi Tahḏib al-Ansab. Vol. 3. Beirut: Dar al-Sadir. p. 161.
  29. ^ Ibn Khallikan (1978). Ihsan Abbas (ed.). Wafayat al-A'yan wa-Anba Abna al-Zaman. Vol. 4. Beirut: Dar al-Sadir. p. 271.
  30. ^ Siraj al-Din Urmavi (2012). Al-Risala al-Garre fi al-Farq Baina Nau'ai al-Ilm al-Ilahi wa-l-Kalam. p. 75.
  31. ^ Abdurrahman Atçıl (2019). "The Kalām (Rational Theology) Section in the Palace Library Inventory". In Gülrü Necipoğlu; Cemal Kafadar; Cornell Fleischer (eds.). Treasures of Knowledge. An Inventory of the Ottoman Palace Library (1502/03–1503/04). Brill. pp. 367–388.
  32. ^ al-Tahānawī 1996, p. 31
  33. ^ Al-Shahrastani (1992). Ahmad Fahmi Muhammad (ed.). al-Milal wa-n-niḥal. Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-'Ilmiyya. p. 23.
  34. ^ Ibn al-Tilimsani 2010, p. 42
  35. ^ al-Taftzani 2014, p. 23
  36. ^ a b Ibn Khaldun 2001, p. 589
  37. ^ Mutahhari, Murtadha (12 March 2013). "An Introduction to Ilm al-Kalam". al-islam.org. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
  38. ^ Adud al-Din al-Iji 1966, p. 66
  39. ^ Tjitze de Boer [in Western Frisian] (1901). History of Philosophy in Islam. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog. p. 43.
  40. ^ Duncan Black MacDonald. "Ilm al-kalām" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 2. Brill. pp. 717–723.
  41. ^ a b A. J. Wensinck [in German] (1932). The Muslim Creed. Its Genesis and Historical Development. Cambridge University Press. pp. 717–723.
  42. ^ Maimonides (1974). The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by Michael Friedländer. p. 19.
  43. ^ Franz August Schmölders (1985). Essai sur les écoles philosophiques chez les arabes. Stuttgart et al.
  44. ^ Ibn Khaldun 2001, p. 586
  45. ^ Mohammed Abed al-Jabri (2002). Takwīn al-ʿaql al-ʿarabī. Beirut: The Centre: Journal of Arabic Studies. p. 347.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  46. ^ Josef van Ess [in German] (1991). Theology and Society in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries of the Hijra. A History of Religious Thought in Early Islam. Vol. 1. De Gruyter. p. 50.
  47. ^ Abd al-Aziz al-Duri, ed. (1971). Ahbar al-Daula al-Abbasiya wa-Fihi Ahbar al-Abbas wa-Waladihi. Beirut: Dar al-Tali. p. 310.
  48. ^ Shlomo Pines (1971). A Note on an Early Meaning of the Term Mutakallim in Israel Oriental Studies 1. Tel Aviv University. p. 225.
  49. ^ Abu Zakariya al-Azdi (1967). Ali Habiba (ed.). Tarikh al-Mausil. p. 5.
  50. ^ Josef van Ess [in German] (1975). The Beginnings of Islamic Theology" in JE Murdoch and ED Sylla: The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Philosophy, Science, and Theology in the Middle Ages. D. Reidel. p. 89.
  51. ^ Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (2008). Kitab al-Agani. Vol. III. Translated by Ihsan Abbas; Ibrahim al-Sa'afrin; Bakr Abbas. Beirut: Dar Sadir. p. 101.
  52. ^ Abdullah Ansari (2008). Abu Gabir al-Ansari (ed.). Dham al-Kalam wa-ahlihi. Vol. IV. Amman: Maktabat al-Guraba al-Atariya. pp. 116–221.
  53. ^ Ibn Taymiyyah (1993). Muhibb al-Hatib (ed.). Al-Muntaqa min Manahig al-i-Tidal. Riyadh: Al-Risala al-Amm al-Idarat al-Buhut al-Ilmiya. p. 528.
  54. ^ al-Masudi (1861–1877). Muruj ad-Dahab wa-Maʿadin al-Jawhar. Vol. VIII. Translated by Barbier de Meynard et Pavet de Courteille. p. 293.
  55. ^ Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.15
  56. ^ a b c Fakhry, Majid (1983). A History of Islamic Philosophy (second ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. pp. xvii–xviii.
  57. ^ Mutahhari, Murtadha (12 March 2013). "An Introduction to Ilm al-Kalam". al-islam.org. Retrieved 2023-10-31. These were: embracing of Islam by various nations who brought with them a series of (alien) ideas and notions; mixing and coexistence of the Muslims with people of various religions, such as, the Jews, the Christians, the Magians, and the Sabaeans, and the ensuing religious debates and disputes between the Muslims and those peoples; the emergence of the Zanadiqah in the Islamic world - who were totally against religion - as a result of the general freedom during the rule of the 'Abbasid Caliphs (as long as it did not interfere in the matters of state politics); the birth of philosophy in the Muslim world - which by itself gave birth to doubts and skeptical attitudes.
  58. ^ Gardet, Louis (1978). "Kalām". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. J.; Heinrichs, W. P.; Lewis, B.; Pellat, Ch.; Dumont, C.; Paterson, M. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Vol. 4. Leiden: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0421. ISBN 978-90-04-16121-4.
  59. ^ a b Jeffry R. Halverson, Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam, 2010: p 37. ISBN 0-230-10658-7
  60. ^ a b c Black Macdonald, Duncan (2008). Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory, Chapter=III. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-58477-858-5.
  61. ^ Walid ibn Muhammad Nabih ibn Sayf an-Nashr (1996). ibn 'Ied al-Abbasi, Muhammad (ed.). أصول السنة [Principle of Sunnah] (in Arabic). Maktaba Ibn Taymiyyah. p. 50. Retrieved 9 August 2024. Footnote 13
  62. ^ W. Williams (2002). "Aspects of the Creed of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: A Study of Anthropomorphism in Early Islamic Discourse". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 34 (3). Cambridge University Press: 441–463. doi:10.1017/S0020743802003021.
  63. ^ Shaukat Ali (1993). Millenarian and Messianic Tendencies in Islamic History. Publishers United. p. 118. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
  64. ^ Pemikiran Islam di Malaysia: sejarah dan aliran (in Malay). Gema Insani. 1997. p. 137. ISBN 979-561-430-4. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
  65. ^ brahim bin 'Amir Ar-Ruhaili (2019). Sikap Ahlussunnah wal Jama'ah terhadap Ahli Bid'ah dan Pengikut Hawa Nafsu (Jilid: 2) [The Attitude of Ahlussunnah wal Jama'ah towards Heretics and Followers of Lust (Volume: 2)] (in Indonesian). Darul Falah. pp. 96–97. ISBN 978-979-3036-74-8. Retrieved 12 August 2024.
  66. ^ Musthafa Said Al-khin (2014). Zirzis, Achmad (ed.). Sejarah Ushul Fikih [History of Ushul Fiqih] (in Indonesian). Translated by Muhammad Misbah. East Jakarta, Id: Pustaka Al-Kautsar. p. 235. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
  67. ^ Turner 2010, p. 95; Melchert 1996, pp. 321–25; Ibn Khallikan 1871, pp. 66, 69–70; Yarshater 1985–2007, v. 34: p. 75.
  68. ^ Turner 2010, pp. 95–98; Melchert 1996, pp. 325–26; Hinds 1993, pp. 4–5; Zetterstéen & Pellat 1960, p. 271; Ibn Khallikan 1871, p. 70; Yarshater 1985–2007, v. 34: pp. 116-19.
  69. ^ Al-Shahrastani (1850–1851). Al-Milal wa al-Nihal (in German). Vol. 1. Translated by Theodor Haarbrücker. Halle. p. 28.
  70. ^ Al-Yaʿqūbī (2019). Abdurahman Abdallah al-Saqir (ed.). Musakalat al-Nas li-Zamanihim (in Arabic). Beirut: Gadawil. p. 100.
  71. ^ Ibn Babawayh (1991). Husain al-A'lami (ed.). Musakalat al-Nas li-Zamanihim (in Arabic). Beirut: Mu'assasat al-A'lami. p. 339.
  72. ^ al-Masudi (1861–1877). Muruj ad-Dahab wa-Maʿadin al-Jawhar. Vol. VI. Translated by Barbier de Meynard et Pavet de Courteille. pp. 368–375.
  73. ^ Al-Yaʿqūbī (2019). Abdurahman Abdallah al-Saqir (ed.). Musakalat al-Nas li-Zamanihim (in Arabic). Beirut: Gadawil. p. 104.
  74. ^ al-Jahiz 1979, p. 244
  75. ^ al-Jahiz 1979, p. 246
  76. ^ Al-Jahiz (1979). Abd as-Salam M. Harun (ed.). Risala fi nafy at-tasbih (PDF) (in Arabic). Vol. 1. Cairo. p. 285.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  77. ^ Ibn Hawqal (1967). Johannes Hendrik Kramers (ed.). Book of Surat al-Ard. Edinburgh University Press. p. 255.
  78. ^ Wilferd Madelung (22 September 1988). Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran. Iran Heritage Foundation. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-88706-701-3.
  79. ^ W. Montgomery Watt (8 August 2019). Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Brill. p. 76. ISBN 978-1-4744-7347-7.
  80. ^ a b 'Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Tahir. "دور أبي ذر الهروي في نشر الأشعرية بالمغرب" [The role of Abu Dharr al-Harawi in the spread of Ash'ari theology in Morocco] (in Arabic). Muhammadiya Association of Scholars. Archived from the original on 13 Apr 2023.
  81. ^ Al-Bayhaqi (1999). Allah's Names and Attributes. Translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad. Islamic Supreme Council of America. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-1-930409-03-3.
  82. ^ Aaron Spevack, The Archetypal Sunni Scholar: Law, Theology, and Mysticism in the Synthesis of Al-Bajuri, p 55. State University of New York Press, 1 Oct 2014. ISBN 143845371X
  83. ^ Pellat, Charles (1971). "Ibn Sharaf al-Qayrawānī". In Lewis, B.; Ménage, V. L.; Pellat, Ch. & Schacht, J. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume III: H–Iram. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 936–937. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_3374. OCLC 495469525.
  84. ^ Aaminah-Kulsum Patel (1 July 2022). The Ascent of Adam: Re-Evaluating the First Prophet in Quranic Exegesis. King's College London. p. 211.
  85. ^ Henri Lauzière (17 November 2015). The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54017-9.
  86. ^ Richard C. Martin, Mark Woodward, Dwi S. Atmaja (3 March 2016). Defenders of Reason in Islam, Mu'tazililism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 9781786070241.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  87. ^ Malik, Hamza (2 October 2018). The Grey Falcon: The Life and Teaching of Shaykh ʿAbd Al-Qādir Al-Jīlānī. Brill. p. 51. ISBN 9789004383692.
  88. ^ Joseph A. Kéchichian (8 February 2023). A Sultanate that Endures, Oman in the World from Qaboos Bin Sa'id to Haitham Bin Tariq. Liverpool University Press. p. 26. ISBN 9781837643998.
  89. ^ Khaled El-Rouayheb, Sabine Schmidtke (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 375. ISBN 9780199917389.
  90. ^ Muḥammad ibn Abī-Bakr Sāčaqlızāde (1996). Tartib al-ulum. Beirut: Dar al-Basa'ir al-Islamiya. p. 149.
  91. ^ Adud al-Din al-Iji 1966, pp. 37–60
  92. ^ Jeffry R. Halverson (2010). "2: The Demise of 'Ilm al-Kalam". Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash'arism, and Political Sunnism. SpringerLink. pp. 33–57. doi:10.1057/9780230106581_3. ISBN 978-0-230-10658-1. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
  93. ^ Gunhild Graf (2018). Ilm al-kalām in Mauritania based on Moorish commentaries on the Iḍāʾat ad-duǧunna fī iʿtiqād ahl as-sunna by al-Maqqarī (st. 1041/1632) (in German). Asian studies. p. 757. doi:10.1515/asia-2018-0008.
  94. ^ Muhammad ibn 'Umar al-Bartallī (1981). Fatḥ al-Sakur fi Maʿrifat aʿyan Ulama al-Takrur. p. 181.
  95. ^ Michael Kemper (1998). Sufis and scholars in Tatarstan and Bashkiria, 1789–1889. The Islamic discourse under Russian rule. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg. p. 221. doi:10.1353/imp.2011.0085.
  96. ^ İsmail Hakkı İzmirli [in Turkish] (1981). Muhassalu al-Kalam fi al-Hikme (PDF). Istanbul: Evkaf-ı İslamiye Matbaası. p. 181.
  97. ^ Henry Corbin (2014). History Of Islamic Philosophy. Routledge. p. 256. ISBN 978-1-135-19889-3. Retrieved 22 August 2024.
  98. ^ Federico Campagna (2018). Technic and Magic: The Reconstruction of Reality. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-350-04403-6. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  99. ^ Muhammad Kamal (2016). Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 42, 50, 52. ISBN 978-1-317-09370-1. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  100. ^ Bogdana Todorova (2020). "KHOMEINI'S POLITICAL-RELIGIOUS APPROACH OF THE 'IRANIAN NATION'". Politics and Religion • Politologie des Religions. XIV (1). Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: 45, 47, 52. Retrieved 22 August 2024.
  101. ^ a b Bennett, Clinton (2012). The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-4411-2788-4.
  102. ^ Duncan Black MacDonald (2008). Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory. Macdonald Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-1-58477-858-5.
  103. ^ Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (Egypt) research team (2015). Artawijaya (ed.). Ensiklopedi Aliran dan Madzhab Di Dunia Islam [Encyclopedia of Schools and Schools of Thought in the Islamic World] (in Indonesian). Translated by Masturi Ilham; M. Abidin Zuhdi; Khalifurrahman Fath. Jakarta: Pustaka Al-Kautsar; Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (Egypt). p. 664. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
  104. ^ Saul Silas Fathi (22 December 2023). Gods and Religions. Writers Republic LLC. p. 615. ISBN 9798891004665.
  105. ^ a b Yazid bin Abdul Qadir Jawas (13 November 2012). "Dalil 'Aqli (Akal) Yang Benar Akan Sesuai Dengan Dalil Naqli/Nash Yang Shahih: Penjelasan Kaidah Keenam Dalil aqli (akal) yang benar akan sesuai dengan dalil Naqli/nash yang shahih" [The correct 'Aqli (reason) argument will be in accordance with the authentic Naqli/Nash argument: Explanation of the Sixth Rule The correct aqli (reason) argument will be in accordance with the authentic Naqli/Nash argument]. Almanhaj. Retrieved 10 August 2024. Chapter 6 of= Syarah Aqidah Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah (in Indonesian). Pustaka Imam As-Syafi'i. 2006. ISBN 978-979-3536-64-4. OCLC 949744119. References from:
  106. ^ Abu Minhal (2010). "Ilmu Filsafat, Perusak Akidah Islam" [Philosophy damaging Aqida]. Almanhaj (in Indonesian). Yayasan Lajnah Istiqomah (Lajnah Istiqomah institute). Retrieved 13 August 2024. concise references from:
    • Ibn al-Jawzi (2004). al-Masihi Suwaidan, Hassan (ed.). كتاب صيد الخاطر [Book of Hunting the Mind] (in Arabic). Damascus: دار القلم. p. 226. Archived from the original on 13 August 2024. Retrieved 13 August 2024.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
    • Muhammad Ishaq Kandu (2011). "3". منهج الحافظ ابن حجر في العقيدة [The Methodology of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Creed]. موقع الدرر السنية على الإنترنت dorar.net. p. 1446. Retrieved 13 August 2024.
  107. ^ Halverson (2010, p. 38).
  108. ^ Abu Isma'il Muslim al Atsari (2000). "Jangan Mengambil Ilmu dari Ahli Bid'ah (en. do not take knowledge from innovators)". Majalah as-Sunnah [As-Sunnah magazine] (in Indonesian). Solo, Indonesia: Lajnah Istiqomah Surakarta Foundation. Retrieved 23 August 2024. quote from: Bakr bin Abdullah Abu Zaid bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Bakr bin Othman bin Yahya bin Ghayhab bin Muhammad (1994). Abu Zaid, Bakr (ed.). حلية طالب العلم [Student's ornament] (in Arabic). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: دار العاصمة للنشر والتوزيع. p. 39. Retrieved 23 August 2024. Siyar A'lam al-Nubala', 4/472
  109. ^ Birgit Krawietz; Georges Tamer (2013). Islamic Theology, Philosophy and Law: Debating Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 276–277. ISBN 978-3-11-028540-6. Retrieved 22 August 2024.
  110. ^ Zaid Al-Sharif (2015). "آراء الغزالي وابن تيمية في الحد المنطقي" [Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah's views on the logical definition]. alukah.net (in Arabic). لألوكة. Retrieved 25 August 2024. References:
    • Al-Mustasfa, pp. 11-14, 19-24
    • Ar-Radd 'ala al-Mantiqiyyin, pp. 45, 48, 50-53, 55-57, 61, 64, 68, 70, 72, 80-83, 101, 103-104, 113, 114, 117-119, 121.
    • Majmu' Al-Fatawa, vol. 9, pp. 23-25.
  111. ^ Bowering, Gerhard, ed. (2013). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 506–507. ISBN 978-0-691-13484-0. al-Shawkani, Muhammad b. 'Ali (1760–1834)... dismissed speculative theology (kalām) and reason-based arguments as idle talk and was a staunch Salafi in matters of creed
  112. ^ Haykel, Bernard (2003). "The Absolute Interpreter and Renewer of the Thirteenth Century AH". Revival and Reform in Islam: The Legacy of Muhammad Al-Shawkani. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-521-52890-0. Shawkänī, as was mentioned already, was opposed to kaläm, which he regarded as a science that led to more confusion than clarity for the believer. He admits that he felt confused by it (lam azdad bihā illā þpiratan) and he found it to consist of idle talk (khuza"balār)... Shawkānī appears to fit more properly, though perhaps not entirely, in the Hanbalī tradition, which rejected outright many of the theological claims made by the various schools of kalām.
  113. ^ Ahmad Farid Al-Mazidi (2023). المذهب العارف ومذاهب أخرى (دائرة المعارف -8-). f Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmiyah دار الكتب العلمية‎. pp. iii, 28, 31. ISBN 978-2-7451-8264-7. Retrieved 20 August 2024.
  114. ^ Ali, Mohamed Bin. "Salafis, salafism and modern salafism: what lies behind a term?." (2015).
  115. ^ Bowering, Gerhard, ed. (2013). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 484, 506. ISBN 978-0-691-13484-0. Shawkani .. is a prominent authority for the Salafi version of Islam
  116. ^ Bernard Haykel; Thomas Hegghammer; Stéphane Lacroix (2015). Saudi Arabia in Transition: Insights on Social, Political, Economic and Religious Change. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-1-107-00629-4.
  117. ^ Orkaby, Asher (2021). Yemen: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 120, 160. ISBN 978-0-19-093226-8.
  118. ^ Abualrab, Jalal (2013). Biography and Mission of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. New York, NY: Madinah Publishers and Distributors. p. 497. ISBN 978-0-9856326-9-4.
  119. ^ ul Haq, Asim (August 2011). "Al Imam al-Shawkani (d. 1250H) on the Writings, Da'wah and Adversaries of Shaykh Muhammad Bin Abd Al-Wahhab". 'Wahhabis'.com. Archived from the original on 24 July 2014.
  120. ^ Moussa, Mohammed (2016). "3: Renewal in the formation of the Islamic tradition". Politics of the Islamic Tradition: The thought of Muhammad al-Ghazali. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 56–59. ISBN 978-1-138-84121-5.
  121. ^ Leaman, Oliver (2022). Routledge Handbook of Islamic Ritual and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-367-49123-9.
  122. ^ Vassiliev, Alexei (1998). The History of Saudi Arabia. London, UK: Saqi Books. p. 146. ISBN 0-86356-399-6.
  123. ^ Carr Brian; Indira Mahalingam (1997). Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy. London, UK: Routledge. p. 931. ISBN 0-203-01350-6.
  124. ^ "Fatwa: What does 'family' mean?". Umma.ws. Archived from the original on 2006-05-01.
  125. ^ Meijer, Roel (2014). "Salafism In Pakistan: The Ahl-e Hadith Movement". Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-19-933343-1. The Jama'at Ahl-e Hadith, an elitist politico religious movement aimed at islah (reform), has its origins in the early 1870s. Like other Sunni reform movements, it claims to continue the tradition of Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703–1762) whom it regards as the first modern Ahl-e Hadith member and draws on ideas of Syed Ahmed Barelvi (Ahmed Shaheed) (1786–1831), follower of Shah Abdul Aziz (1746–1824), the son of Shah Waliullah, and the Yemenite qadi Mohammad ibn Ali al Shawkani (1775–1839).
  126. ^ Sophie Gilliat-Ray (2010). Muslims in Britain: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-521-83006-5.
  127. ^ Nizami, Khaliq AHmad (1990). "The Impact of Ibn Taymiyya on South Asia". Journal of Islamic Studies. 1. Oxford University Press: 139–140. doi:10.1093/jis/1.1.120. JSTOR 26195671. After Shah Wali Allah, the most powerful advocate of Ibn Taimiyya's ideology was Nawab Sayyid Muhammad Siddiq Hasan Khan (1832–1890)..
  128. ^ Krawietz, birgit; Tamer, Georges, eds. (2013). "Screening Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān's Library: The Use of Ḥanbalī Literature in 19th-Century Bhopal". Islamic Theology, Philosophy and Law: Debating Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter. pp. 195–196. ISBN 978-3-11-028534-5.
  129. ^ Olidort, Jacob (2015). "A New Curriculum: Rashīd Riḍā and Traditionalist Salafism". In Defense of Tradition: Muhammad Nasir Al-Din Al-Albani and the Salafi Method (Thesis). Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University. pp. 52–62. Rashīd Riḍā presented these core ideas of Traditionalist Salafism, especially the purported interest in ḥadīth of the early generations of Muslims, as a remedy for correcting Islamic practice and belief during his time.
  130. ^ Lauziere, Henri (2016). The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-231-17550-0.
  131. ^ Yusuf Abu Ubaidah as-Sidawy (13 March 2010). "15 Alasan Kokohnya Aqidah Salaf Shalih" [Do You Know Where Allah Is?]. Yusuf Abu Ubaidah Official (in Indonesian). Retrieved 9 August 2024. concise reference text from: Al-Albani (2003). "1". Irwaul Ghalil [The stability of the Salaf's creed and its safety from changes] (in Arabic). Saudi Arabia: Najla Press. p. 113. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
  132. ^ Ilahi, Muhammad Manzoor. Zakariya, Abu Bakr Muhammad (ed.). "Samāja sanskārē saṭhika ākīdāra gurutba" (The Importance of Right Aqeedah in Social Reformation) (PDF) (in Bengali). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Islamic Propagation Office in Rabwah. pp. 11–12. Retrieved 23 November 2022.

References

[edit]

Primary sources

[edit]
Secondary sources
[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Kalam

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Kalam (Arabic: كلام, romanized: kalām; lit. "speech" or "discourse") is the scholastic discipline of Islamic theology that systematically employs rational argumentation, dialectical reasoning, and philosophical methods to establish, defend, and elucidate the core doctrinal principles of Islam, including the existence and attributes of God, prophecy, eschatology, and human free will. Originating in the late 7th and early 8th centuries CE amid theological debates between emerging Muslim sects and encounters with non-Muslim philosophies, particularly Greek and Persian thought, kalam sought to counter perceived heresies such as anthropomorphism and determinism while reconciling revelation with intellect. Its practitioners, known as mutakallimūn (mutakallimūn), developed atomistic cosmologies and proofs for divine unity (tawḥīd) to affirm God's transcendence and omnipotence against materialist or dualist challenges. The discipline crystallized into distinct schools, with the Mu'tazila emphasizing uncreated divine speech and human responsibility through rigorous rationalism in the 8th–9th centuries, often prioritizing reason (ʿaql) over tradition. In response, the Ashʿari and Maturidi schools, founded by Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari (d. 936 CE) and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 944 CE) respectively, integrated kalami methods with scriptural orthodoxy to curb excesses of pure rationalism, becoming dominant in Sunni theology by the 10th century. Athari traditionalists, however, critiqued speculative kalam as an innovative bidʿah (innovation) that risked corrupting pure faith, advocating reliance on unambiguous texts (naṣṣ) over dialectical subtleties. Key achievements include formalizing proofs like the kalam cosmological argument for a created universe, influencing later Islamic philosophy (falsafa) and even medieval Jewish and Christian scholasticism, though controversies persisted over its legitimacy, with figures like Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) condemning it for deviating from prophetic precedent. Despite such debates, kalam remains integral to Islamic intellectual history, adapting to defend orthodoxy against rationalist critiques from within and external philosophical traditions.

Definition and Scope

Core Definitions in Historical Context

ʿIlm al-kalām, commonly rendered as the science of discourse or dialectical theology, constitutes a branch of Islamic religious scholarship dedicated to employing rational and discursive arguments to affirm core doctrinal beliefs (ʿaqāʾid) and refute deviations or external challenges thereto. This discipline, practiced by mutakallimūn (singular: mutakallim), emerged as a methodical defense of Islamic tenets, particularly emphasizing tawḥīd (divine unity) through speculative reasoning, distinguishing it from purely scriptural exegesis or jurisprudence. Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406 CE), in his Muqaddimah, characterized kalām as "the science that involves arguing with rational proofs in defence of the articles of faith and refuting innovators who deviate in their beliefs from the sunna of the Prophet and the way of the Companions or who deviate into atheism and outright heresy," underscoring its apologetic and polemical orientation. In its formative historical context during the Umayyad (661–750 CE) and early Abbasid (750–833 CE) eras, kalām addressed nascent theological disputes arising from political schisms, such as those post-Battle of Siffin (657 CE), which precipitated debates on leadership (imāma), the nature of faith (īmān), and human responsibility (qadar). Early proponents, including figures like Maʿbad al-Juhanī (d. ca. 699–700 CE), engaged with issues of predestination and free will, laying groundwork for systematic rational inquiry amid encounters with non-Muslim intellectuals, including Christian theologians and Greek philosophical texts translated into Arabic. The Muʿtazila, originating in Basra around the early 8th century under Wāsil b. ʿAṭāʾ (d. 748 CE), exemplified this approach by prioritizing rationalism to uphold God's justice and unity, rejecting anthropomorphic interpretations of divine attributes while countering perceived fatalism in Umayyad predestinarianism. This speculative method, often termed problematic and disputatious, contrasted with the more normative (jurisprudence) by delving into metaphysical questions like the createdness of the Qurʾān and the of accidents (aʿrāḍ), fostering a tradition of intra-Muslim polemics that evolved into Sunni under al-Ashʿarī (d. 935 CE) and al-Māturīdī (d. 944 CE). Such developments reflected kalām's role not merely as abstract speculation but as a causal response to intellectual pluralism in conquered territories, where dialectical tools borrowed from late antique Christological debates enabled Muslims to articulate against and infidelity. By the 9th century, under Abbasid patronage, kalām had formalized into an autonomous rational metaphysics, though later critiques, including from traditionalist Ḥanbalīs, contested its overreliance on philosophy-derived premises.

Kalām as Rational Theology and Apologetics

Kalam represents the systematic application of rational argumentation within Islamic to articulate and safeguard foundational doctrines, such as the existence and attributes of , , and . This discipline prioritizes dialectical reasoning—drawing on logic, , and scriptural interpretation—to demonstrate the coherence of revealed truths with human intellect, while subordinating reason to divine as the ultimate authority. Unlike pure , which seeks independent metaphysical knowledge, kalam integrates rational proofs to affirm beliefs derived from the and , repelling doubts arising from internal sects or external critiques. In its apologetic function, kalam emerged as a defensive tool against theological adversaries, including the Mu'tazila's emphasis on human and divine justice, which challenged orthodox views on . Theologians like (d. 936 CE) reformulated kalam to counter such rationalist excesses by employing atomistic and occasionalism, arguing that God's continuous recreation of the world precludes uncreated in creation. This approach refuted deterministic philosophies by positing that all events depend on divine volition, thereby preserving God's transcendence and without conceding ground to Aristotelian eternalism. A hallmark of kalam's rational apologetics is the , which posits that the universe's temporal beginning necessitates an uncaused, eternal cause—identified as God—to avoid an of causes. Formulated by early mutakallimun like (d. 873 CE) and refined by (d. 1111 CE) in his Incoherence of the Philosophers, this counters claims of an eternal cosmos by appealing to the impossibility of actual infinities in contingent events, thus establishing a necessary, immaterial originator. wielded such arguments to dismantle Avicennan , which subordinated God's will to metaphysical necessity, insisting instead on divine freedom as causally primary. Kalam's methodology extends to defending prophetic veracity through rational signs (e.g., miracles as disruptions of natural order) and refuting anthropomorphic misinterpretations of divine attributes via metaphorical guided by intellect. While critics, including some Hanbali traditionalists, viewed excessive kalam speculation as (innovation) risking scriptural fidelity, proponents maintained its necessity for intellectual engagement in diverse polities, as evidenced by its institutionalization in madrasas by the . This dual role—as both constructive and polemical shield—underscored kalam's enduring utility in preserving doctrinal integrity amid rational challenges.

Distinctions from Other Islamic Disciplines

Kalam, or ʿilm al-kalām, constitutes the speculative of , focusing on the rational defense of core doctrinal beliefs such as divine unity (tawḥīd), , and through dialectical argumentation and philosophical tools adapted to scriptural orthodoxy. This sets it apart from , the discipline of Islamic , which systematically derives practical legal rulings (aḥkām) on human conduct from the , , and analogical reasoning, emphasizing actionable precepts over metaphysical speculation. Whereas fiqh addresses the "branches" of religious practice, kalam safeguards the "roots" of faith (uṣūl al-dīn) against rational challenges, as articulated by early mutakallimūn who prioritized creed over jurisprudence to maintain communal unity in belief. Distinct from , the science of Quranic exegesis, kalam transcends philological and contextual interpretation by employing speculative proofs to refute doctrinal deviations, such as or , rather than confining itself to scriptural elucidation. Hadith scholarship, meanwhile, centers on the , , and narration of prophetic traditions through chains of transmission (isnād) and content critique (matn), prioritizing textual reliability over kalam's use of logic to establish theological necessities independent of specific narrations. Kalam further diverges from falsafa () by subordinating unaided reason to revelatory sources; while philosophers like al-Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā drew extensively from Aristotelian and Neoplatonic frameworks to explore metaphysics, mutakallimūn critiqued such approaches for potential conflict with prophetic texts, deriving argumentative principles from the and to affirm attributes like divine speech and will. In opposition to taṣawwuf (), which emphasizes introspective purification and direct of the divine through spiritual stations (maqāmāt), kalam remains anchored in discursive reasoning and public , rejecting unsubstantiated mystical claims in favor of verifiable rational and textual evidence. These boundaries, though occasionally overlapping in interdisciplinary figures like al-Ghazālī, underscore kalam's role as for orthodoxy amid diverse Islamic intellectual traditions.

Etymology and Linguistic Origins

Derivation and Early Usage of the Term

The term kalām derives from the Arabic root k-l-m, denoting "speech," "discourse," or "word," reflecting its origins in verbal argumentation and dialectical theology. In this context, it refers to the structured defense of Islamic doctrines through reasoned debate, distinguishing it from mere recitation or legal exegesis. Early scholars attributed the name to the practice of mutakallimūn (practitioners of kalām), who engaged in oral disputations to counter philosophical challenges, heretical sects, and non-Muslim critiques, making verbal instruction its primary mode of transmission. The earliest documented usage of kalām as a technical term for speculative appears in the late , amid theological controversies during the Umayyad and early Abbasid eras, such as debates over , divine , and the createdness of the Qur'an. Pioneered by groups like the Mu'tazila around 780–850 CE, it involved rational proofs (burhān) to establish creedal fundamentals, often in response to encounters with Greek-influenced Christian and Jewish dialectics. By the , texts like those attributed to early mutakallimūn such as Wāsil ibn 'Atā' (d. 748 CE) exemplify its application, though systematic treatises emerged later under figures like al-Nazzām (d. circa 846 CE). Alternative etymological theories, such as borrowings from Greek logos (word/reason) or Syriac dialectical terms, have been proposed but lack primary evidence, with linguistic roots predominating in historical accounts. The term's evolution from general to a formalized discipline underscores kalām's role in preserving orthodoxy through intellectual rigor, though critics like the viewed it as speculative overreach, preferring silence on ambiguous matters.

Theories on Semantic Evolution

The Arabic term kalām originates from the triliteral k-l-m, signifying articulate , , or verbal expression that conveys meaning. In pre-Islamic and early Islamic , it broadly denoted , statement, or even wound (metaphorically from piercing words), but lacked a specialized theological . This general sense evolved into a technical designation for Islamic speculative (ʿilm al-kalām) by the CE, as scholars systematized rational defenses of core doctrines amid debates with heretics, philosophers, and non-Muslims. The shift reflected the discipline's emphasis on verbal argumentation (munāẓara) to establish beliefs like divine unity (tawḥīd) and , distinguishing it from scriptural (tafsīr) or (fiqh). Early texts, such as those attributed to figures like Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ (d. circa 748 CE), employed kalām for dialectical exchanges, solidifying its association with reasoned theological inquiry. Classical scholars proposed multiple theories for this semantic specialization. Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ṭaftāzānī (d. 1390 CE), in his commentary Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid al-naṣafiyyah, catalogs eight conventional explanations, including the focus on divine speech (kalām Allāh)—debating its created or eternal nature—and the use of dialectical speech to refute opponents. He critiques the former for chronological inconsistency, noting kalām's formal emergence during Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal's lifetime (d. 855 CE), predating widespread Qurʾānic creation debates. Among five "original" reasons, al-Ṭaftāzānī highlights kalām as a rational surrogate for unmediated scriptural interpretation, enabling believers to affirm verbally against . An alternative view, articulated by Ḥasan Maḥmūd al-Shāfiʿī in al-Madkhal ilā dirāsat ʿilm al-kalām, traces the term to early verbal professions of creed (ʿaqīda), as practiced by Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 767 CE) and Mālik ibn Anas (d. 795 CE), who prioritized sincere utterance (qawl) in belief over ritual action. This theory posits kalām as encompassing īmān's verbal dimension—confession with the tongue—contrasting with fiqh's behavioral focus, and aligns with ḥadīth emphasizing articulated faith (e.g., Jibrīl ḥadīth on islām, īmān, iḥsān). These theories converge on kalām's disputational character, which propelled its adoption over synonyms like uṣūl al-dīn (principles of ) or (greater understanding), attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa. By the , under Muʿtazilī and Ashʿarī schools, kalām denoted comprehensive rational , enduring across Sunnī, Shīʿī, and other sects despite critiques of over-reliance on Greek logic.

Historical Development

Precursors and Question of Origins

The origins of kalām as a distinct Islamic theological discipline remain debated among historians, with evidence pointing to its emergence in the late Umayyad period (circa 680–750 CE) amid internal Muslim disputes over divine justice, human , and scriptural interpretation, rather than direct importation from external philosophies. Early precursors lie in the Qadarīyya movement, which arose in the 680s CE as a reaction against perceived Umayyad endorsements of absolute (jabr), affirming instead that humans possess the capacity (qadar) to act freely while remaining under divine . This position, championed by Maʿbad al-Juhanī (d. 80 AH/699 CE), who was executed for his views during the governorship of al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf, marked the first systematic use of rational argumentation to reconcile Qurʾānic verses on divine decree with those emphasizing moral accountability, setting a precedent for kalām's dialectical method. A countervailing precursor emerged with Jahm ibn Ṣafwān (d. 128 AH/746 CE), an Umayyad-era thinker whose Jahmiyya school advocated extreme determinism, denying anthropomorphic attributes in God and employing speculative reasoning to interpret scripture allegorically, such as equating divine "hand" with power. Jahm's debates with materialist groups like the Sumaniyya (Indian-influenced atheists) and his execution in Tirmidh for heresy highlight kalām-like techniques of rational defense, though his followers were later marginalized; these efforts influenced subsequent schools by demonstrating reason's role in theological polemic. The question of whether kalām truly originated here or earlier—perhaps in ad hoc Qurʾānic exegeses during the fitnas (civil wars) of the 660s–690s CE—hinges on definitional scope: if kalām denotes formalized rational theology (ʿilm al-kalām), its roots trace to Basra and Kūfa's intellectual circles, where figures like Ghaylān al-Dimashqī (d. circa 743 CE) extended Qadarī thought against state-backed fatalism. External influences were secondary in this formative phase, with no substantial Greek philosophical penetration until Abbasid translations post-750 CE; instead, precursors drew from Late Antique Christian and Zoroastrian disputations encountered in conquered territories, fostering habits of verbal debate (kalām literally meaning "speech" or "discussion"). The pivotal transition occurred around 90 AH/708 CE in Ḥasan al-Baṣrī's (d. 110 AH/728 CE) circle, where Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ (d. 131 AH/748–749 CE) and ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd withdrew over the status of grave sinners—neither believers nor unbelievers (manzila bayna al-manzilatayn)—establishing the Muʿtazila as the first self-conscious kalām school, prioritizing reason (ʿaql) to uphold God's justice (ʿadl). This schism underscores kalām's origin not as abstract philosophy but as against intra-Muslim sects like Khārijites and proto-Shīʿa, using from scripture to causal principles of divine equity. While some traditionalists later critiqued these developments as Hellenistic-tinged (bidʿa), empirical records affirm their grounding in empirical scriptural tensions rather than unadulterated foreign import.

Formative Period under Umayyads and Early Abbasids

Theological debates that laid the groundwork for kalām as a discipline emerged during the (661–750 CE), driven by encounters with diverse religious communities in conquered territories such as and Persia, and internal disputes over doctrines like (qadar). Early discussions centered on reconciling apparent Qur'anic emphases on divine with human responsibility for actions, leading to the formation of the Qadariyya school, which advocated for human (qadar) against deterministic interpretations associated with Umayyad policies. Ma'bad al-Juhani (d. 80 AH/699–700 CE), active in , is recognized as one of the first to publicly rationalize qadar, influencing subsequent thinkers before his execution under governor . Ghaylan al-Dimashqi (d. ca. 105–106 AH/723–725 CE), operating in , further propagated Qadariyya ideas, blending them with Murji'a tendencies toward deferring judgment on sinners, and faced persecution from caliphal authorities who viewed such views as undermining divine sovereignty. These debates marked kalām's initial shift toward dialectical reasoning (kalām) to defend orthodox beliefs against sects like the (compulsion advocates) and external critiques from , , and dualists, though systematic rational theology remained nascent without significant Umayyad patronage for intellectual pursuits. The Mu'tazila, a pivotal early kalām school, crystallized in late Umayyad around 90–100 AH/709–718 CE, founded by Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ (b. ca. 80 AH/699 CE, d. 131 AH/748 CE), who withdrew (i'tazala) from the circle of ascetic Ḥasan al-Baṣrī over the status of the grave sinner—positing a (manzila bayna manzilatayn) neither full believer nor unbeliever. Joined by ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd (d. 144 AH/761 CE), the Mu'tazila emphasized five principles: divine unity (tawḥīd), justice (ʿadl), enjoining good and forbidding evil, the intermediate state, and promise/threat of divine reward/punishment, employing rational arguments to affirm God's justice without or predetermining evil. Under the early Abbasids (750–833 CE), following the revolution against Umayyad rule, kalām gained institutional momentum as Mu'tazili thought aligned with Abbasid revolutionary ideology, receiving implicit patronage that fostered its expansion in and . Caliphs like al-Manṣūr (r. 136–158 AH/754–775 CE) and al-Mahdī (r. 158–169 AH/775–785 CE) engaged in or commissioned refutations of heresies, including , which accelerated the use of kalām methods for . This era saw kalām evolve from disputations to a structured incorporating Aristotelian logic precursors via initial Arabic translations, distinguishing it from jurisprudence () or tradition (ḥadīth) by prioritizing rational proofs for core doctrines like God's and createdness of the world. By the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 170–193 AH/786–809 CE), Mu'tazila circles had proliferated, setting the stage for kalām's methodological refinement amid growing sectarian challenges.

Peak Expansion in the 9th-11th Centuries

The period from the 9th to the 11th centuries witnessed the maturation and widespread institutionalization of Kalām as Sunni orthodox theology, primarily through the Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools, which integrated rational dialectic with scriptural fidelity to counter Muʿtazilī and traditionalist literalism. These schools emerged in the aftermath of the miḥnah (, 833–848 CE), when Abbasid caliphal enforcement of Muʿtazilism waned, allowing for theological synthesis that preserved core Sunni doctrines like divine omnipotence and prophetic inerrancy while employing kalām proofs against sectarian challenges. By the 10th century, kalām texts proliferated in , , and , with Ashʿarism gaining traction among Shāfiʿī jurists and Māturīdism among Ḥanafīs in . Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (874–936 CE), born in Basra and initially trained in Muʿtazilī thought under al-Jubbāʾī (d. 915 CE), publicly renounced it around 909–915 CE, adopting a position that affirmed the Quran's uncreated eternity and God's eternal attributes (such as speech and knowledge) without anthropomorphism or negation. His doctrine of kasb posited that humans acquire responsibility for acts divinely created at the moment of performance, reconciling predestination with moral accountability—a key innovation over pure occasionalism. Al-Ashʿarī's works, including Maqālāt al-Islāmīyīn (c. 920s CE), cataloged sects and defended orthodoxy via atomistic cosmology and proofs for God's existence from contingency, influencing subsequent kalām by prioritizing hadith-authenticated reason over speculative autonomy. Parallel to Ashʿarism, Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 944 CE) in Samarqand developed a Ḥanafī-oriented kalām emphasizing divine (ḥikmah) and transcendence (tanzīh), arguing for human in ethical judgment while upholding God's ultimate causation. His Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (c. 930s CE) refuted dualism and through logical analysis of divine unity, fostering kalām's eastward expansion in amid Persianate intellectual circles. Both schools shared commitments to the created world's and God's , but Māturīdism accorded greater scope to rational in , contributing to kalām's dual Sunni streams by the mid-10th century. The 11th century saw kalām's institutional peak under Seljuk patronage, as vizier Niẓām al-Mulk (d. 1092 CE) established Nizāmiyya —beginning with Baghdad's in 1065–1067 CE—to propagate Shāfiʿī jurisprudence alongside against Ismāʿīlī and Shiʿi influences. These endowed colleges integrated kalām into curricula emphasizing (munāẓarah) and ijāza licensing after four years of study in , , and , with Ashʿarī doctrines like acquired attributes taught to standardize Sunni orthodoxy. Successors such as al-Bāqillānī (d. 1013 CE) refined and proofs of , while al-Juwaynī (d. 1085 CE) and al-Ghazālī (d. 1111 CE) extended kalām's reach through systematic treatises like Irshād (c. 1070 CE) and Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (c. 1100 CE), embedding it in madrasa education across Persia, , and . This era's output included over a dozen major kalām compendia, solidifying the discipline's role in defending tawḥīd amid philosophical incursions from falsafa.

Post-Classical Stagnation and Internal Reforms

Following the zenith of Kalām's expansion in the 9th to 11th centuries, marked by comprehensive syntheses from figures like al-Ash'ari (d. 936) and al-Maturidi (d. 944), the discipline experienced a period of stagnation characterized by diminished innovation in core speculative arguments and a shift toward repetitive commentaries rather than novel systematic treatises. This lull, spanning roughly the 12th to 19th centuries, coincided with broader disruptions, including the Mongol sack of in 1258, which obliterated key intellectual centers and libraries housing Kalām manuscripts. Institutional ossification within Sunni madrasas further entrenched taqlīd (imitation of established authorities) over ijtihād (independent reasoning), reducing the impetus for fresh dialectical engagements with heresy or . Key contributors to this stagnation included the Atharī anti-theological backlash, which rejected Kalām's speculative methods in favor of literalist textualism, gaining traction during the Mamluk era (1250–1517) through scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328), who deemed dialectical theology superfluous once orthodoxy was secured. (d. 1406), in his composed around 1377, critiqued Kalām for its overreliance on outmoded Greek-inspired logic, arguing that its arguments had lost urgency after the containment of major doctrinal threats like . The institutionalization of Ash'arī and Māturīdī orthodoxy diminished the perceived need for defensive rationalism, as Sunni creeds became standardized in curricula across regions from to . Concurrently, intellectual energies diverted toward Sufism's experiential mysticism and Peripatetic philosophy (falsafa), which offered alternative avenues for metaphysical inquiry, sidelining Kalām's atomistic and occasionalist frameworks. Internal reforms, though limited, emerged as adaptive responses to these pressures, particularly through selective incorporation of philosophical elements into Kalām methodology. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1209), in works like al-Mabaḥith al-Mashriqiyya, bridged Ash'arī theology with Avicennian (Ibn Sīnā, d. 1037) ontology, refining proofs for divine attributes while retaining Kalām's emphasis on scriptural fidelity over pure rationalism. Later, in the 14th–15th centuries, scholars such as Sa'd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d. 1390) and Sayyid Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 1413) produced influential commentaries—Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid and Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, respectively—that integrated Aristotelian logic more systematically, addressing critiques from philosophy and enhancing Kalām's pedagogical resilience in madrasa settings across the Ottoman and Timurid domains. These efforts represented incremental reforms, prioritizing doctrinal consolidation over radical innovation, and sustained Kalām's role in orthodoxy despite the broader stasis, with Māturīdī variants showing relative vitality in Transoxiana until the 16th century. By the early modern period, however, Kalām devolved primarily into manual-based instruction, with original contributions rare until 19th-century revivalist stirrings.

Modern Revival and Adaptations

The , originating in medieval Islamic theology, underwent a significant revival in during the late , largely through the work of American philosopher and theologian . In his 1979 monograph , Craig systematically reconstructed the argument's premises—positing that whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and thus the universe has a cause—drawing on medieval mutakallimūn like al-Ghazālī while integrating empirical data from cosmology to affirm the universe's finite temporal origin. This reformulation emphasized philosophical rigor alongside on cosmic expansion and the second law of thermodynamics, positioning the argument as a defense of against atheistic eternal-universe models prevalent in mid-20th-century physics. Craig's efforts, stemming from his 1970s doctoral research at the , propelled the argument into mainstream , where it has since featured in debates on , contingency, and divine , often adapted by Christian apologists to counter naturalistic explanations of origins. Proponents cite supporting evidence such as Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorems (2003), which mathematically preclude certain eternal inflationary models, bolstering the premise of a cosmic beginning. Critics, including physicists like Carroll, challenge the causal intuition's applicability to quantum events or the as a whole, yet the argument's reflects its alignment with observational data over speculative hypotheses. In parallel, within Islamic intellectual circles, kalām faced 20th-century marginalization amid Salafi and Wahhabi emphases on and Qur'anic literalism, which viewed rationalist theology as (innovation) susceptible to Greek influences and philosophical excess. Efforts at adaptation emerged sporadically, as with Egyptian thinker Hasan Hanafi's (1935–2021) calls for a reconstructed Islamic leftism incorporating kalāmī dialectics to critique and , though these remained fringe amid broader theological conservatism. More systematically, Moroccan philosopher Ṭahā 'Abdurraḥmān has proposed methodological renewal of 'ilm al-kalām since the late 20th century, advocating integration of ethical naṣīḥah (advice) with rational argumentation to counter Western secular paradigms while preserving orthodoxy. Contemporary "neo-kalam" initiatives, such as 'Abd Al-Jabbar al-Rifā'ī's paradigm-shift-oriented reinterpretations, seek to harmonize classical doctrines on divine attributes with postmodern and , addressing issues like quantum indeterminacy in proofs of tawḥīd (divine unity). These adaptations often prioritize causal realism—positing uncaused divine agency—over deterministic , yet they encounter resistance in Sunni madrasas where post-classical stagnation persists, with limited institutional support for discursive . Overall, while Western appropriations have amplified kalām's argumentative legacy, Islamic revivals emphasize contextual reform over wholesale , reflecting ongoing tensions between tradition and modernity.

Methodological and Doctrinal Foundations

Rational Methods and Greek Influences

Kalam theology incorporated rational methods to systematically defend Islamic doctrines against internal dissent and external critiques, employing dialectical disputation (munāẓara) and demonstrative proofs (burhān) derived from logical inference and analogy (qiyās). These approaches emphasized the use of reason ('aql) to establish theological truths, such as divine unity (tawḥīd) and the created nature of the world, often through structured argumentation that anticipated or paralleled formal syllogisms. Early Kalam practitioners, particularly during the 8th and 9th centuries under Abbasid patronage, adapted these tools amid encounters with diverse intellectual traditions, including Persian and Christian scholasticism, but Greek philosophy provided key frameworks for categorization and predication. Greek influences entered Kalam primarily through Arabic translations of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic texts, facilitated by the translation movement in Baghdad from the late 8th to 10th centuries, where Syriac Christian scholars rendered works like Aristotle's Categories, On Interpretation, and Porphyry's Isagoge. These introduced concepts of substance, accidents, and essential attributes, which Kalam theologians repurposed to analyze God's essence versus attributes, rejecting Greek eternalism while adopting logical structures for atomistic ontology and causal arguments. The Mu'tazila school (active circa 8th–10th centuries) exemplified this integration, prioritizing rational inquiry to affirm divine justice ('adl) and human free will, drawing on Aristotelian methods to interpret scriptural anthropomorphisms allegorically and refute dualist or anthropomorphic views from Zoroastrian or Christian sources. Subsequent Ash'ari theologians (from the 10th century onward), reacting against perceived Mu'tazilite over-rationalization, curtailed Greek metaphysical commitments like necessary emanation but retained dialectical and inferential techniques for probabilistic proofs (ẓannī), such as the against . This selective appropriation is evident in figures like al-Ash'ari (d. 936 CE), who critiqued Aristotelian causality as secondary to divine will yet employed categorical distinctions to uphold occasionalism, wherein atoms and accidents are continually recreated by God. While Kalam avoided full endorsement of Greek cosmology—favoring scriptural creation ex nihilo over Platonic forms or Aristotelian eternity—these influences enhanced its methodological rigor, enabling defenses against Manichaean and philosophical eternalism prevalent in 9th-century debates.

Central Doctrines: God's Attributes and Creation

In Kalām theology, the attributes (ṣifāt) of God represent essential affirmations of divine perfection, drawn from Qur'anic descriptions and rational defense against or negation. Kalām scholars universally upheld God's transcendence (tanzīh), rejecting any resemblance to created beings, while debating the ontological status of attributes such as life, , power, will, hearing, sight, and speech to preserve divine unity (tawḥīd). These attributes were posited as eternal and necessary concomitants of God's essence, enabling theological arguments for God's active role in the world without implying composition or change in the divine. The Muʿtazila, an early rationalist school within Kalām, interpreted attributes as identical to God's essence to avoid multiplicity that could undermine absolute oneness. They argued that affirming distinct attributes risked introducing eternal entities alongside God, akin to , thus reducing descriptions like "knowing" or "powerful" to modes of the essence itself rather than separate realities. This approach prioritized reason (ʿaql) to safeguard tawḥīd, viewing anthropomorphic literalism as detrimental to divine incomparability. In contrast, Ashʿarī and Māturīdī theologians, who dominated later Kalām, affirmed attributes as real, eternal, and distinct from the yet inseparable without modality (bilā kayf), meaning their "how" remains unknowable to human comprehension. They critiqued Muʿtazilī identification as tantamount to (taʿṭīl), which effectively stripped of described perfections, and instead maintained that attributes subsist in without implying parts or partners, as evidenced in texts like al-Ashʿarī's Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (c. 915 CE). This balanced affirmation defended scriptural literalism rationally against both literalist excess and philosophical . Regarding creation, Kalām doctrine centrally posits the universe's origination (iḥdāth) ex nihilo by God's voluntary command, rejecting an eternal world as incompatible with divine will and . Mutakallimūn argued that the began in time through God's power (qudra) and will (irāda), with no pre-existent matter or cause, as perpetual existence would necessitate an or independence from the Creator. This view, formalized against Aristotelian cosmology by figures like al-Māturīdī (d. 944 CE), underpinned proofs for God's existence and countered dualist or materialist philosophies by emphasizing creation's contingency on eternal divine agency.

Arguments for Divine Existence and Unity

Kalam theologians formulated rational proofs for God's existence by demonstrating the universe's contingency and temporal finitude, necessitating an eternal, necessary being as its originator. The burhān al-ḥudūth (proof from origination), central to this tradition, posits that the world—composed of indivisible atoms conjoined with transient accidents—undergoes perpetual renewal and cannot sustain eternity, thereby requiring a non-contingent creator immune to origination. This argument, developed by early mutakallimūn such as those in the Basran school, rejects infinite temporal regress as impossible, since an actual infinite of successive events cannot be traversed to reach the present. Arguments for divine unity (tawḥīd), particularly tawḥīd al-dhāt (unity of essence) and tawḥīd al-afʿāl (unity of actions), emphasize the logical absurdity of multiple deities. If two gods possessed equal power, mutual opposition would prevent unified creation, as observed cosmic harmony—spanning atomic interactions to celestial order—shows no evidence of discord; alternatively, unequal powers would render the subordinate non-divine, collapsing plurality into singularity. Mu'tazili pioneers like Abū l-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf advanced these via dialectical methods (taqsīm and ilzām), refuting dualism by arguing that divine simplicity precludes composition or partnership, with all worldly acts tracing to one omnipotent will. Later Ashʿarī and Māturīdī refinements integrated these with demonstrations of God's attributes, asserting that unified of contingent beings implies a sole, self-sufficient agent, as multiplicity would entail or imperfection incompatible with divine transcendence. These proofs, grounded in first-order observation of creation's coherence, aimed to establish against polytheistic or philosophical rivals, prioritizing empirical inference over unexamined tradition.

The Kalām Cosmological Argument

Roots in Medieval Islamic Kalām

In the discipline of kalām, medieval Islamic theologians developed rational arguments to affirm the doctrine of ḥudūth al-ʿālam (the temporal origination of the world), countering the Aristotelian-influenced view of philosophers like al-Fārābī (d. 950 CE) and that posited an eternal cosmos emanating necessarily from . Kalām proponents, drawing on scriptural emphasis on creation ex nihilo (e.g., 36:82), contended that eternity would entail actual infinities—such as an of past events or causes—which are metaphysically impossible in reality, as they preclude the completion of any successive series. This reasoning underpinned the kalām cosmological argument's core premises: whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, necessitating a personal, transcendent creator unbound by time. Early formulations emerged among Muʿtazilī scholars in the 8th and 9th centuries CE, who integrated atomistic ontology—positing the world as composed of indivisible atoms (jawāhir) and ephemeral accidents (aʿrāḍ)—to argue that eternal persistence requires perpetual divine volition, incompatible with self-subsistence. For instance, Muʿtazilīs like Bishr ibn al-Muʿtamir (d. 825 CE) demonstrated that if the world were eternal, contingent accidents could not endure without implying uncaused changes or infinite causal chains, both of which violate rational principles of contingency and divine . Their approach emphasized ʿadl (divine ), rejecting to preserve God's sole agency and avoid attributing intrinsic necessity to creation. Subsequent Ashʿarī theologians adapted these arguments within an occasionalist framework, where God's constant recreation of atomic events underscores universal contingency. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 936 CE) and his school reinforced the denial of actual , arguing that an infinite past would mean no first event, rendering the present inexplicable. The argument reached its classical synthesis with Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111 CE) in Tahāfut al-Falāsifa, where he critiqued philosophers' proofs for eternity by highlighting paradoxes like infinite celestial revolutions: an eternal series of days precludes arriving at "today," as subtracting finite events from yields , not zero. Al-Ghazālī thus established the universe's beginning via the impossibility of traversed infinities, attributing causation to a necessarily existent, willing .

20th-Century Revival and Formulation

The Kalam cosmological argument experienced a significant revival in the late 20th century, primarily through the work of American philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig, who reformulated it for contemporary audiences by integrating insights from modern cosmology and philosophy of time. Craig's doctoral dissertation at the University of Birmingham in the 1970s examined the argument's historical roots in medieval Islamic kalām and its potential applicability amid emerging scientific consensus on the universe's finite age, culminating in his 1979 monograph The Kalam Cosmological Argument. This effort shifted the argument from its classical form—emphasizing the impossibility of an actual infinite regress of events—to a deductive syllogism bolstered by empirical evidence from Big Bang cosmology, which posits the universe's origin from a singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Craig's standard formulation consists of two premises leading to the conclusion that the universe has a cause: (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its ; (2) The began to exist; therefore, (3) the has a cause. The first draws on metaphysical intuitions against something arising from , supported by observations of causal regularities in , while rejecting quantum indeterminacy as evidence for uncaused events due to its reliance on underlying potentialities rather than genuine ex nihilo creation. The second is defended philosophically against the possibility of an eternal via arguments against actual infinities (e.g., Hilbert's paradoxes showing absurdities in infinite traversals) and scientifically through the second law of , which implies a low-entropy initial state incompatible with an infinitely old , alongside cosmic expansion data confirming a definite temporal beginning. This revival emphasized the cause's personal, timeless, and immaterial nature, inferred from its ability to initiate a temporal without prior conditions, distinguishing it from impersonal forces or abstract necessities. Craig's popularization through debates, lectures, and books like Reasonable Faith (1984, revised 2008) extended its influence beyond academia, positioning it as a bridge between theistic traditions and secular , though adaptations vary in emphasis on probabilistic rather than strict deductive certainty given ongoing cosmological debates.

Key Premises and Supporting Evidence

The , in its contemporary formulation, rests on two primary premises: (1) whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, and (2) the began to exist. The conclusion follows deductively that the has a cause. These premises draw from both philosophical reasoning and empirical data, with the first grounded in metaphysical principles and observed patterns of causation, and the second supported by arguments against an alongside cosmological observations. Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a . This premise is defended through inductive from everyday , where no instance of something arising without a or efficient cause has been observed, such as virtual particles in requiring underlying fields or laws. Philosophically, it aligns with the principle that ex nihilo nihil fit—nothing comes from nothing—as positing uncaused beginnings would violate causal realism and lead to absurdities like spontaneous entity formation without explanatory power. Proponents argue this is not merely empirical but intuitively necessary, as denying it invites infinite causal gaps without justification, though critics question its application to the universe's origin. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Philosophically, an actual infinite series of past events is impossible, as it entails paradoxes like Hilbert's Hotel, where an infinite occupancy allows absurd accommodations (e.g., shifting guests to add more without vacancy), undermining the coherence of traversing an infinite temporal regress to reach the present. Scientifically, cosmology indicates the expanded from a hot, dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago, with evidence including the radiation (CMB) discovered in , which represents cooled remnant photons from the early , and the observed of galaxies per , confirming uniform expansion. The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (2003) further demonstrates that inflationary models cannot extend infinitely into the past, implying a boundary or beginning under assumptions. These converge to affirm a finite cosmic , rejecting eternal models despite alternatives like cyclic universes lacking empirical support.

Major Criticisms and Counterarguments

Critics of the (KCA) primarily target its two s and the inference to a divine cause. The first , that whatever begins to exist has a cause, faces objections that it assumes applies uniformly to the universe, potentially overlooking quantum indeterminacy where events like virtual particle pair production appear uncaused. Proponents counter that such quantum phenomena occur within pre-existing fields and , not ex nihilo, and do not constitute genuine "beginnings" without efficient causes, as affirmed by the principle of sufficient reason underlying observed physical laws. The second premise, asserting the universe began to exist, draws fire from models positing an eternal past, such as certain proposals (e.g., Hartle-Hawking's no-boundary condition) or theories, which suggest the emerges from a larger, timeless framework without an absolute origin. Defenders respond with philosophical arguments against actual infinities—such as the impossibility of traversing an infinite temporal regress, illustrated by Hilbert's Hotel paradox—and empirical support from cosmology, including the second law of thermodynamics (indicating low initial entropy incompatible with eternity) and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (2003), which demonstrates that inflationary spacetimes must have a finite past under reasonable assumptions. Philosopher contends the KCA fails dialectically against naturalists, as they can reasonably reject the premises without inconsistency, and the argument equivocates on "the universe" (e.g., material contents vs. abstract laws), undermining its probabilistic force for . In reply, advocates like argue the premises enjoy greater plausibility based on metaphysical intuition and scientific data, shifting the burden to skeptics to substantiate alternatives like uncaused singularities or infinite regresses, which encounter their own paradoxes. Even granting the premises, detractors such as Quentin Smith challenge the leap to a , proposing instead that the could be self-existent or that probabilistic asymmetries favor an uncaused over divine intervention. Counterarguments emphasize that an efficient cause of must be timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful, with personal agency required to initiate a temporal effect from a changeless state, distinguishing it from impersonal abstractions; impersonal causes would yield eternal effects, not a finite . These debates highlight the KCA's reliance on interdisciplinary evidence, where cosmological models evolve but continue to constrain eternalist options.

Theological Schools and Traditions

Mu'tazili Rationalism

The Mu'tazila, emerging in around 720 CE under figures like Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ (d. 748 CE) and ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd, represented the earliest systematic school of kalām, prioritizing rational inquiry to defend Islamic doctrines against philosophical and sectarian challenges. They advocated a grounded in human reason (ʿaql) as complementary to , arguing that core beliefs such as God's unity and justice could be demonstrated independently of scripture through logical deduction. This approach drew partial influences from Greek logic and , adapting Aristotelian categories and syllogistic reasoning to refute anthropomorphic interpretations of God prevalent among traditionists. Central to Mu'tazili rationalism were the uṣūl al-khams (five principles), which structured their kalām methodology: tawḥīd (divine unity), denying any real distinction between God's and attributes to avoid plurality; al-ʿadl (divine justice), positing human and moral responsibility as necessary for God's fairness, rejecting (jabr); al-waʿd wa-al-waʿīd (promise and threat of reward/); al-manzila bayna al-manzilatayn (the sinner's intermediate status, neither full believer nor ); and al-amr bi-al-maʿrūf wa-al-nahy ʿan al-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil). These tenets were defended via dialectical debates (munāẓara), where proponents like Abū al-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf (d. circa 841 CE) employed atomistic —positing the world as composed of indivisible atoms constantly recreated by —to argue for creation ex nihilo and preclude an eternal universe. Such frameworks prefigured later kalām cosmological proofs by emphasizing contingency and causal dependence on a necessary being. Mu'tazili thinkers advanced proofs for God's existence through rational necessity, contending that the world's temporal origination and order imply a transcendent creator whose aligns with observable ethical intuitions knowable a priori. For instance, they critiqued dualist and materialist cosmologies by demonstrating that uncreated matter would entail divine imperfection or co-eternality, violating tawḥīd. Their emphasis on ethical held that are objectively discernible by reason, independent of , enabling critiques of divine commands that might appear arbitrary. Under Abbasid caliphs like al-Maʾmūn (r. 813–833 CE), Mu'tazili doctrines gained state enforcement via the miḥna ( of 833–848 CE), mandating the Quran's createdness to uphold God's transcendence, though this led to backlash and eventual decline after al-Mutawakkil's reversal in 848 CE. Despite marginalization, their rationalist legacy influenced subsequent kalām schools by establishing reason as a tool for theological precision.

Ash'ari Occasionalism and Balance

The Ash'ari school of kalām, founded by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (c. 874–936 CE), emerged as a response to Muʿtazilī by employing dialectical methods to defend core Sunni doctrines, including the uncreated nature of the Qurʾān and the reality of God's eternal attributes. Al-Ashʿarī, initially trained in Muʿtazilī thought under al-Jubbāʾī, underwent a theological shift around age 40, reportedly after a visionary experience, leading him to affirm divine attributes bilā kayf (without modality or likeness to creation) and to prioritize over unaided reason in resolving doctrinal disputes. This approach allowed Ashʿarīs to integrate rational argumentation with textual fidelity, countering Muʿtazilī tendencies to anthropomorphize or diminish God's transcendence through excessive reliance on human intellect. Central to Ashʿarī theology is occasionalism (iʿtidāl al-ʿādāt), which posits that God is the sole true cause of all events, with no inherent causal powers residing in created entities. Drawing on atomistic ontology—wherein the world consists of indivisible atoms (jawhar) and transient accidents (aʿrāḍ)—Ashʿarīs argued that continuously recreates the at each moment, rendering apparent causal sequences as mere habitual divine actions (ʿāda) rather than necessary connections. This doctrine safeguards divine (qudrah) and unity (tawḥīd), preventing any delegation of creative agency to creatures, which would imply (shirk) with ; for instance, fire does not intrinsically burn cotton, but creates the burning accident upon the occasion of contact. To address human responsibility, Ashʿarīs introduced the theory of kasb (acquisition), whereby humans acquire moral acts through intentional consent, though alone effects their occurrence, thus reconciling divine determinism with accountability. Ashʿarī thought embodies a balanced (tawāzun) methodology, subordinating reason (ʿaql) to revelation (naql) while utilizing kalām proofs to refute heresies and affirm orthodoxy. Unlike Muʿtazilīs, who elevated reason to independently derive ethical norms and occasionally interpreted attributes metaphorically, Ashʿarīs maintained that reason establishes prerequisites like God's existence and the world's contingency but defers to scriptural texts for specifics, avoiding contradictions by interpreting ambiguous verses non-literally where necessary. This equilibrium, exemplified in al-Ashʿarī's Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn and later systematized by figures like al-Bāqillānī (d. 1013 CE), preserved theological stability amid philosophical challenges from Greek influences and Ismaili esotericism, influencing mainstream Sunni creed across Shāfiʿī and Mālikī rites. Critics within traditionalist circles, such as Ibn Ḥanbal's followers, viewed this rational engagement as innovative excess, yet Ashʿarī balance endured by demonstrating reason's utility in upholding revelation's supremacy.

Maturidi Emphasis on Human Reason

The Maturidi school of Kalām theology, founded by Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 944 CE) in Samarqand, represents a rationalist tradition within that accords significant autonomy to human in theological inquiry, particularly in establishing foundational moral and metaphysical truths. Al-Māturīdī's seminal work, Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, employs dialectical reasoning to defend core Islamic doctrines, arguing that reason serves as a divine endowment enabling humans to recognize God's existence, unity, and basic ethical principles independently of . This approach contrasts with more revelation-centric schools by positing that can discern obligatory acts like and prior to prophetic guidance, thereby grounding human (taklīf) in rational capacity. In Māturīdī epistemology, reason and operate in harmony, with providing preliminary that revelation refines and confirms, rather than overriding. Al-Māturīdī maintained that unaided reason suffices for affirming God's oneness (tawḥīd) and rejecting or , as humans innately perceive the impropriety of associating partners with the Creator through logical deduction from observed order in the . This emphasis facilitated robust defenses against Mu'tazilite extremes, such as unqualified , by subordinating speculative reason to scriptural authority in ambiguous matters, yet elevating intellect's role in interpreting divine commands and resolving apparent contradictions in texts. Compared to the Ash'arī school, which limits intellect's discernment of good and evil to post-revelatory Sharia norms and prioritizes divine will over rational intuition, Māturīdīs adopt a median position that empowers reason in ethical ontology while affirming revelation's supremacy. For instance, Māturīdīs argue that intellect independently identifies harms like injustice as intrinsically repugnant, aligning human free will with divine justice without necessitating occasionalist interventions that render causality illusory. This framework influenced Kalām argumentation by integrating Aristotelian logic with Qur'anic exegesis, promoting tolerance toward diverse rational inquiries within orthodoxy and shaping theology in regions like Transoxiana and the Ottoman Empire.

Twelver Shia Imami Kalām

Twelver Shia Imami Kalām represents the scholastic theological tradition within , employing dialectical reasoning to establish the foundational principles of faith known as uṣūl al-dīn: tawḥīd (divine unity), (divine ), nubuwwah (prophethood), imāmah (imamate), and maʿād (resurrection). This approach integrates rational proofs with scriptural , prioritizing the infallible guidance of the as successors to Prophet Muhammad, whose authority extends to interpreting and defending orthodoxy against rival sects. Unlike Sunni kalām schools, Imami kalām elevates ʿadl as an essential divine attribute, rejecting occasionalism and affirming secondary causality to uphold human and moral accountability, as ’s justice precludes arbitrary intervention in created order. The tradition traces its roots to the intellectual circle of Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148 AH/765 CE), whose discourses with companions like Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam (d. 199 AH/815 CE) laid groundwork for rational defenses of , arguing its necessity for preserving divine law post-prophecy. By the 4th/, under Buyid patronage in and , Imami kalām matured as a distinct discipline, influenced by but diverging from Muʿtazilī —adopting their anti-anthropomorphism and emphasis on reason while rejecting the ’s createdness and insisting on Imami (ʿiṣmah). Al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413 AH/1022 CE) systematized this framework, refuting Sunni literalism and philosophical eternalism through works like Tashhīh al-Iʿtiqād, where he employed burhān al-ḥudūth (proof of the world’s temporal origination) to demonstrate ’s existence as the necessary, eternal cause of a contingent . Subsequent development centered in Ḥillah and , with Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d. 672 AH/1274 CE) bridging kalām and in Tajrīd al-Iʿtiqād, refining cosmological arguments against Avicennan eternity of the world by positing divine origination (ḥudūth) without compromising rational necessity. Allāmah al-Ḥillī (d. 726 AH/1325 CE) further consolidated defenses of via proofs of designation (naṣṣ) and expediency (maṣlaḥah), arguing that post-prophetic guidance requires divinely appointed, infallible leaders to avert interpretive chaos. This era emphasized kalām’s role in , countering Ismaili esotericism and Sunni caliphal legitimacy. In doctrinal content, Imami kalām deploys to affirm tawḥīd, asserting that the universe’s finite past precludes , requiring an uncaused, timeless originator——whose unity excludes composition or multiplicity. Divine attributes like knowledge and power are affirmed as identical to essence yet rationally discernible, avoiding while supporting ʿadl through the principle of (luṭf), whereby provides guidance (e.g., via Imams) to facilitate salvation without coercion. Critics within Sunni traditions, such as Ashʿarīs, charged Imami kalām with over-reliance on reason, potentially undermining scripture, but proponents countered that complements , as exemplified in Imami corpora. Modern exponents, including Muḥammad Bāqir al-Ṣadr (d. 1980 CE), adapted these arguments to , integrating existential proofs while upholding classical hudūth methodologies.

Other Sectarian Variants

The Ibadi school of Kalām, associated with the Ibadi branch of predominant in and parts of , developed a rational theological framework influenced by early Mu'tazili thought but distinct in its emphasis on community consensus and rejection of anthropomorphic interpretations of divine attributes. Ibadi theologians engaged in speculative debates on and accidents, positing that bodies consist of indivisible atoms () subsisting with transient accidents (a'rad), a position used to affirm God's transcendence without negating His actions in creation. This approach, articulated in works from the 3rd/ onward, balanced rational inquiry with scriptural fidelity, avoiding the occasionalism of Ash'ari thought while critiquing Mu'tazili extremes on divine justice. Isma'ili Kalām, within the Isma'ili Shia tradition, diverged toward esoteric (batin) , integrating Neoplatonic elements to interpret divine unity () as an emanation from the One through intellects and prophets-imams, who unveil hidden truths inaccessible to literalist (zahir) readings. Theologians like those in the Fatimid era (909–1171 CE) emphasized the perpetual role of the as infallible interpreter, employing Kalām to reconcile Qur'anic ambiguities with philosophical hierarchies, such as the distinction between God's eternal command (kalam Allah) and created manifestations. This variant prioritized ta'wil (allegorical interpretation) over dialectical proofs alone, influencing Central Asian texts like the Kalam-i Pir, which systematized doctrines for da'is (missionaries) in regions like . Zaydi Kalām, from the Zaydi Shia sect mainly in Yemen, adopted a rationalist stance akin to Mu'tazila, stressing human free will, divine justice ('adl), and the rational obligatoriness of religious duties, while rejecting infallible imams beyond descendants of Hasan and Husayn who rise in revolt against tyranny. Emerging in the 2nd/8th century under Zayd ibn Ali (d. 740 CE), Zaydi theologians used Kalām to defend activism in politics and jurisprudence, critiquing quietist Shia and deterministic views, though less focused on speculative metaphysics than Sunni schools. Earlier extinct variants include the Jahmiyya, founded by Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 745 CE), who advocated extreme negation (ta'til) of divine attributes to preserve transcendence, denying God's speech and visibility, which provoked orthodox backlash for resembling anthropomorphist avoidance through denial. The Murji'a, active from the 1st/7th century, employed Kalām to separate faith (iman as verbal profession) from deeds, deferring judgment on grave sinners as believers, influencing later Hanafi leniency but criticized for undermining moral accountability. groups, often overlapping with radical Isma'ilis like (active 9th–11th centuries), pushed esoteric Kalām to allegorize shari'a entirely, viewing rituals as symbolic veils for gnostic hierarchies, leading to accusations of subversion from mainstream scholars.

Criticisms Within Islamic Tradition

Accusations of Bid'ah and Over-Rationalization

Within the Islamic tradition, traditionalist scholars, particularly from the Ḥanbalī and Ahl al-Ḥadīth perspectives, have charged kalām theology with constituting (religious innovation) by incorporating speculative dialectic and philosophical categories alien to the methodologies of the Qur'an, , and the al-Ṣāliḥ (the first three generations of Muslims). They contended that such approaches, influenced by Greek logic and Aristotelian categories, represent an unwarranted intrusion into creed ('aqīdah), prioritizing constructed rational frameworks over direct textual adherence, thereby risking deviation from orthodox belief. Early condemnations framed kalām as inherently disruptive. Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH/855 CE), founder of the Ḥanbalī school, asserted that "the person of theological rhetoric will never prosper. And never do you see anyone looking into theological rhetoric except that in his heart is a desire for creating mischief," viewing it as a catalyst for doctrinal corruption rather than clarification. Similarly, Imām al-Shāfi‘ī (d. 204 AH/820 CE) recommended that practitioners of kalām be beaten with palm leaves and paraded as punishment, equating their pursuit with abandonment of the foundational sources and warning that boldness in kalām precludes prosperity. A companion of Abū Ḥanīfah, Abū Yūsuf (d. 182 AH/798 CE), went further, declaring that "whoever sought knowledge by kalām (theological rhetoric) will turn a heretical apostate," underscoring the perceived existential threat to authentic faith. The charge of over-rationalization centered on kalām's elevation of intellect ('aql) above transmitted reports (naql), allegedly leading to forced reinterpretations of scriptural anthropomorphisms—such as Allah's attributes of hand or descent—to avert perceived inconsistencies with rational norms, often through ta'wīl (figurative ) absent from early precedent. Critics like Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī (d. 620 AH/1223 CE), a Ḥanbalī , echoed Imām Aḥmad in deeming kalām an that fosters by imposing extraneous proofs on revealed truths, rather than deriving solely from them. Ibn Taymīyah (d. 728 AH/1328 CE) intensified this critique, arguing that kalām introduces "innovated meanings in the religion" opposing the Book and , such as the Ash'arī doctrine of incidents inhering in substances (ḥulūl al-ḥawādith), which he saw as a rational contrivance undermining literal affirmation without delving into modality (bi-lā kayf). These accusations persisted among later traditionalists, who maintained that kalām's dialectical tools, while ostensibly defensive against heterodoxies like , ultimately mirrored philosophical excesses by subordinating divine transcendence to human logic, eroding the simplicity of Salafī textualism. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH/1071 CE) encapsulated this by classifying Ahl al-Kalām as Ahl al-Bid'ah wa al-Zaygh (people of innovation and deviation), unfit for scholarly testimony due to their divergence from the consensus of fuqahā' and ahl al-āthār (jurists and traditionists).

Rejections by Traditionalists and Philosophers

Traditionalist scholars within the Islamic tradition, particularly those aligned with the Athari creed, rejected kalām theology as an unwarranted innovation (bidʿah) that subordinated divine revelation to human speculation, thereby risking deviation from the and . (780–855 CE), eponymous founder of the of , explicitly forbade his students from associating with mutakallimūn (practitioners of kalām), condemning their dialectical methods as conducive to , a stance reinforced during the inquisitions (833–848 CE) where he endured imprisonment and flogging for upholding the uncreated nature of the against kalām-influenced . This opposition stemmed from a commitment to athar (transmitted reports from the ) as the sole authoritative basis for creed, viewing kalām's Greek-inspired logic as extraneous and prone to anthropomorphic or negating extremes in discussing divine attributes. Later Hanbali authorities amplified this critique, with Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi (1147–1223 CE) denouncing kalām as among the most pernicious heresies, asserting that its scholars (mutakallimūn) systematically opposed the prophetic way (sunnah) by elevating rational proofs over unambiguous texts, which he argued eroded orthodox belief in God's transcendence and attributes without resemblance or modality. Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328 CE) mounted extensive refutations, tracing kalām's errors to borrowings from pre-Islamic sources such as Jewish mutakallimūn and Muʿtazilī negators of attributes, claiming it engendered doubt, philosophical anthropomorphism in some cases, and outright taʿṭīl (stripping God of qualities) in others, while insisting that authentic theology relies on scriptural affirmation without speculative intrusion. These traditionalists maintained that kalām fostered sectarianism and intellectual elitism, diverting from the unadorned faith of the early generations. Philosophers in the falsafa tradition offered distinct rejections, critiquing kalām for methodological deficiencies and incompatibility with demonstrative science. (Ibn Sīnā, 980–1037 CE) systematically dismantled core kalām doctrines like and occasionalism, employing Aristotelian arguments on motion's continuity and incommensurability to demonstrate their inadequacy in explaining phenomena, such as the indivisibility of magnitudes or the persistence of accidents without perpetual recreation. He portrayed kalām proofs as dialectical and scripture-bound, lacking the rigor of philosophical metaphysics, which prioritizes necessary emanation from the Necessary Existent over contingent creation ex nihilo. Al-Fārābī (c. 872–950 CE), precursor to this school, implicitly subordinated kalām by framing theology as imagistic for the philosophically elite, rejecting its literalist defenses and causal discontinuities as insufficient for true intellection of the and cosmic hierarchy. Overall, falsafa proponents faulted kalām for apologetic subservience to revelation rather than autonomous pursuit of truth, rendering it philosophically provisional at best.

Impacts on Orthodoxy and Sectarian Divides

The emergence of Ashʿarī and Māturīdī kalām in the 9th and 10th centuries CE solidified Sunni orthodoxy by integrating rational argumentation with scriptural authority, countering Muʿtazilī extremes while avoiding the perceived anthropomorphism of early traditionalists. These schools gained dominance: Ashʿarī theology among Shāfiʿī and Mālikī jurists by the 11th century, and Māturīdī among Ḥanafīs, collectively defining mainstream Sunni creedal boundaries for over a millennium. This framework defended core beliefs—such as God's transcendence and human accountability—against philosophical challenges, establishing kalām as a tool for orthodoxy rather than deviation. Yet kalām's dialectical methods provoked enduring intra-Sunni divides, particularly with the Atharī creed upheld by Ḥanbalīs, who rejected speculative theology as bidʿah (innovation) that risked contradicting the salaf's textual literalism. Early resistance, exemplified by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 855 CE) during the Miḥna inquisition (833–848 CE), framed kalām as introducing Greek-influenced reasoning into divine matters, fostering doubt and divergence from and ḥadīth. Later critics like Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) argued it undermined fidelity, creating a persistent where Atharīs prioritized unadorned over rational synthesis, influencing modern Salafī critiques of Ashʿarī dominance. Ḥanbalī views on kalām varied—some permitted limited defensive use—but the school's core stance emphasized its potential to erode orthodox simplicity. In broader sectarian contexts, kalām exacerbated theological rifts beyond Sunni internals, as Twelver Shīʿa developed parallel rational traditions to affirm imāmate doctrines, sharpening distinctions from Sunni on issues like divine justice and . While the Sunni-Shīʿa divide originated in succession disputes post-632 CE, kalām's application in polemics—defending Sunni views against Shīʿa anthropomorphic tendencies or rationalist excesses—reinforced mutual exclusions, with each side employing it to delineate . This dynamic mirrored internal Shīʿa tensions between Uṣūlī rationalists and Akhbārī traditionalists, paralleling Sunni Atharī-Ashʿarī fault lines and perpetuating doctrinal fragmentation across .

External and Philosophical Critiques

Challenges from Modern Science and Cosmology

Critics of the , which posits that the universe began to exist and thus requires an external cause, contend that modern cosmology does not conclusively establish a temporal beginning in the philosophical sense required by the argument's second premise. The standard model, supported by cosmic microwave background radiation data from the Planck satellite indicating an age of 13.797 billion years with a precision of 0.02 billion years, describes expansion from a hot, dense state but encounters a singularity where fails, leaving the pre-singularity state indeterminate. Quantum cosmology models, such as those incorporating , propose a "Big Bounce" where the universe rebounds from a prior contracting phase, potentially rendering it past-eternal without a definitive onset. Similarly, the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal envisions emerging smoothly without an initial boundary, challenging the notion of a "beginning to exist" as understood in classical terms. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem of 2003, often cited in defense of a finite past for inflating universes, assumes classical and positive expansion, but extensions into quantum regimes—such as those explored by Sean Carroll—suggest it does not preclude or low-entropy initial conditions arising naturally from quantum fluctuations in a larger framework. Carroll argues that while the appears finite-aged, fundamental laws of permit configurations where the total system has no global beginning, as breaks down at Planck scales around 10^{-43} seconds post-singularity. models, derived from inflationary cosmology resolving flatness and horizon problems, posit an ongoing process generating pocket universes indefinitely, undermining the argument's implication of a singular, caused origin for itself. Quantum mechanics further contests the first premise—that everything beginning to exist has a cause—by demonstrating acausal or indeterministic events at fundamental levels. occurs probabilistically without identifiable efficient causes dictating specific instances, while virtual particle-antiparticle pairs emerge and annihilate in the quantum vacuum per , with measured vacuum energy densities aligning with predictions despite confirmations of non-zero fluctuations. These phenomena suggest that "nothing" is unstable and can produce existent entities transiently, paralleling speculative uncaused origins for the universe in models like Vilenkin's quantum tunneling from "nothing," though such proposals remain interpretive and do not negate broader metaphysical causality debates. Overall, while empirical data affirm a finite history, cosmological theories highlight unresolved tensions between classical and quantum realities, leaving the Kalam vulnerable to naturalistic alternatives without empirical disproof of transcendent causation.

Logical and Metaphysical Objections

Philosophers have raised the charge of against the Kalam argument's first premise, "whatever begins to exist has a cause," noting that it applies universally to the universe but exempts the proposed first cause without adequate justification for the asymmetry. argues that this exemption presupposes , rendering the argument dialectically ineffective against non-theists who do not grant the cause's necessity or eternality a priori. similarly critiqued the premise for assuming a personal, timeless agent as cause, which begs the question by importing theological commitments into the causal principle itself. Another logical objection concerns in the phrase "begins to exist." For ordinary entities like artifacts, beginning to exist involves reconfiguration of preexisting materials within , whereas the universe's purported beginning entails absolute from , rendering the analogy between the two cases invalid and the premise's inductive support weak. Oppy contends that the premise's intuitive appeal derives from everyday causal experience, which does not extend deductively to the universe's origin, as no empirical or a priori necessity mandates universal causation ex nihilo. Metaphysically, critics dispute the argument's assertion of actual infinities' impossibility, which underpins the denial of an eternal past. Oppy rejects arguments from paradoxes (e.g., Hilbert's Hotel or traversal of infinites) as failing to establish metaphysical incoherence, since accommodates actual infinities without contradiction, and no compelling reason precludes their instantiation in reality. He maintains that simple hypotheses positing an or eternal universe encounter no decisive metaphysical barriers and rival theistic explanations in simplicity and explanatory power. Further metaphysical concerns involve the coherence of a timeless cause producing a temporal effect. The transition from an atemporal, immaterial cause to a manifold lacks a clear causal mechanism, as standard metaphysical principles of presuppose temporal precedence or simultaneous efficient causation, neither of which applies to a non-contingent eternal agent. Oppy highlights that such causation requires modal assumptions about possible worlds, where theistic posits fare no better than naturalistic brute facts in avoiding explanatory regress.

Secular and Atheistic Rebuttals

Secular and atheistic philosophers have challenged the primarily by questioning its premises and applicability to modern cosmology. , an Australian philosopher, contends that the argument fails to provide dialectical efficacy against naturalists, as it presupposes metaphysical intuitions—like the necessity of causation for beginnings—that are not universally shared. argues that critiques from physicists such as and undermine the argument's reliance on a singular temporal beginning, noting that models allow for universes without absolute origins in the classical sense. Quentin Smith, in his analysis, repurposes Kalam-style reasoning to support , asserting that physical laws permit an uncaused universe originating from quantum fluctuations or a timeless state, where "" is unstable and spontaneously produces existence without external agency. Smith highlights that the singularity, as described in , does not necessitate a transcendent cause, since extrapolating backward through Planck time (approximately 10^{-43} seconds) reveals breakdowns in due to quantum effects. He further argues that theistic additions to the argument—equating the cause to a personal —introduce unnecessary complexity without empirical warrant, favoring naturalistic explanations grounded in observed physical processes. Physicist Sean Carroll, in his 2014 debate with William Lane Craig, critiques the first premise by invoking quantum field theory, where events like particle pair production occur without deterministic causes, suggesting that "begins to exist" does not universally entail causation at fundamental scales. Carroll disputes the second premise, pointing to models like eternal inflation and the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal, which describe a universe without a singular beginning, as spacetime emerges from a quantum state without an edge. He emphasizes that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, often cited for a beginning, applies only to classical expanding universes and falters under quantum corrections, leaving room for past-eternal configurations. Atheistic responses also target the leap from a cosmic cause to theism, arguing that even granting premises, the cause could be an impersonal mechanism, such as a generator or brute quantum law, rather than a conscious agent. Oppy notes this renders the argument inductively weak, as naturalism explains the universe's fine-tuning via selection effects in infinite ensembles without invoking . These rebuttals, while contested by theists, underscore empirical gaps in Kalam's metaphysical commitments, prioritizing testable physical models over a priori causal principles.

Legacy and Broader Impact

Influence on Islamic Jurisprudence and Philosophy

Kalam theology profoundly influenced usul al-fiqh by integrating rational theological principles into the foundational methodologies of legal derivation, particularly through debates on divine volition and human . Ashʿarite kalām, which became predominant in Sunni thought by the , posited that God's legislative commands in the Sharīʿa lack inherent purpose discernible by human reason alone, emphasizing instead absolute divine freedom (ikhtiyār) over teleological interpretations like maṣlaḥa (public welfare). This doctrine shaped jurisprudential discussions on the objectives of rulings (maqāṣid al-sharīʿa), limiting rationalist expansions in favor of textual fidelity while providing tools to refute anthropocentric legal theories. Early Muʿtazilite kalām advanced a more reason-centric approach, advocating ʿadl (divine justice) as a basis for ethical , which encouraged the elevation of qiyās () and ijmāʿ (consensus) as rational supplements to naṣṣ (textual ) in development during the 8th and 9th centuries. Although later marginalized, this persisted indirectly in Ḥanafī and Shīʿī schools, where kalām defenses against literalism informed systematic legal , distinguishing uṣūl al-fiqh as an extension of theological inquiry into God's attributes and human obligation. The interplay ensured evolved not in isolation but intertwined with creedal safeguards against deviations, as seen in al-Mufīd's 10th-century Shiʿī works harmonizing kalām critiques with Imāmī . In (falsafa), kalām functioned as both adversary and catalyst, compelling engagement with metaphysical issues like and through dialectical refutations. Ashʿarite , formalized by al-Ashʿarī (d. 936 CE), rejected Aristotelian eternalism by positing continuous divine recreation of discrete time-atoms, undermining philosophers' necessary causation and promoting occasionalism wherein God alone effects change. This critique, extended by al-Ghazālī (d. 1111 CE) in his refutation of 20 falsafa propositions on essence-existence unity, preserved orthodoxy by exposing logical inconsistencies in Neoplatonic emanation while adopting Aristotelian syllogistics for theological proofs. The mutual influence yielded hybrid advancements, as kalām borrowed to defend core doctrines like tawḥīd against dualism, while falsafa refined responses to kalām's anthropomorphic-free , evident in Avicenna's (d. 1037 CE) modal addressing Ashʿarite contingency arguments. By the , this tension redirected Islamic intellectualism toward synthesis in figures like al-Ghazālī, who merged kalām rigor, falsafa method, and Sufi intuition, curtailing pure rationalism's dominance and embedding theological primacy in philosophical discourse.

Transmission to Jewish and Christian Thought

The transmission of Kalām cosmological arguments to Jewish thought occurred primarily through Jewish scholars living under Islamic rule, who engaged directly with Muslim mutakallimūn to defend against internal heresies like Karaism and external critiques from . (882–942 CE), in his Book of Beliefs and Opinions (completed around 933 CE), synthesized Kalām techniques—such as proofs for the world's creation ex nihilo based on the impossibility of actual infinites—with Jewish scriptural authority to affirm God's unity, incorporeality, and role as uncaused cause. This "Jewish Kalām" adapted Islamic dialectical methods to refute Aristotelian eternalism and demonstrate the rationality of biblical creation, influencing subsequent thinkers like Isaac Israeli (c. 832–932 CE) and (c. 1075–1141 CE), who grappled with Kalām premises on divine attributes and contingency despite reservations about their speculative excesses. (1138–1204 CE), while critiquing Kalām proofs in (c. 1190 CE) for relying on inadequate premises like and failing to prove creation rigorously, nonetheless demonstrated deep familiarity with these arguments, using them as a foil to advocate Aristotelian-inspired demonstrations of God's existence. In Christian thought, Kalām arguments reached via 12th-century Latin translations of Arabic philosophical and theological texts in centers like Toledo, where Jewish intermediaries rendered works by figures such as (d. 1111 CE), facilitating awareness among scholastics. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE), in (1265–1274 CE), acknowledged Kalām-style arguments against the world's eternity—such as the traversal of infinite past time—but rejected their rational demonstrability, holding that creation in time is a matter of faith rather than pure reason, preferring efficient causality from Aristotelian metaphysics. St. Bonaventure (1221–1274 CE) employed similar anti-eternity arguments in II Sententiarum (c. 1250 CE), echoing Kalām premises on the universe's temporal beginning to affirm divine causation, though integrated into Augustinian voluntarism rather than atomistic Kalām. Direct adoption remained marginal until the 20th century, when revived in his 1979 monograph , explicitly drawing on medieval Muslim sources like and (d. c. 873 CE) to formulate it as: (1) whatever begins to exist has a cause; (2) ; therefore, (3) the universe has a cause—updating premises with cosmology for contemporary .

Relevance in Contemporary Interfaith Debates

The continues to play a pivotal role in contemporary interfaith dialogues among Abrahamic traditions, serving as a shared deductive framework for affirming a transcendent cause of the , which facilitates discussions beyond irreconcilable doctrinal differences such as the nature of divine unity or . Originating in Islamic kalam , the argument's —that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the began to exist—resonate with both Muslim and Christian apologists confronting secular challenges, including cosmology and quantum indeterminacy objections. For instance, Muslim scholars invoke it to underscore Allah's role as the uncaused originator, while Christian proponents like adapt it to argue for a personal Creator, creating opportunities for collaborative theistic defenses in forums addressing and . This convergence is evident in modern apologetics where the argument bridges Muslim-Christian divides; for example, organizations like Kalam Research & Media utilize kalam principles to promote interfaith cooperation, emphasizing mutual recognition of a finite universe requiring an eternal cause. Recent scholarly works, such as explorations of ilmu kalam (the of kalam), propose it as a methodological tool for theological understanding in pluralistic settings, enabling participants to establish common metaphysical ground before addressing scriptural variances. Critiques within these debates, including Muslim responses to Christian formulations that infer personal agency from , highlight tensions but also underscore the argument's endurance as a non-sectarian starting point. In broader interfaith contexts, including engagements with Jewish thinkers, the Kalam counters hypotheses and models—evidenced by data from 2013 Planck observations supporting a low-entropy beginning—thus redirecting focus from empirical disputes to causal realism. This utility persists despite philosophical pushback, as seen in 2023-2025 publications integrating kalam with for cross-faith , prioritizing empirical finitude over fallacies. Such applications affirm the argument's adaptability in sustaining truth-oriented exchanges amid rising .

References

  1. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004336483/B9789004336483_067.pdf
  2. https://www.academia.edu/76483323/EARLY_KALAM
  3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-natural/
  4. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EJIO/COM-0015890.xml
  5. https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/kalam.htm
  6. https://thethinkingmuslim.com/2023/08/26/the-hanbali-position-on-the-science-of-kalam/
  7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-religion/
  8. https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/6917/20758
  9. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EIEO/COM-0366.xml?language=en
  10. https://www.academia.edu/76513626/Resume_Early_Kalam
  11. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/islamic-theology/v-1/sections/mu-tazila-and-rise-of-kalam
  12. https://www.academia.edu/15675301/A_Historical_Characterization_of_Kal%C4%81m
  13. https://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/kalam.htm
  14. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42548495.pdf
  15. https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/116/an-introduction-to-kalam-islamic-theology
  16. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-natureof-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument
  17. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/in-defense-of-faith-principles-and-guidelines-for-islamic-apologetics
  18. https://thehumblei.com/2020/06/09/kalam-the-hanbalis-is-it-really-relevant-today/
  19. https://www.juancole.com/library/dictionary-of-islam-hughes/ilmul-kalam
  20. https://www.academia.edu/73525290/The_Existence_and_the_Construction_of_Ilm_al_Kalam_as_Islamic_Discipline_and_Its_Significance_to_Wasatiyyah
  21. https://www.academia.edu/117887715/Sa%25CA%25BF%25C4%25ABd_F%25C5%25ABdah_on_the_Difference_Between_Kalam_and_Philosophy_falsafa_
  22. https://theusuli.com/2021/07/04/what-is-kalam/
  23. https://masud.co.uk/why-kalam/
  24. https://traversingtradition.com/2019/10/28/an-introduction-to-kalam/
  25. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kal-x0101-m
  26. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jahm-b-safwan/
  27. https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei2/kalam.htm
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/176291
  29. https://jpolitic.com/political-thought-of-qadariyya/
  30. https://www.academia.edu/43817467/The_Basic_Matters_in_the_Formative_Period_of_Kal%C4%81m
  31. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/13.htm
  32. https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei2/mu-tazila.htm
  33. https://al-m.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/An-Introduction-to-Ilm-al-Kalam-by-Mutahhari.pdf
  34. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/ashari.htm
  35. https://ghayb.com/maturidi-and-ashari-islamic-physics/
  36. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei2/nizam.htm
  37. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/education-iv-the-medieval-madrasa/
  38. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230106581_3
  39. https://academic.oup.com/book/35267/chapter/299844074
  40. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/1130/
  41. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2015.1062461
  42. https://kalamresearch.com/the-importance-of-kalam-and-the-revival-of-theological-discourse/
  43. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/9780230106581_8
  44. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19eb/23595f866ae3424c4baa0ff5218158af25c2.pdf
  45. https://ajis.com.au/index.php/ajis/article/view/755
  46. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230106581_8
  47. https://jurnal.asrypersadaquality.com/index.php/ijmds/article/download/692/756
  48. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-greek/
  49. https://themaydan.com/2021/04/classical-kalam-and-the-laws-of-logic/
  50. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b056/0f0cdb083dfd437e89cdeed22ee35407141a.pdf
  51. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-causation/
  52. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144509316.pdf
  53. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/arabic-islamic-religion/
  54. https://scispace.com/pdf/mu-tazilites-al-ash-ari-and-maimonides-on-divine-attributes-sw92co4p3d.pdf
  55. https://www.academia.edu/11395430/Shihab_al_Din_Marjani_on_the_Divine_Attributes_A_Study_in_Kalam_in_the_19th_Century
  56. https://islam-science.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Creation-and-the-Personal-Creator-in-Islamic-Kalam-and-Modern-Cosmology-by-Mohammed-Basil-Altaie.pdf
  57. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2025/entries/ibn-taymiyya/
  58. https://keystotheunseen.com/tag/burhan-al-huduth/
  59. https://al-islam.org/principles-faith-usul-al-din-husayn-wahid-khorasani/divine-unity-tawhid
  60. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/arabic-sciences-and-philosophy/article/origins-of-the-kalam-model-of-discussion-on-the-concept-of-tawhid/07996EC1901D3C8CD7DA1762A9A07B3C
  61. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
  62. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Craig_KalamCosmologicalArgument.pdf
  63. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/science-theology/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument
  64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/kalam-cosmological-argument-critiquing-a-recent-defence/960F11C13C5E3D489D42669CE417D960
  65. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/why-think-whatever-begins-to-exist-has-a-cause
  66. https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/
  67. https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe
  68. https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/NewKalamCritique.pdf
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271165808_Professor_William_Craig%27s_Criticisms_of_Critiques_of_Kalam_Cosmological_Arguments_By_Paul_Davies_Stephen_Hawking_and_Adolf_Grunbaum
  70. https://philpapers.org/rec/CRAGOO
  71. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument
  72. https://infidels.org/library/modern/a-discussion-of-the-kalam-argument/
  73. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/god-and-the-initial-cosmological-singularity-a-reply-to-quentin-smith
  74. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1788&context=faithandphilosophy
  75. https://www.ijeas.org/download_data/IJEAS0410018.pdf
  76. https://acikders.ankara.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/85099/mod_resource/content/0/Mutazila%2520-%2520rise%2520of%2520islamic%2520rationalism.pdf
  77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/162550
  78. https://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol3-no2/introduction-ilm-al-kalam-murtadha-mutahhari/mutazilah
  79. https://www.cato.org/commentary/early-islamic-debate-faith-reason-worth-examining
  80. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/occasionalism/
  81. https://iep.utm.edu/occasion/
  82. https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/366/reason-and-revelation-in-islamic-thought
  83. https://fountainmagazine.com/2011/issue-84-november-december-2011/an-occasionalist-picture-of-the-universe
  84. https://thesubmitters.org/asharism-what-is-asharism/
  85. https://icrjournal.org/index.php/icr/article/download/26/19/86
  86. https://www.abuaminaelias.com/ashari-and-maturidi-aqidah/
  87. https://www.islamicity.org/104669/the-contribution-of-al-maturidi-reason-tolerance-and-integration/
  88. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/11/609
  89. https://seekersguidance.org/answers/islamic-belief/are-good-and-evil-determined-by-the-human-intellect-or-by-revelation/
  90. https://thesubmitters.org/maturidism-what-is-maturidism/
  91. https://webofjournals.com/index.php/9/article/download/4412/4367/8615
  92. https://www.ilmgate.org/maturidism/
  93. https://ghayb.com/atomism-in-maturidi-and-ashari-theology/
  94. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/101408/1/9780755613151.pdf
  95. https://jipt.sbu.ac.ir/article_104039_2badd83772ee13396f8c0249d5f56df6.pdf
  96. https://al-islam.org/sw/al-tawhid/vol10-n2-3-1993/place-al-mufid-development-shii-kalam-and-fiqh-sayyid-ali-khamenei/place
  97. https://erfan.ir/english/15727.html
  98. https://journal.uin-suka.ac.id/tarbiyah/HJIE/article/download/11288/4129
  99. https://jcst.atu.ac.ir/article_18597_8c3e86c6121d25fab315f3cb578eeb97.pdf
  100. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/arabic-sciences-and-philosophy/article/early-ibadi-theological-arguments-on-atoms-and-accidents/A690E5363A9F579A7DB3EF9B209B49C7
  101. https://www.iis.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ismaili_theology_madelung-137090010.pdf
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342550500_The_Kalam-i_Pir_and_Its_Place_in_the_Central_Asian_Ismaili_Tradition
  103. https://themuslimtimes.info/2023/04/30/understanding-ismaili-muslim-theology-and-practice/
  104. https://www.leidenarabichumanitiesblog.nl/articles/the-beliefs-of-the-zaydis-a-conspectus-part-1
  105. https://abukhadeejah.com/who-are-the-jahmiyyah-by-imam-ahmad-ibn-hanbal-d-241h/
  106. https://www.al-islam.org/history-shiism-advent-islam-end-minor-occultation-ghulam-husayn-muharrami/lesson-26-science
  107. https://abukhadeejah.com/ahlul-kalam-and-the-asharis-are-ahlul-bidah-philosophy-to-establish-his-religion/
  108. https://abdurrahman.org/2016/08/12/what-the-salaf-said-regarding-theological-rhetoric-ilm-al-kalaam/
  109. https://distantreader.org/stacks/journals/afkaruna/afkaruna-11353.pdf
  110. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-taymiyya/
  111. https://abukhadeejah.com/ibn-taymiyyah-on-deniers-attributes-philosophy-theological-rhetoric-kalam-hamawiyyah-kubra/
  112. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-sina-natural/
  113. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276377251_The_impact_of_ibn_Sina%27s_critique_of_atomism_on_subsequent_Kalam_discussions_of_atomism
  114. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-farabi-soc-rel/
  115. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/sunni-critique-kalam-and-falsafah
  116. https://al-islam.org/history-muslim-philosophy-volume-1-book-3/chapter-11-asharism
  117. https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/why-did-scholars-criticize-kalam
  118. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/24/post-debate-reflections/
  119. https://philarchive.org/archive/OPPCMA
  120. https://philarchive.org/rec/OPPCKC
  121. https://www.pdcnet.org/ipq/content/ipq_2011_0051_0003_0303_0330
  122. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/E79820194D547A97D802BE1F1F5ED12B/S0034412500020837a.pdf/craig_mackie_and_the_kalam_cosmological_argument.pdf
  123. https://infidels.org/library/modern/graham-oppy-davies/
  124. http://philosophyintroduction.weebly.com/uploads/4/4/6/2/44624607/quentin_smith_kalam_cosmological_arguments_for_atheism_in_michael_martin_the_cambridge_companion_to_atheism.pdf
  125. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-atheism/kalam-cosmological-arguments-for-atheism/34B093660E84511E91F2ECBA31D4FD48
  126. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmol
  127. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2847440
  128. https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/115/usul-al-fiqh-meaning-and-history
  129. https://historyofislam.com/fiqh-the-development-of/
  130. https://al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol10-n2-3-1993/place-al-mufid-development-shii-kalam-and-fiqh-sayyid-ali-khamenei/place
  131. https://www.zia-research.com/index.php/cendekiawan/article/download/344/294
  132. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/saadya/
  133. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674761759
  134. https://iep.utm.edu/maimonid/
  135. https://thequran.love/2025/03/26/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-a-robust-case-for-gods-existence/
  136. https://kalamresearch.com/home/interfaith/
  137. https://jurnal.asrypersadaquality.com/index.php/ijmds/article/view/694
  138. https://viqocircle.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/developing-muslim-christian-final.pdf
  139. https://maqolat.com/index.php/i/article/view/155
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.