speculation. However, science and philosophy were closely related in the Muslim world in those days, just as they were in Europe until around 1700. The conflict was generated by the effort of the rationalists to use speculative reasoning to discuss subjects which were transcendent and beyond the scope of reason. This may not, however, have by itself vitiated the intellectual climate. What did the damage, as will be seen in greater detail both later on in this Chapter as well as in Chapter 6, was the effort of the rationalists to forcibly impose their views on an unwilling orthodoxy with the help of the coercive power of a political authority which did not enjoy the confidence of the people. The rationalists at that time consisted of two different groups of scholars from different intellectual backgrounds. These were the Muʿtazilites and the falāsifah (philosophers; singular faylasūf).
The Muʿtazilites1 were basically religious scholars and not philosophers. They were, however, well-versed in philosophy and the physical sciences and wished to provide convincing rational arguments for religious beliefs and practices, in contrast with the extreme conservatives who wanted people to accept these on the basis of blind faith. The rationalist approach had become necessary because of the rapid spread of Islam in territories previously under the influence of the materially more advanced and intellectually more sophisticated Sassanian and Byzantine civilizations. Without the adoption of such a rational approach, it would have been difficult to gain converts or even to save the common man from the adverse influence of heretics or zanādiqah (singular, zindīq). The rationalists also tried to determine the nature and causes of the various phenomena in human life and the universe around them. Here their objective was to show that God does not operate in an arbitrary manner. He is rather systematic and methodical and operates on the basis of certain principles, which it is possible for human beings to discover. They were, thereby, indirectly trying to lay down a solid foundation for science within the religious paradigm.
To help them in this commendable task, they developed a systematic method of logical reasoning called ʿIlm al-Kalām.2 Those who employed this method were called mutakallimūn, which literally means ‘reasoners’. This method was original to the Muslims and, as Gardet has put it, was “certainly not an Arab adaptation of Mazdean or Christian theology”.3 In essence there was little difference between the mutakallimūn and the Muʿtazilites and the two terms were sometimes used synonymously. They attracted scholars from all shades of the Muslim spectrum. While some of them like Jaʿfar ibn al-Bishr (d. 226/841) and Abū Mūsā al-Murdār (d. 226/841) were renowned for their piety, others had the reputation of being lax in their religious observances.4
The falāsifah, influenced by Greek philosophy, were primarily intellectuals and not religious scholars.5 Since philosophy and science were closely related disciplines in those days, most of the philosophers were well-recognized authorities in sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and medicine. They also performed experiments to the extent they could, in keeping with the practice of Muslim scholars in those days. They generally received government patronage and made substantial contributions to the development of these sciences. Moreover, since knowledge was not yet compartmentalized in those days, they were also quite well-versed in the religious sciences, and some, like Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 595/1198), were even considered authorities in these. While the extremists among them like Ibn al-Rāwandī (d. 250/864) and Abū Bakr al-Rāzī (Rhazes, d. 313/925) held views that conflicted with fundamental Islamic beliefs, most of them, including al-Kindī (d. 252/866), al-Fārābī (d. 339/950), Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna, d. 428/1037), and Ibn Rushd (d. 595/1198), were relatively moderate. They did not find any incompatibility between reason and Revelation. In fact they tried to show the harmony between the two and rationally argued in favour of Revelation and Prophethood, life after death, and other Islamic beliefs and practices. They quoted profusely from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah to support their views.
This free and rational discussion of Islamic beliefs and practices raised a lively and extremely sophisticated intellectual debate on a number of epistemological issues, some of which were:
• What is the nature of God? Does He have a body with eyes, ears, hands and legs? If not, how does He see, hear, hold and move, and is it possible for human beings to see Him? What are His attributes (ṣifāt)? Are these attributes an integral part of His Being or separate from Him? Can reason help human beings know Him and His attributes, or are they totally dependent on Revelation for this purpose? Does He know everything that will happen in the future, even what human beings are going to do?
• If God is Eternal, is His creation also eternal? If not, was there a period when He was not a Creator? Is this conceivable?
• To what extent are human beings free or predestined? If their life is predestined, then would it be just for God to hold them accountable for their deeds and to reward or punish them?
• Is faith alone sufficient to be a believer or is it also necessary to reinforce it by deeds? Is a sinful Muslim a believer (mu’min), an unbeliever (kāfir), or something in between (fāsiq)?
• Will the resurrection of human beings in the Hereafter be only of the soul or also of the body? If there is bodily resurrection, will the body be the same as it is in this world or will it be different?
• If the Qur’ān is a part of God’s speech (kalām), then is it to be considered created and transitory like this world or uncreated and eternal like other Divine attributes?
• To what extent is it possible for human beings to know what is right from what is wrong by means of reason and to what extent is Revelation necessary for this purpose? Is it conceivable that a just God would hold human beings accountable for their deeds without creating in them an innate ability to recognize right from wrong?
It is evident that hardly any of these questions had anything to do with science. The answers were bound to be speculative and could not have been given with precision. It was, therefore, not possible to have a single answer. There were differing opinions and, therefore, neither the rationalists nor the conservatives constituted a homogenous whole.6 The real bone of contention was the extent to which reason and logic could effectively help answer the above epistemological questions. It seems, however, that the moderates among both the rationalists and the conservatives, who constituted the majority, appreciated the need for both reason and Revelation in different degrees. However, it was the extremists on both sides who succeeded in getting greater attention and who, therefore, set the tone of the debate.
The moderate rationalists, who stressed a greater reliance on reason, developed a set of five axioms (al-uṣūl al-khamsah) to help them argue their case more effectively. Two of the most important of these axioms were Tawḥīd (Unity) and ʿadl (justice) of God, which are accepted by all Muslims without exception.7 There would be no point in relying on axioms that did not command a consensus. Differences, nevertheless, arose in the deduction of their implications.
With respect to Tawḥīd which is the most fundamental of all Islamic beliefs and stands for the absolute Oneness and Uniqueness of God, the general Muslim understanding is that, because of their limited capabilities and perceptions, human beings cannot comprehend Him fully. The Qur’ān, itself, makes this crystal clear by saying that “there is nothing like Him” (al-Qur’ān, 42: 11), and that human “eyes cannot encompass Him” (al-Qur’ān, 6: 103).8 Therefore, in keeping with a Qur’ānic injunction (al-Qur’ān, 3: 7), the general Muslim attitude has been to accept on faith those unseen metaphysical realities which are beyond the reach of reason and sense perception and they do not try to probe into them too deeply. This would be a fruitless exercise because, while the existence of God can be established through observation and logical reasoning, His nature cannot be understood fully except through His attributes (ṣifāt) as revealed in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah.
