1

14. The science of speculative theology.

This is a science that involves arguing with logical proofs in defense of the articles of faith and refuting innovators who deviate in their dogmas from the early Muslims and Muslim orthodoxy. The real core of the articles of faith is the oneness of God. Therefore, we shall present here, first, a nice specimen of logical argumentation that will show us the oneness of God in the most direct method and manner. We shall then go bac and give a correct description of speculative theology and the !sub"ects# it studies. We shall also indicate the reason why it developed in $slam and what it was that called for its invention. We %&' say( $t should be nown that the things that come into being in the world of existing things, whether they belong to essences or to either human or animal actions, re)uire appropriate causes which are prior to !their coming into being#. They introduce the things that come into being into the realm dominated by custom, and effect their coming into being. *ach one of these causes, in turn, comes into being and, thus, re)uires other causes. +auses continue to follow upon causes in an ascending order, until they reach the +auser of causes, ,im who brings them into existence and creates them, -raised be ,e, there is no God but ,im. $n the process, the causes multiply and widen in extent vertically and hori.ontally. The intellect becomes confused in the attempt to perceive and enumerate them. /nly a comprehensive nowledge can encompass them all, especially !all# human and animal actions. 0mong the causes of !action#, there evidently belong the various inds of intention and volition, since no action can materiali.e except through volition and intention( The various inds of intention and volition are matters pertaining to the soul. 0s a rule, they originate from previous consecutive perceptions !tasawwurat#. These perceptions cause the intention to act. The causes of such perceptions are, again, other perceptions. 1ow, the cause of all the perceptions ta ing place in the soul is un nown, since no one is able to now the beginnings or order of matters pertaining to the soul. They are consecutive notions that God puts into the mind of man, who is unable to understand their beginnings and ends. 0s a rule, man is able only to comprehend the causes that are natural and obvious and that present themselves to our perception in an orderly and well2arranged manner, because nature is encompassed by the soul and on a lower level than it. The range of perceptions, however, is too large for the soul, because they belong to the intellect, which is on a higher level than the soul. The soul, therefore, can scarcely perceive very many of them, let alone all of them. This shows the wisdom of the 3awgiver !Muhammad# when he forbade !us# to speculate about causes and to stop with them. 4uch speculation is a field in which the mind becomes lost and gets nowhere, nor gains any real insight. %&% 54ay( 6God,6 and then let them amuse themselves with their idle tal .5 %&4 Man often stops !to speculate about causes# and thereby is prevented from ascending to the next higher stage. ,is feet slip. ,e becomes one of those who go astray and perish. We as God for protection against disappointment and obvious perdition. /ne should not thin that iman has the power, or can choose at will, to stop or to retrace his steps. 1o7 Tal ing about causes results in giving the soul a fast coloring. We do not now how !this comes about#, for if we new it, we could be on guard against it. Therefore, one must be on guard against it by completely abandoning any speculation about the !causes#. 8urthermore, the way in which the causes exercise their influence upon the ma"ority of the things caused is un nown.%&9 They are only nown through customary !experience# and through conclusions %&: which attest to !the existence of an# apparent !causal# relationship. %&; What that

influence really is and how it ta es place is not nown. 50nd you were given but little nowledge.5 %&< Therefore, we have been commanded completely to abandon and suppress any speculation about them and to direct ourselves to the +auser of all causes, who made them and brought them into existence, so that the soul will be firmly colored with the oneness of God. 4o were we taught by the 3awgiver !Muhammad# who nows better !than we do# the things that are to the interest of our religion and the ways that lead us to happiness, because he saw that which is beyond sensual perception. ,e said( 5Whoever dies confessing that there is no God but God, enters -aradise.5 %&= 0 man who stops at the causes is frustrated. ,e is rightly !said to be# an unbeliever. $f he ventures to swim in the ocean of speculation and of research into !causes#, !see ing# each one of the causes that cause them and the influence they exercise, $ can guarantee him that he will return unsuccessful. Therefore, we were forbidden by the 3awgiver!Muhammad# to study causes. We were commanded to recogni.e the absolute oneness of God. 54ay( 6God, ,e is one. God is the samad. ,e did not give birth, and ,e was not born. ,e has no one li e ,im.6 5 %1& Man %11 should not trust the suggestion that his mind ma es, that it is able to comprehend all existing things and their causes, and to now all the details of existence. 4uch a suggestion of the mind should be dismissed as stupid. $t should be nown that every person with perception has the superficial impression that the !whole of# existence is comprised by his perceptions, and that it does not extend beyond !the realm of his perceptions#.%1' The matter is different in fact. The truth lies beyond that. /ne nows that a deaf person feels that the !whole of# existence is comprised in the perceptions of his four senses and his intellect. The whole group of audible things constitutes no part of existence for him. The same applies to a blind person. The whole group of visible things constitutes no part of existence for him. $f !people with such defects# were not set right by their adherence to information they receive from their fathers and teachers who are their contemporaries, and from the ma"ority of people in general, they would not admit !the existence of audible things, things visible, etc.#. They follow the ma"ority in admitting the existence of these groups !of sensibilia#, but !the admission# is not in their natural disposition nor in the nature of their sense perception. $f dumb animals were as ed and could spea , we would find that they would ignore the whole group of intelligibilia. $t would simply not exist for them. 1ow, it might be assumed that there exists another ind of perception different from ours, since our sense perceptions are created and brought into existence. God6s creation extends beyond the creation of man. +omplete nowledge does not exist !in man#. The world of existence is too vast for him. 5God has comprehension beyond theirs.5 %1%Therefore, everyone should be suspicious of the comprehensiveness of his perceptions and the results of his perception, and should follow what the 3awgiver !Muhammad# commanded him to believe and to do.. ,e is more desirous of his happiness !than man himself# and he nows better what is good for him. ,is level !of perception# is higher than that of human perception. The territory he covers !in his mind# is wider than that of human intelligence. This does not spea against the intellect and intellectual perceptions. The intellect, indeed, is a correct scale. $ts indications are completely certain and in no way wrong. ,owever, the intellect should not be used to weigh such matters as the oneness of God, the other world, the truth of prophecy, the real character of the divine attributes, or anything else that lies beyond the level of the intellect. That would mean to desire the impossible. /ne might compare it with a man who sees a scale in which gold is being weighed, and wants to weigh mountains in it. The !fact that this is impossible# does not prove that the indications of the scale are not true !when it is used for its proper purpose#. ,owever, there is a limit at which the intellect must stop. $t cannot go beyond its own level. Thus, it cannot comprehend God and ,is attributes. $t is but one of the atoms of the world of existence which results from !God#. This shows that those who give the intellect preference over !traditional# information in such matters are wrong, deficient in understanding, and faulty in

reasoning. This, then, explains the true situation in this respect. $f this is clear, it is possible that the ascending se)uence of causes reaches the point where it transcends the realm of human perception and existence and thus ceases to be perceivable. The intellect would here become lost, confused, and cut off in the wilderness of con"ectures. Thus, !recognition of the# oneness of God is identical with inability to perceive the causes and the ways in which they exercise their influence, and with reliance in this respect upon the +reator of the causes who comprises them. There is no ma er but ,im. 0ll !causes# lead up to ,im and go bac to ,is power. We now about ,im only in as much as we have issued from ,im. This is the meaning of the statement transmitted on the authority of a certain truthful !person#( 5The inability to perceive is perception.5 %14 4uch !declaration of the# oneness of God does not merely refer to faith, which is affirmation based upon "udgment. $t belongs to the tal of the soul.%19 $ts perfection lies in its ac)uisition in a form that becomes an attribute of the soul. $n the same way, the ob"ect of !all human# actions and divine worship is ac)uisition of the habit of obedience and submissiveness and the freeing of the heart from all preoccupations save the worshiped Master, until the novice on the path to God becomes a holy person. The difference between 5state5 %1: and nowledge in )uestions of dogma is the same as that between tal ing !about attributes# and having them. This may be explained as follows( Many people now that mercy to the orphans and the poor brings !a human being# close to God and is recommendable. They say so and ac nowledge the fact. They )uote the sources for it from the religious law. >ut if they were to see an orphan or a poor person of the destitute classes,%1; they would run away from him and disdain to touch him, let alone show mercy to him or any of the higher 5stations5 %1< of sympathy, affection, and charity. Their mercy for the orphan was the result of having reached the station of nowledge. $t was not the result of the station of 5state5 nor of an attribute of theirs. 1ow, there are people who, in addition to the station of nowledge and the reali.ation of the fact that mercy to the poor brings !a human being# close to God, have attained another, higher 5station5( they have attained the attribute and habit of mercy. When they see an orphan or a poor person, they approach him and show him !mercy#. They wish to receive the !heavenly# reward for the compassion they show him. They are hardly able to refrain from !showing compassion#, even if they are repulsed. They give as charity whatever they have available from their own property. The relationship of man6s nowledge of the oneness of God to his possession of it as an attribute, is of the same character. ?nowledge results by necessity from possession of an attribute. $t is a ind of nowledge that exists on a more solid basis than nowledge attained previous to the possession of the attribute. 0n attribute !on the other hand# is not obtained from nowledge alone. There must be an action, and it must be repeated innumerable times. !/nly# this results in a firmly rooted habit, in the ac)uisition of the attribute and real ! nowledge#. 0nother ind of nowledge thus ma es its appearance. $t is the ind that is useful in the other world. The original nowledge which was devoid of being an attribute is of little advantage or use. $t is the ! ind of# nowledge that the ma"ority of thin ers !possesses#. >ut the !real# ob"ect is nowledge as a 5state,5 and it originates from divine worship. $t should be nown that, in the opinion of the 3awgiver !Muhammad#, perfection with regard to any of the obligations he has imposed !upon Muslims# re)uires this !distinction#. -erfection in matters of belief depends on the other nowledge, that which results from the possession of !these matters# as an attribute. -erfection in matters of divine worship depends on ac)uisition of !these matters# as an attribute, on real ! nowledge# of them.

@ivine worship and its continuous practice leads to this noble result. Muhammad says concerning the principal act of divine worship( 5My consolation lies in prayer.5 %1=-rayer, for Muhammad, was an attribute and 5state5 in which he found his ultimate pleasure and consolation. ,ow different is the prayer of the people7 Who could bring them to pray in that way7 5Woe unto those who pray, who are careless with regard to their prayer.5 %'& / God, give us success. 50nd guide us on the straight path, the path of those to whom you have shown indness, not of those with whom you are angry, and not of those who go astray.5 %'1 0men. $t %'' is clear from all the statements we have made that the ob"ect of all !religious# obligations is the ac)uisition of a habit firmly rooted in the soul, from which a necessary nowledge results for the soul. $t is the !recognition of the# oneness of God, which is the !principal# article of faith and the thing through which happiness is attained. There is no difference whether the obligations of the heart or those of the body are concerned in this respect. This shows that faith, which is the basis and source of all the !religious# obligations, is of that type and has several degrees. The first degree is the affirmation by the heart of what the tongue says. The highest degree is the ac)uisition, from the belief of the heart and the resulting actions, of a )uality that has complete control over the heart. $t commands the actions of the limbs. *very activity ta es place in submissiveness to it. Thus, all actions, eventually, become subservient to this affirmation by faith, and this is the highest degree of faith. $t is perfect faith. The believer who has it will commit neither a great nor a small sin. The ac)uisition of the firmly rooted habit !of faith# prevents even the briefest deviation from its ways. Thus, Muhammad says( 50n adulterer does not commit adultery, if he commits adultery while he is a believer.5 %'% Then, there is the tradition of ,eraclius, who as ed 0bu 4ufyan b. ,arb about the -rophet and his position. ,e as ed whether any of the men around Muhammad would become an apostate, out of displeasure with his religion, after he had become a Muslim. %'4The reply was( 51o.5 !,eraclius# remar ed( 5The same applies to faith when its cheerfulness has penetrated the hearts.5 %'9 This means that it is as difficult for the soul to oppose the habit of faith, once it has been firmly established, as is the case with all other habits, once they have become firmly established. 8or they become a ind of natural disposition. This is the highest degree of faith. $t comes second after infallibility, because infallibility is a primary necessity of prophets, while this !degree of faith# comes to the believers secondarily, as a result of their actions and of their affirmation. The !varying# firmness of this habit causes differences in faith, as is nown from the statements of the early Muslims. Much of it can be found in the chapter headings of al>u hari6s chapter on faith. 8or instance( 58aith consists of words and actions5A 5it may be more or less5A 5prayer and fasting are part of faith5A 5supererogatory !prayer# in Bamadan is part of faith5A and 5bashfulness is part of the faith.5 %': 0ll these statements envisage perfect faith. We have referred to it and to how the habit of it can be attained. -erfect faith is something connected with action. 0ffirmation, the first degree of perfect faith, admits of no differences !in intensity#. Those who consider the first !meanings# of terms and thus thin of !faith# as affirmation cannot show any differences !in the intensity of their affirmation#, as the leading speculative theologians have stated. >ut those who consider the final !meanings# of terms and thus thin of !faith# as the habit that is perfect faith, do show differences !in the intensity of their faith#. This does not spea against the unity of the primary reality of !perfect faith#, which is affirmation, since affirmation exists in all degrees of !faith#. $t is the lowest degree for which the term 5faith5 may be used. $t absolves !the person who has it# from the responsibility of unbelief and is the distinguishing element between unbeliever and believer. 0nything less would not be sufficient. Thus, by definition, it is a reality that is uniform and admits of no differences. @ifferences appear only in the 5state5 that is the result of action, as we have stated. This should be understood.

$t should be nown that the 3awgiver !Muhammad# described to us this first degree of faith which is affirmation. ,e specified particular matters he charged us to affirm with our hearts and to believe in our souls, while at the same time ac nowledging them with our tongues. They are the established articles of the Muslim faith. When Muhammad was as ed about faith, he said( 5!8aith is# the belief in God, ,is angels, ,is 4criptures, ,is messengers, the 3ast @ay, and the belief in predestination, be it good or bad.5 %'; These are articles of faith as established in the science of speculative theology. 3et us describe them in summary fashion, so that the real character of speculative theology and the way in which it originated may become clear. We say( $t should be nown that the 3awgiver !Muhammad# commanded us to believe in the +reator whom he considered as the sole source of all actions,%'< as we have mentioned before. ,e informed us that this belief means our salvation, if we have it when we die. ,owever, he did not inform us about the real being of this worshiped +reator, because it is something too difficult for our perception and above our level. ,e made it our first obligation to believe that ,e in ,is essence cannot be compared with created beings. /therwise, it would not be correct that ,e was their creator, since in this way there would be no distinction !between ,im and them#. Then, he !made it our obligation to believe that# ,e cannot be described in any way as deficient. /therwise, ,e would be similar to created beings. Then, he !made it our obligation to believe in# ,is oneness as divine being.%'= /therwise, the creation !of the world# could not have materiali.ed, on account of mutual antagonism.%%& Then, there are the following articles of faith( God is nowing and powerful. $n this way, !all# actions materiali.e as witness!es#, by syllogism, %%1 to the perfection of the act of creation. ,e has volition. /therwise, no created thing would be differentiated from the other. ,e determines the fate of each created thing. /therwise, volition would be something that comes into being. ,e causes our resurrection %%' after death. This constitutes the final touch to ,is concern with the first %%% creation. $f !created things# were destined to disappear completely,%%4 their creation would have been frivolous. They are destined for eternal existence after death.%%9 8urther articles of faith are( God sent !,is# messengers in order to save !us# from trouble on the !@ay of# Besurrection, because !that @ay# may mean either trouble or happiness !for us#, and we would not now about it. ,e wanted to complete ,is indness toward us by informing us about this situation and explaining to us the two possibilities and that -aradise means bliss and ,ell punishment. These main articles of faith are proven by the logical evidence that exists for them. *vidence for them from Cur6an and 4unnah !also# is ample. The early Muslims derived them from that evidence. The scholars showed the way to them and the religious leaders verified them. ,owever, later on, there occurred differences of opinion concerning details of these articles of faith. Most of the differences concerned ambiguous %%: verses. This led to hostility and disputation. 3ogical argumentation was used in addition to the traditional !material#. $n this way, the science of speculative theology originated. We shall now explain the !preceding# summary statement in detail. $n many verses of the Cur6an, the worshiped Master is described as being absolutely devoid !of human attributes# in obvious terms re)uiring no interpretation. 0ll those verses are negative !in their statements#. They are clear on the sub"ect. $t is necessary to believe them. 4tatements of the 3awgiver !Muhammad# and the men around him and the men of the second generation have explained them in accordance with their plain meaning. Then, there are a few other verses in the Cur6an suggesting anthropomorphism, with reference to

either the essence or the attributes !of God#. The early Muslims gave preference to the evidence for God6s freedom !from human attributes#, because it was ample and clear. They new that anthropomorphism is absurd. They decided that !those# verses were the word of God, and, therefore, believed in them and did not try to investigate or interpret their meaning. This is what is meant by the statement made by most early Muslims( 53et them pass on as they have come.5 %%; That is, believe that they are from God, and do not try to interpret or change themA they may be a temptation. $t is, thus, necessary to stop %%< and submit to !God#. >ut there were a few innovators in their time who occupied themselves with the ambiguous verses and %%= delved into anthropomorphism. /ne group operated with the plain meaning of the relevant verses. They assumed anthropomorphism for God6s essence, in that they believed that ,e has hands, feet, and a face. Thus, they adopted a clear anthropomorphism and were in opposition to the verses stating that God is devoid !of human attributes#. The idea of body entails deficiency and imperfection. $t is more proper to give preference to the negative verses indicating that God is absolutely devoid !of human attributes#, which are very numerous and clear, than to cling to the plain meaning of the !anthropomorphic# verses with which we can dispense, and to try to combine the two indications with the help of interpretation of !the anthropomorphic verses#. The !people who gave consideration to the anthropomorphic verses# then tried to escape from the anthropomorphic abomination by stating that !God has# 5a body unli e !ordinary human# bodies.5 This is no defense for them, because it is a statement contradictory in itself and a combination of negation and assertion, if both !negation and assertion# are used here for one and the same concept of body. >ut if the two differ among themselves %4& and !thus# disavow the commonly accepted concept of body, those !people# rather agree with us that God is devoid !of human attributes#. They consider the word 5body5 to be merely one of ,is names !used in a peculiar sense in connection with ,im#. Things li e that depend on permission. %41 0nother group turned to anthropomorphism with regard to the attributes of God. They assumed direction, sitting,%4' descending, voice, letter !sound#, and similar things !for God#. Their stated opinions imply anthropomorphism. 3i e the former group, they too refuge in statements such as( 50 voice unli e voices5A 5a direction unli e directions5A 5descending unli e descending.5 >y that, they meant( 5!not as those things are used# in connection with !human# bodies.5 The refutation here is the same as in the former case. The only thing that remains to be done with the plain !seemingly anthropomorphic# statements is !to follow# the beliefs and theories expressed by the early Muslims. /ne must believe in the !statements# as they stand, so that it cannot happen that by disavowing their meaning, one disavows them as such, although they are a sound and established part of the Cur6an. That is what is behind the statements found in the creed of the Risalah of $bn 0bi Dayd %4% and in his Mukhtasar and in the boo s of the hadith expert $bn 60bd2al2>arr,%44and others. They try to convey the idea mentioned. /ne should not close one6s eyes to the propositions in their discussion that prove it. 3ater on, the sciences and crafts increased. -eople were eager to write systematic wor s and to do research in all fields. The speculative theologians wrote on God6s freedom !from human attributes#. 0t that "uncture, the Mu6ta.ilah innovation came into being. The Mu6ta.ilah extended the sub"ect to the negative verses and decided to deny !God6s possession of# the ideal attributes %49 of nowledge, power, volition, and life, in addition to !denying# their conse)uences. Their use !in connection with God# would imply, in !Mu6ta.ilah# opinion, a manifoldness of things primeval. %4: This !assumption# is refuted by the !assumption# that the attributes are neither identical with the !divine# essence nor different from it.

The %4; Mu6ta.ilah further decided to deny !God6s possession# of the attribute of volition. This forced them to deny predestination, because predestination re)uires the existence of volition prior to the created things. They also decided to deny God hearing and vision, because both hearing and vision are corporeal accidents. This !assumption# is refuted by the !assumption# that the meaning of the words !hearing and vision# does not re)uire !the existence of# corporeal shape, but merely the perception of audible or visible things.%4< They further decided to deny God speech for reasons similar to those !they used# in connection with hearing and vision. They did not understand the attribute of speech as an essential function. Thus, the Mu6ta.ilah decided that the Cur6an was created. This was an innovation. The early Muslims had openly expressed the contrary view. The damage done by this innovation was great. +ertain leading Mu6ta.ilah indoctrinated certain caliphs with it, and the people were forced to adopt it. The Muslim religious leaders opposed them. >ecause of their opposition, it was considered permissible to flog %4= and ill many of them. This caused orthodox people to rise in defense of the articles of faith with logical evidence and to push bac the innovations. The leader of the speculative theologians, 0bul2,asan al20sh6ari, %9& too care of that. ,e mediated between the different approaches. ,e disavowed anthropomorphism and recogni.ed the ideal attributes. ,e restricted God6s freedom !from human attributes# to the extent to which it had been restricted by the early Muslims, and which had been recogni.ed by the proofs stating the general applicability !of the principle# to special cases. ,e recogni.ed the four ideal attributes, as well as hearing, vision, and speech as an essential function, !and proved his position# with the help of logical and traditional methods. ,e refuted the innovators in all these respects. ,e discussed with them !their# stated opinions with regard to !God6s concern for human# welfare and with what is best !for man#, and their definition of good and evil, which they had invented as the basis for their innovation.%91 ,e perfected the dogmas concerning the rising of the dead, the circumstances of the Besurrection, -aradise, and ,ell, and reward and punishment. ,e added a discussion of the imamate, because the $mamiyah !4hi6ah# at that time suggested the novel idea that the imamate was one of the articles of faith and that it was the duty of the -rophet as well as the Muslim nation %9' to fix !the succession to# the !imamate# and free the person who would become the imam from any responsibility in this respect. !,owever, in fact,# the imamate is at best a matter of public interest and social organi.ation. $t is not an article of faith. !>ut, because of the 4hi6ah attitude, the )uestion of the imamate# was added to the problems of this discipline. The whole was called 5the science of speculative theology.5 The reason why this name !which, literally, means 5science of speech,5 or 5tal 5# was chosen, may have been that it included the disputation of innovations. That is merely tal and implies no action. /r, the reason may have been that the discipline was invented and cultivated as a conse)uence of dissension concerning the existence of essential speech.%9% The followers of 0bul2,asan al20sh6ari became numerous. ,is approach was later on followed by his pupils, such as $bn Mu"ahid %94 and others. Eudge 0bu >a r al>a)illani %99 learned from them. ,e attac ed the problem of the imamate in accordance with the way they had approached it, and improved on it. ,e laid down the logical premises on which arguments and speculation on the sub"ect depend. ,e affirmed, for instance, the existence of the atom ! al jawhar al fard# and of the vacuum. ,e made statements such as 50n accident cannot sustain another accident,5 and 50n accident does not persist two moments.5 %9: There are similar !premises# on which the arguments of !the 0sh6arites# depend. ,e considered the basic premises as secondary only to the articles of faith, as far as the

necessity of believing in them was concerned. The arguments depend on them, and if the arguments are wrong, it is possible to conclude that the thing proven !by them# is also wrong.%9; Thus, !al20sh6ari6s# approach was perfected and became one of the best speculative disciplines and religious sciences. ,owever, the forms of its arguments are, at times, not technically perfect#, because the scholars !of al20sh6ari6s time# were simple and the science of logic which probes arguments and examines syllogisms had not yet made its appearance in $slam. *ven if some of it had existed, the theologians would not have used it, because it was so closely related to the philosophical sciences, which are altogether different from the beliefs of the religious law and were, therefore, avoided by them. The 0sh6arite leader, Eudge 0bu >a r !al2>a)illani#, was followed by the $mam al2,aramayn 0bul2 Ma6ali.%9< ,e dictated a comprehensive wor on the 0sh6arite approach. ,e was very explicit in it. ,e then abridged the wor in the Kitab al-Irshad. -eople use the !Irshad# as their guide in matters of !dogmatic# belief. 0fter that, the science of logic spread in $slam. -eople studied it. They made a distinction between it and the philosophical sciences, in that !they stated that# logic was merely a norm and yardstic for arguments and served to probe the arguments of the !philosophical sciences# as well as !those of# all other !disciplines#. !4cholars,# then, studied the basic premises the earlier theologians had established. They refuted most of them with the help of arguments leading them to !a different opinion#. Many of these !arguments# were derived from philosophical discussions of physics and metaphysics. When they probed them with the yardstic of logic, it showed that they were applicable !only# to those !other disciplines and not to theology, but# they did not believe that if the arguments were wrong, the thing proven !by the arguments# was also wrong, as had been the opinion of the Eudge !al2>a)illani#. This approach differed in its technical terminology from the older one. $t was called 5the school of recent scholars.5 Their approach often included refutation of the philosophers where the !opinions of the# latter differed from the articles of faith. They considered the !philosophers# enemies of the articles of faith, because, in most respects, there is a relationship between the opinions of the innovators and the opinions of the philosophers. The first !scholar# to write in accordance with the !new# theological approach was al2Gha..ali. ,e was followed by the imam $bn al2?hatib.%9= 0 large number of scholars followed in their steps and adhered to their tradition. The later scholars were very intent upon meddling with philosophical wor s. The sub"ects of the two disciplines !theology and philosophy# were thus confused by them. They thought that there was one and the same !sub"ect# in both disciplines, because the problems of each discipline were similar.%:& $t should be nown that the theologians most often deduced the existence and attributes of the +reator from the existing things and their conditions. 0s a rule, this was their line of argument. The physical bodies form part of the existing things, and they are the sub"ect of the philosophical study of physics. ,owever, the philosophical study of them differs from the theological. The philosophers study bodies in so far as they move or are stationary. The theologians, on the other hand, study them in so far as they serve as an argument for the Ma er. $n the same way, the philosophical study of metaphysics studies existence as such and what it re)uires for its essence. The theological study !of metaphysics#, on the other hand, is concerned with the e istentia! in so far as they serve as argument for ,im who causes existence. $n general, to the theologians, the sub"ect of theology is !to find out# how the articles of faith which the religious law has laid down as correct, can be proven with the help of logical arguments, so that innovations may be repulsed and doubts and misgivings concerning the articles of faith be removed.

$f one considers how this discipline originated and how scholarly discussion was incorporated within it st step,%:1 and how, during that process, scholars always assumed the correctness of the articles of faith and paraded 5and arguments !in their defense#, one will reali.e that the character of the sub"ect of this discipline is as we established it, and one will reali.e that !the discipline# cannot go beyond it. ,owever, the two approaches have mixed up by recent scholars. The problems of theology have been confused with those of philosophy. This has go far that the one discipline is no longer distinguishable from the other. The student !of theology# cannot learn !theo from the boo s of !the recent scholars, and the same situation also confronts the student of philosophy#. 4uch !mix theology and philosophy# was done by al2>aydawi, in the Tawali"! and by later, non20rab scholars, in all their w ,owever, some students have occupied themselves with the !mixed# approach !in spite of its uselessness for the stu theology#, in order to learn the different school opinions and to become versed in the nowledge of argumen which is amply represented in !the wor s which follow the mixed approach#. The approach of the early Muslims can be reconciled with the beliefs of the science of speculative theology only if one follows the old approach of the theologians !and not the mixed approach of recent scholars#. The basic wor here is the Kitab al-Irshad! as well as wor s that follow its example. Those who want to in"ect a refutation of the philosophers into their dogmatic beliefs must use the boo s of al2Gha..ali and the imam %:' $bn al2?hatib. They do show some divergence from the old techni)ue, but do not ma e such a confusion of problems and sub"ects as is found in the approach of the recent scholars who have come after them. $n general, it must be nown that this science 2 the science of speculative theology 2is not something that is necessary to the contemporary student. ,eretics and innovators have been destroyed. The orthodox religious leaders have given us protection against heretics and innovators in their systematic wor s and treatments. 3ogical arguments were needed only when they %:% defended and supported !their own views with them#. 1ow, all that remains of them %:4 is a certain amount of discussion, from most of whose ambiguities and inferences the +reator can be considered to be free. %:9 0l2Eunayd %:: was once passing a group of theologians discussing the !problem of the freedom of the +reator from human attributes#. ,e as ed who they were. ,e was told that they were people who, by the aid of arguments, were trying to free God from the attributes of createdness and from the )ualities that indicate deficiency. Whereupon alEunayd said( 5The denial of a fault where !the existence of# a fault is impossible is !in itself# a fault.5 %:; ,owever, the usefulness of !speculative theology# for certain individuals and students is considerable. /rthodox Muslims should not be ignorant of speculative argumentation in defense of the articles of orthodox faith. 5God is the friend of the believers.5 %:<