THECLOSINGOFTHEMUSLIMMIND

HowIntellectualSuicideCreatedtheModernIslamistCrisis

ROBERTR.REILLY

WILMINGTON,DELAWARE

Copyright©2010byRobertR.Reilly

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicor mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher,exceptbyareviewerwhowishestoquotebriefpassagesinconnectionwithareviewwrittenforinclusioninamagazine,newspaper,broadcast,oronlinepublication.

Reilly,RobertR.

TheclosingoftheMuslimmind:howintellectualsuicidecreatedthemodernIslamistcrisis/RobertR.Reilly.p.cm.ISBN1-933859-91-1ISBN978-1-933-85991-0(electronic)1.Islamiccountries—Intellectuallife.2.Islamiccivilization—History.3.Islamicfundamentalism.4.Islam—Doctrines—History.I.Title.

DS36.8.R452010320.5’57—dc222009052660

ISIBooksIntercollegiateStudiesInstitute3901CentervilleRoadWilmington,DE19807-1938www.isibooks.org

ManufacturedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

TothecourageousmenandwomenthroughouttheIslamicworld,herenamelessforreasonsoftheirownsecurity,whoarestrugglingforareopeningoftheMuslimmind.

CONTENTS

FOREWORDbyRogerScruton

INTRODUCTIONIntellectualSuicide

CHAPTER1TheOpening:IslamDiscoversHellenicThought

CHAPTER2TheOverthrowoftheMu‘tazilites:TheClosingCommences

CHAPTER3TheMetaphysicsoftheWill

CHAPTER4TheTriumphofAsh‘arism

CHAPTER5TheUnfortunateVictoryofal-GhazaliandtheDehellenizationofIslam

CHAPTER6DeclineandConsequences

CHAPTER7TheWreckage:MuslimTestimonials

CHAPTER8TheSourcesofIslamism

CHAPTER9TheCrisis

NOTESFURTHERREADINGACKNOWLEDGMENTSINDEX

ForewordbyRogerScruton

TherootsofWesterncivilizationlieinthereligionofIsrael,thecultureofGreece,andthelawofRome,andtheresultingsynthesishas flourishedanddecayed ina thousandwaysduringthe two millennia that have followed the death of Christ. Whether expanding into newterritoriesorretreatingintocities,Westerncivilizationhascontinuallyexperimentedwithnewinstitutions,newlaws,newformsofpoliticalorder,newscientificbeliefs,andnewpracticesinthearts.Andthistraditionofexperimentled,intime,totheEnlightenment,todemocracy,andtoformsofsocialorderinwhichfreeopinionandfreedomofreligionareguaranteedbythestate.WhydidnotsomethingsimilarhappenintheIslamicworld?Whyisitthatthiscivilization,

which sprangupwith such an abundance of energy in the seventh century of our era, andwhichspreadacrossNorthAfricaandtheMiddleEasttoproducecities,universities,libraries,andaflourishingcourtlyculturewhichhasleftapermanentmarkontheworld,isnowinsomanyplacesmute,violent,andresentful?WhydoesIslamtodayseemnotmerelytotoleratethe violence of its fiercest advocates, but to condone and preach it?Why is it thatMuslimminoritiesinEurope,whomigrateinordertoenjoythebenefitsofasecularjurisdiction,callforanotherkindoflawaltogether,eventhoughsofewofthemseemabletoagreewhatthatlawsaysorwhoisentitledtopronounceit?In this lucid and fascinating book, Robert Reilly sets out to answer those questions. His

purposeistoshowthatIslamiccivilization,whichledtotheurbaneprincedomsofAndalusiain theWest, and to themystical laughter of the Sufis in the East, underwent amoral andintellectualcrisis intheninthtotheeleventhcenturyofourera,whenitturneditsbackonphilosophy and took refuge in dogma. Several factors are responsible for this suddenossification, but the principal one, inReilly’s view,was the rise of theAsh‘arite sect in thetenthcenturyandthedefeatoftherivalsectoftheMu’tazalites.TheAsh‘aritesfoundapotentvoiceintheImamal-Ghazali(d.1111),abrilliantphilosopherandtheologianwhosetormentedspiritfoundrefugeatthelastinamysticalonenesswithAllah.Humanreasonteachesustoquestionthings,todiscoverthings,andtomakenewlawsforourbettergovernance.Hencereasonwas—foral-Ghazali—theenemyofIslam,whichrequiresabsoluteandunquestioningsubmissiontothewillofAllah.InhiscelebratedtreatiseTheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,al-Ghazali set out to show that reason, as enshrined in thewritings of plato, Aristotle, andtheirfollowers,leadstonothingsavedarknessandcontradiction,andthattheonlylightthatshines in the mind of man is the light of revelation. Although al-Ghazali’s arguments aresoundly refuted by Averroes (Ibn Rushd) in hisThe Incoherence of the Incoherence, IslamrushedtoembracetheAsh‘aritedoctrine,whichmadesomuchbettersenseoftherulingideaofsubmission.AverroeswassentfromAndalusiaintoexile,andthevoiceofreasonwasheardnomoreinthecourtsofSunniMuslimprinces.Theassaultonphilosophywenthand-in-handwithanequallydeterminedassaultonlawand

jurisprudence (fiqh). The early Islamic jurists had sought to reconcile the Qur’an and thetraditionswith the demands of ordinary justice, and had developed a system of law whichcould be applied in the developing circumstances of social and commercial life. Theinterpretationofthelawwassubjecttostudyandamendmentbytheindividualeffort(ijtihad)ofthejurists,whoweretherebyabletoadaptthebrittleinjunctionsoftheHolyBooktotherealityofMuslimsocieties.Inthetenthoreleventhcenturyofoureraitbecameacceptedthat“the gate of ijtihad is closed”—as al-Ghazali himself declared. Since then Sunni Islam hasadopted theofficial position thatnonew interpretationsof the lawcanbeentertained, andthatwhatseemedrightintwelfth-centuryCairoorBaghdadmustseemrighttoday.Shouldwebesurprised,therefore,ifnobodycanfindaclearwayofreconcilingtheShariawiththefactsofmodernlifeandgovernment,orthataleadingjuristfromal-Azhar,theancientuniversityofCairo,canrulethatitisokayforamanandawomanwhodonotknoweachothertobealonetogether,providedhesucksherbreasts?

Philosophy and dogma, civil law anddivine law, are always hard to reconcile. But in theIslamicworldthetensionbetweenthemhastakenonaspecialcharacter,sinceit involvesaconflict between two rival interpretations of the Qur’an. On one interpretation, that of theMu‘tazalites, the Qur’an was created by God at the moment of its revelation. It thereforestandstobeinterpretedintermsofthecircumstancesinwhichitwasrevealed,andofGod’spurposeinrevealingit.OntheAsh‘ariteinterpretation,theQur’anisuncreated,beingcoevalwith the Almighty, his eternal word that owes nothing to the contingencies of life inMuhammad’s war-torn Arabia. Reilly’s account of this dispute is particularly illuminating,sinceitsuggestshowverydifficultitwillbetosecure,inourdealingswiththeself-appointedleaders of the Sunni community, the kind of flexible interpretations of the faith thatwouldpermitthegrowthofarealandlastingtolerancetowardsthosewhorejectit.Reilly’sbrilliantaccountofthelong-termeffectofthe“closingoftheMuslimmind”makes

soberingreading.Muslimsocieties,asheshows,haverarelyadaptedtotheformsofmodernpolitics,totheoutlookofmodernscience,ortothedemandsofglobalmigration.IfReilly isright—ashesurelyis—thentheresentmentthatanimatestheIslamistterrorististobeblamednotonour success,but ratheronMuslim failure.This failure isnot the inevitable result ofIslam;rather,itistheeffectofanactofculturalandintellectualsuicide,whichoccurredeightcenturiesago.Reillyoffersa cogentexplanationnotofwhatwentwrongbut ofwhy itwentwrong.He

locatesthesourceinadeformedtheologygestatedintheninthandtenthcenturiesandinthedysfunctional culture that emerged from it. The Ash‘arite orthodoxy, he argues, hasbequeathedtomodernIslamthewrongconceptofGod.Policy makers beware: unless you are ready to admit that you are facing an essentially

theological problem in theMiddleEast, donot go about prescribing solutions, for youmayactually make matters worse—particularly by creating the false impression that economic,sociological,orpoliticalprogramscanfixwhatis,infact,adelusionoffaith.Theycannot.AsReillypersuasivelyargues,theproblemhastobeaddressedatthelevelatwhichitexists.Thegreatmeritof thisbook is inclearlystatingthetermsof thisprofoundtheologicalproblem,thecrisis towhich ithas led,and, finally, thechoiceswhicharenowstarkly laidoutbeforecontemporary Muslims. As Reilly shows, there are Muslims who know the way out of themorass,butseldomaretheyabletofindaudiencesorregimesthatarewillingtolistentoandtoprotectthem.TheoutcomeofthestrugglewithinIslamtodaywillhavemajorconsequencesforallofus.

Inhelpingustounderstandthatstruggle,thisbookservesapurposeforwhichweshouldallbeprofoundlygrateful.

IntroductionINTELLECTUALSUICIDE

DostthounotknowthatGodhasthepowertowillanything?—Qur’an2:106

Philosophyisalie.1—AbuSa’idibn-Dust(d.1040)

WhereverIgointheIslamicworld,it’sthesameproblem:causeandeffect;causeandeffect.2—FouadAjami,2005

Thisbookisaboutoneofthegreatest intellectualdramasinhumanhistory.Its landscapeistheMuslimmind.Howmanregardshispowersofreasonhasbeenadecisiveinfluenceontheshapeanddestinyofcivilizations,includingtheIslamicone.Howcoulditbeotherwise,whentheserationalpowersaffecthowrealityisperceived,howrevelationisreceived,whatcanbeknown,andhowtodiscernthemeaningoftheknown?ThisisthestoryofhowIslamgrappledwiththeroleofreasonafteritsconquestsexposedittoHellenicthoughtandhowthesideofreasonultimatelylostintheensuing,deadlystruggle.ItmayseemoutrageoustosayinthetitleofthisbookthattheMuslimmindhasclosed—

thatawholecivilizationhasmentallyshutdownandabandonedreasonandphilosophy.IdonotmeanthatthemindsofeveryindividualMuslimareclosed,orthattherearenotvarietiesof IslaminwhichtheMuslimmind isstillopen. Idomean,however, thata largeportionofmainstreamSunniIslam,themajorityexpressionofthefaith,hasshutthedoortorealityinaprofoundway.*TheevidenceattestingtothisembraceofunrealityisunfortunatelyabundantandhasbeenofferedbyMuslimsthemselves.Thisclosureisespeciallytrueof,anddueto,aparticular current ofMuslim theology, theAsh‘arite school of Islam,whichpredominates intheArabMiddleEast(andisheavilypresentinotherareassuchasPakistanandsouthAsia).Asithasinthepast,thispartoftheworldplaystheleadingroleinIslamtoday.Thegreat twentieth-centuryMuslim scholarFazlurRahman said, “Apeople that deprives

itselfofphilosophynecessarilyexposesitselftostarvationintermsoffreshideas—infact, itcommitsintellectualsuicide.”3InhisSeptember2006Regensburgaddress,PopeBenedictXVIsaid something similar.He spokeofdehellenization—meaning the lossof reason, thegift oftheGreeks—asoneoftheWest’smainproblems.LesswellknownisthedehellenizationthathasafflictedIslam—itsdenigrationofanddivorcefromreason.(Thepopealludedtothisonlybriefly,thoughitbecameasourceofmajorcontroversy.)ThedehellenizationofIslamis lesswell known because it was so thorough and effective that few are aware that therewas aprocessofhellenizationprecedingit—especiallyduringtheninthandtenthcenturies.Itwasapivotal period for Islam and the world. As the late KingHussein of Jordan said in his lastinterview, itwas then, toward theendof thisperiod, that theMuslimworld tookadecisiveturninthewrongdirection.ThisisanaccountofSunniIslam’sintellectualsuicide—inFazlurRahman’smeaningofthe

term—andthereasonsfor it.Thisbookwillrelatenotsomuchhow ithappened,butwhy ithappened;not somuchwhatwentwrong,butwhy itwentwrong.Thisbookwill detail thedevastating consequences of Islam’s intellectual suicide, and how the Muslim mind mightpossibly be reopened (as suggested by Muslims themselves), an endeavor fraught withrepercussionsfortheWest,aswellasfortheIslamicworld.Thedehellenization of Islamhad its roots in a particular idea ofGod that tookdefinitive

shapeintheninthcentury, thougha largeportionof Islamhadembracedaversionof it farearlier.Thestruggleoverreason involvedaprofounddisagreementaboutwhoGod is.EachsideinthedisputehadcertainprerequisitesforwhoGodmustbe,originatinginorconfirmedby theirdistinct readingsof theQur’an.Onone sidewasGod’swill andpower, andon theotherhisjusticeandrationality.Theargument,precipitatedandexacerbatedbytheencounterwithGreekphilosophy,tookplaceoverthestatusofreasoninrelationtoGod’srevelationand

omnipotence.Thequestionsinvolved:Whathasreasontodowithman’sencounterwithGod?Is thereany relationshipbetweenreasonand revelation?Does reasonhaveanystanding toaddressGod’srevelation,ormustreasonremainoutsideofit?Andperhapsmostimportantly,canreasonknowthetruth?It is onaccountof certain theologicalnotions thatphilosophywasultimately found tobe

incompatiblewithAsh‘ariteIslam(andthatIslamicjurisprudencerosetobebyfarthemostimportant discipline). How did such a conception of God develop, and why did it prevail?Muhammadwas not a theologian. Itwas up to his followers to develop the notions ofGodcontainedbothexplicitlyandimplicitlyintheQur’an.Theydidsoaccordingtotheneedsthatarose from various disputes within Islam and, also, as Islam encountered the ideas andreligionsofthecivilizationsitconquered.The issues dealt with here are among the most difficult and profound with which the

followersofanyreligionhavehadtowrestle.Everymonotheisticreligionhashadtoconsiderthe same theological, philosophical, metaphysical, and epistemological problems that Islamhasfaced.ThisbookshowshowtheseperennialchallengeswereraisedandtreatedinSunniIslam,andhow theoutcomesof theseconsiderationsdecisively influenced the shapeof theMuslimworld today.Thismaymake forheavy slogging inplaces.However, the readerwhodoesnotmaketheefforttounderstandthestruggleatthelevelatwhichittookplace—andisstilltakingplace—willbeunabletograspwhytheSunniIslamicworldhasfounditselfinsuchapredicament,andwhetherithasthemeanswithinitselftofindanopeningbacktoreality.Thereare two fundamentalways to close themind.One is todeny reason’s capability of

knowing anything. The other is to dismiss reality as unknowable. Reason cannot know, orthereisnothingtobeknown.Eitherapproachsufficesinmakingrealityirrelevant.InSunniIslam,elementsofbothwereemployed in theAsh‘arite school.Asaconsequence,a fissureopenedbetweenman’sreasonandreality—and,mostimportantly,betweenman’sreasonandGod.ThefataldisconnectbetweentheCreatorandthemindofhiscreatureisthesourceofSunni Islam’smost profoundwoes. This bifurcation, located not in the Qur’an but in earlyIslamictheology,ultimatelyledtotheclosingoftheMuslimmind.Thekeycontemporaryquestionmaybethis:Ifone’stheologicalassumptionsaboutreality

are incorrect, can one recover from them if these assumptions have been dogmatized andmadepillarsofone’sfaith?Ifonewishes, for instance,toadmittotherealityof“causeandeffect”inthenaturalorder,theredoesnotseemtobeanyobstacleintheQur’antodoingso,even though the Qur’an explains events almost exclusively as the direct product of God’sactions.Afterall,theOldTestamenttellsmuchofitsstorywiththesamekindofemphasisonGodactingdirectlyonhumanityandtheworld,butthisdidnotpreventJews,ortheChristiansafterthem,fromembracingcausality.It isAsh‘aritetheology,asitdevelopedintheninthtotwelfthcenturies,whichmakesthisaprobleminIslamtoday,becauseitsdenialofcausalitybecame, broadly speaking, Sunni orthodoxy and a part of Arab culture. This iswhat led toLebanese-AmericanintellectualFouadAjami’sobservationthat“whereverIgointheIslamicworld, it’s thesameproblem:causeandeffect;causeandeffect.” Is thisdysfunctionalviewnowsanctionedbyconsensusorijma‘makingithardifnotimpossibletoreverse?Muhammadproclaimed that “my community will never agree upon an error,” meaning that somethingconfirmedbythatcommunity,orumma,istakentobeinfallible.Much of this subject matter may seem remote from day-to-day concerns, and therefore

easily dismissible. No doubt, the average Muslim may be as unaware of the teachings ofmedieval-eraIslamicthinkers likeal-Ashariandal-GhazaliastheaverageChristianisoftheteachingsofAugustineandAquinas.IfaskedwhichIslamictheologicalschoolhebelongsto,theMuslimmaninthestreetmaynotknowwhetherheisanAsh‘ariteoraMaturidite,anymorethantheChristianwouldknowifheisanAugustinianoraThomist.This,however,doesnotmean that the respectiveMuslim andChristian are any less under the influence of theideas of these thinkers. Despite such lack of awareness, philosophical, metaphysical, andtheologicalissuesultimatelydeterminehowdailyconcernsareaddressed;indeed,theyevendeterminewhattheseconcernsare.Whatmayseemabstrusetheologicalpointscanhavethemostpracticalanddevastatingconsequences.TheclosureoftheMuslimmindhascreatedthecrisisofwhichmodernIslamistterrorismis

only onemanifestation.Theproblem ismuchbroader anddeeper. It enfolds Islam’s loss ofscienceandoftheprospectofindigenouslydevelopingdemocraticconstitutionalgovernment.

ItisthekeytounlockingsuchpuzzlesaswhytheArabworldstandsnearthebottomofeverymeasure of human development; why scientific inquiry is nearly moribund in the Islamicworld;whySpaintranslatesmorebooksinasingleyearthantheentireArabworldhasinthepastthousandyears;whysomepeopleinSaudiArabiastillrefusetobelievemanhasbeentothemoon;andwhy someMuslimmediapresentnaturaldisasters likeHurricaneKatrinaasGod’s direct retribution.Without understanding this story, we cannot grasp what is takingplaceintheIslamicworldtoday,orthepotentialpathstorecovery—pathsmanyMuslimsarepointingtowiththeirrejectionoftheideaofGodthatproducedthiscrisisinthefirstplace.The closing of theMuslim mind is the direct if somewhat distant antecedent of today’s

radicalIslamistideology,andthisideologycannotbeunderstoodwithoutdiviningitsrootsinthat closing. The ideas animating terrorist acts from September 11, to the bombings inLondon,Madrid,andMumbai,totheattemptedairlinebombinginDetroitonChristmas2009,andbeyondhavebeenloudlyproclaimedbytheirperpetratorsandtheirmanysympathizersinevery form ofmedia.We knowwhat they think; they tell us every day. But questions ariseconcerningtheprovenanceof their ideas,which theyclaimare Islamic.Are theysomethingneworaresurgenceofsomethingfromthepast?HowmuchofthisisIslamandhowmuchisIslamism?IsIslamismadeformationofIslam?Ifso,inwhatwayandfromwherehasitcome?And why is Islam susceptible to this kind of deformation? The latter part of the book willaddressthesequestions.The book’s approach will be to cite translated primary sources wherever possible and,

withinthenecessarycontext,toletthetextsspeakforthemselves.Forthoseunfamiliarwiththematerial,thequotationsfromsomeofthekeyMuslimtheologiansfromtheninthtotwelfthcenturieswill be surprising, even shocking. The radical voluntarism (God as purewill) andoccasionalism(nocauseandeffectinthenaturalorder)foundinthemwerenotseentoanysignificant extent in theWest until Scottish philosopher David Hume began writing in theeighteenth century. By that time the recognition of reality had become firmly enoughestablishedtowithstandtheassault(untilfairlyrecently,thatis,whenaformofvoluntarismhas also undermined reason in theWest). unfortunately, this was not true in Sunni Islam,wheretheseviewsarrivedsomuchearlier.ThevoluntaristicandoccasionalistcharacterofSunniIslamishardlyarecentdiscovery.St.

JohnofDamascus,Maimonides,Hegel,andmanyothersamplynotedit.However,thereasonmanyWesternerstodayremainperplexedbyMuslimbehavioristhattheyareunawareofthefundamental theological doctrines that animate it. I abundantly cite twentieth-centuryscholarship on these theological issues, bothWestern and Islamic, to affirm their essentialimportance as the formative influence on Sunni character. The abiding influence of thesedoctrineswill be, for some,hard tobelieve or acceptbecause they are so remote from themodernWesternworld.ButtheyarelargelyresponsibleforthesituationtodayandpresentaprofoundobstacletothereformthatmanyMuslims,aswellasthoseinWest,hopetoseeinareopening of the Muslim mind. To many in the Sunni Muslim world, reality has becomeinaccessible because the views of certain theologians of the ninth to twelfth centuriesprevailed.Thereasonsforthismustbeunderstood,sothathopesarenotmisplacedandthepathtorecoveryrunstrue.ManyMuslims recognize this. In “Reinventing theMuslimMind,” a contemporary Indian

leaderofreformistthought,RashidShaz,states:“Thoseeagertomakeanewbeginningmustacceptbeforehandthatthetraditionalmindwillleadthemtonowhere.AnewMuslimmindisthe minimum to start with. Without reactivating our brains we would even fall short ofrealisinginfullthenatureandmagnitudeofourmalaise.”4Thisbook,then,isanefforttounderstandthejourneythatSunniIslamtookto“nowhere.”

Itmaybetheonlywaytomakethejourneyback.OverviewandApologiaIproposetosketchbrieflytheearlyMuslimworldanditsfirsttheologicalcontroversy,thentointroducethe first fullydevelopedschoolof theology, theMu‘tazilites, thentheiropponents,theAsh‘arites,andthenthepivotalfigureofAbuHamidal-Ghazali(d.1111).Inthelatterpartof the book, Iwill suggest the profound consequences of the triumphof al-Ghazali and theAsh‘arites, including the extirpation of philosophy, and then trace the effects of this to

modern-daybehavior.Thiswill includeanexaminationofthesusceptibilityofIslamtodaytoIslamism, which is driving Sunni Muslims back to nowhere. Throughout, I try to keep thecrucialissueofthestatusofreason—andtheeffectsofitsdecline—intheforefront.Also, the purpose here is not to explicate the works of the great thinkers in Islamic

philosophy.Itwouldbeanenormoustaskeventosurveythissubjectmatter,whichhasbeenwellenoughdoneinotherplaces.Rather,Iintendtosuggestwhytheseworks,despitetheirbrilliance,gained little ifanypurchaseon theSunniMuslimmind, thenornow.Werestrictourselves to a broad outline of the major intellectual events in Sunni Muslim history thatdecisivelyformedtoday’sworld.Someofthefigureswithwhomwedeal,suchasAbuHamidal-Ghazali,arestillsubjectsofcontroversyastowhattheirrealthinkingmighthavebeen.Didtheyhaveesotericteachings?ThegoalhereisnottoresolvesuchdisputesbuttopointouttheprimaryinfluenceoftheirthinkingasithasbeengenerallyfeltandunderstoodwithinIslam.Onapersonalnote,IwouldliketosaythatIamfullyawarethatIhaveembarkedupona

difficultandsensitivesubject.Iwillnotbesurprisedbystrongreactionstowhatissaidhere.Ishould like to be dissuaded of this book’s thesis, and to be convinced that the obstacles toreformarenotasgreatastheyseem.However,Iamtryingtounderstandthesituationasitisand the reasons for it. I am simply offering the conclusions to which I have come aftersearching foryears tomakesenseofwhat Ihaveseen,experienced,andread. If there isathesisthatexplainsmoreofitthanIhavehere,Iwelcomeit.Ireservetherighttolearnmore.

*IdonotincludeShi’aIslaminthisbookexcepttangentially,becauseitisdifferentenoughfromSunniIslamastorequirea

separatework.Also,mygeneralthemewouldhavetobetreatedinaverydifferentmanner,ifatall,forthesimplereasonthatShi’aIslam’srelationshiptophilosophywasandisentirelydifferent,forreasonsthatwillbealludedtoinChapter2.

Chapter1THEOPENING:ISLAMDISCOVERSHELLENICTHOUGHT

Onecannotaddresstheclosingof theMuslimmindunlessone isawareof itsopening.Andconcomitantly,onemustknowwhatitinitiallyopenedfromandonto.

Theopeningshouldbeseenagainstthebackgroundofpre-IslamicArabia,atypicaltribalsociety,immersedinpolytheism(thoughasupremedeity,Allah,wasvaguelyacknowledged),pantheism,animism,fetishism,andsuperstition.TheKa’bainMeccacontainedapantheonofsome360tribalgodsandgoddesses in itsprecincts.Tradingandraiding (razzias)were theprincipal livelihoods. As is typical of tribal societies, conflict was the norm—within certaintraditional limits, such as the prohibition against fighting during the four “sacredmonths.”Forcedefinedthestatusofrelationsbetweentribes,whichwerethemselvesdefinedbyfamilyorblood.Strengthruledwiththesanctionofcustom.ArabiahadsomefamiliaritywithJudaism(withafewresidentJewishtribes)andChristianity,butwasthoroughlypagan.

PhilosophyintheformofGreekthoughthadnotpenetratedthepeninsula.At least,thereseems to be no evidence of its having done so. under thismultiplicity of gods andwithoutphilosophy,itwouldnotnaturallyhaveoccurredtothewarringtribesthattheyhadsomethingin common that was more important than themselves—that the differences among them,definedbybloodlinesanddifferentgods,couldbesupersededbyahighergood.Monotheismwas that higher good, as propoundedbyMuhammad starting around A.D. 610. The unity ofIslam, based upon tawhid—the unity or unicity of Allah—stopped the near-constant tribalraiding through its teaching of profound equality among Muslims. Fellow Muslims becamesacrosanct.AstheQur’anenjoined,“Holdfast,allofyoutogether,toAllah’srope,anddonotseparate.RememberAllah’sbeneficencetoyou,foryouwereenemiesbutHecomposedyourheartssothatbyHisfavouryouhavebecomebrothers”(3:103).

Atthesametime,Islamdivinelysanctionedakindofmega-tribalraidingoftherestofthenon-Muslimworld.“Allahhaspromisedyoumuchbootythatyouwilltake[inthefuture]...and other booty, overwhich yehavenot yet hadpower: butGod compassed them for you”(Qur’an48:20–21).Accordingtothisnewrevelation,itwasnowonlyrightandjustthatnon-Muslims should be subdued and ruled by the true followers of God.How to conduct theseraidsanddividethebootyfromthemisanimportantpartoftheQur’an(Qur’an8:TheSpoils;59:6 TheMustering). The first biographies ofMuhammadwere titledkitab al-meghazi, theBookofRaids.1

The early conquests were staggeringly successful and seemed to confirm the Qur’an’sclaims.ByA.D. 650,Muslims ruled Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt. Lessthanacentury later, Islamspread from the fringesofChinaand India in theEast toNorthAfrica andSpain in theWest. Early Islam’s energieswere spent in absorbing itsmandatedconquestsandindefiningitscreed,whichwasheldtobesuperiortoanyearlierrevelationofanyotherreligion (Qur’an9:33).Thus Islamwasnaturallysuspiciousofanythingoutsideofitself.TheQur’an,itwasthought,containedeverythingneeded,andnon-Qur’anicthingswereeither against it or superfluous. The great fourteenth-century historian Ibn Khaldun wrotethat, when the Muslims conquered Persia, general Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas petitioned CaliphOmarforpermissiontodistributethehugequantityofcapturedbooksandscientificpapersasbooty. Caliph Omar wrote back: “Throw them in the water. If what they contain is rightguidance,Godhasgivenusbetterguidance.Ifitiserror,Godhasprotectedusagainstit.”2

Thisintellectualquarantinecouldnot,however,bemaintainedoutsideofIslam’speninsular

homeland. In the conquered Sassanid and Byzantine territories, Islam encounteredcivilizationssuperiortoitselfbyanymeasure.WhenthecapitaloftheIslamicempiremovedfrom Medina to Damascus under the Umayyad dynasty (660–750), the Muslim rulers weresurrounded by an alien culture. How should Islam react to what it now ruled? How muchcould it absorbandwhat should it reject, andwhy?What should its attitudebe toward thebeliefsandteachingsofthosewhomithadconquered?

TheFirstEncounterIslamencounteredGreekthoughtinitsnewByzantineandSassanidpossessions.Exactlyhowthese earlyHellenic influences reached into Islam is amatter of some conjecture.What isclearisthathugeareasofwhathadbeentheByzantineEmpirewerelargelyChristian,andinthem Greek philosophical notions had long been employed in Christian apologetics. TherewerealsocentersofHellenisticlearninginAlexandria(whichmovedtoAntioch,Syria,aroundA.D.718)andGondeshakpur,northeastofBasra,Iraq.ThelatterhadbeenmaintainedbytheSassanids,whohademployedmainlyChristian(Nestorian)teachers.Thebodyofwhatwerecalled “the intellectual sciences” included logic and philosophy, as well as the natural,medical, engineering, and mathematical sciences. A good deal of Greek philosophical andscientific treatises had been translated into Syriac by Christian scholars. As these subjectswerenot familiar toArab culture, theArabsdubbed them“intruding sciences.”3 The initialMuslim interest in the Greek sciences was in practical matters such as medicine,mathematics,naturalscience,alchemy,andastrology.

Most learned men in these sciences, however, were also schooled in philosophy andtheology, which meant that Muslim interest began to spill over into philosophical andtheological issues.Muslimswerealsocalledupon todefendandadvance their faithagainstChristians and others who used philosophical methods in their apologetics. Some Muslimconverts in these new territories were already versed in Greek learning and prepared todeployitonbehalfoftheirnewfaith.Thus,bythelateeighthandearlyninthcenturies,anewkindofdiscoursebegantoaffectIslamicthoughtthathadhithertobeenlargelydoctrinalandjurisprudential. New words were created in Arabic to take in Greek concepts. Philosophyopened the Muslim mind in a way in which it had never been before in the spirit of freeinquiryandspeculative thought. It isat this juncturethat thegreatest intellectualdramaofIslamtookplace.

AfterIslamencounteredHellenicthought,themostchallengingissueitfacedinvolvedthestatusofreason.Whatisreason’sabilitytoapprehendreality?CanGodbeknownrationally?How does the voice of reason comport with the claims of revelation as contained in theQur’an? Does reason precede faith? Is revelation addressed to reason? Can reasoncomprehendmoralprinciplesoutsideoftheQur’an?WhatifsomethingintheQur’anappearsto be unreasonable? Is it legitimate even to ask these questions? Is Islam compatible withanythingotherthanitself?Wasitcapableofassimilatingphilosophy?Ifso,onwhatgrounds?

Apitchedbattle tookplaceover theanswers to thesequestions,mostparticularlyduringthe ninth and tenth centuries of the Abbasid caliphate. At stake were man’s free will, hisabilitytoknowthroughhisreason,andtheverynatureofrealityandofGod.Attheconclusionof this battle, the triumphant side gradually extirpated philosophy and dehellenized theMuslimworld.Thisdidnot takeplacewithouta fight fromthoseMuslimthinkersand theirfollowerswhoprecipitatedtheopening.Inmanyways,thestrugglecontinuestoday.TheFirstStruggle:Qadar(Man’sPowertoAct)versusJabr(Fate/Compulsion)ThesideinthisemergingdebatemosteasilyrecognizabletoaWesternerwastheMu‘taziliteschool,composedoftheMuslimrationalisttheologianswhofoughtfortheprimacyofreason.Theirappearanceinthelateeighthandearlyninthcenturiesshouldbeseeninthecontextofaprecedingdisputewithin Islamaboutpredestinationand freewill.This issuewas, in fact,the source of the earliest theological debate in Islam. Some scholars say this dispute wascompletely native to Islam, while others, such as Duncan Macdonald, aver that “it isimpossible to mistake the workings of the dialectic refinements of Greek theology asdevelopedintheByzantineandSyrianschools.”4Thepre-Mu‘taziliteswerecalledQadarites,orQadariyya,aftertheArabicwordqadar,whichcanmeandivinedecreeorpredestination,orpower. They stood for the opposite of predestination: man’s free will and consequentresponsibility forhisactions.Manhaspower (qadar)overhisownactions. Ifmenwerenotabletocontroltheirbehavior,saidtheQadarites, themoralobligationtodogoodandavoidevil,enjoinedbytheQur’an,wouldbemeaningless.

Contrary to this view, the Jabariyya (determinists; from jabr, meaning blind compulsion)embracedthedoctrinethatdivineomnipotencerequirestheabsolutedeterminationofman’s

actionsbyGod.Oneof thenamesofGod in theQur’an is al-Jabbar, theCompeller (59:23),whosepowercannotberesisted.Godaloneauthorsman’severymovement.TosayotherwisetiesGod’shandsandlimitshisabsolutefreedom.Oneoftheexponentsofthisview,JahmbinSafwan(d.745),arguedthatman’sactionsareimputedtohimonlyinthesamewayasoneimputes“thebearingoffruittothetree,flowingtothestream,motiontothestone,risingorsettingtothesun—bloomingandvegetatingtotheearth.”5AsFazlurRahmansummedupthedispute,“Intheeyesoftheorthodox,thisfreedomformanwasbondageforGod.”6

As inthecaseofothertheological issueswithinIslam,theQur’anofferssupport forboth

positions. The disputants could each quote verses supporting their respective sides. BritishIslamichistorianAlfredGuillaumeclaims,however,thatthingsappeartofavortheJabariyyaside,especiallywhentheHadithareconsidered.(TheHaditharethe“traditions”thatreportvarious sayings and actions ofMuhammad, whichwere first passed on orally before beingwritten down in collections, six of which are accepted as genuine sources of revelation.)Guillaume states that “the orthodoxparty had theQur’an on their sidewhen they assertedthat God’s predestination was absolute. This view is borne out by the chapter onpredestination in the books of canonical tradition which do not contain a single saying ofMuhammad’swhichleavesfreedomofactiontoman.Everythingispredestinedfromthefirstandaman’sfateisfixedbeforeheisborn.”7

HereareseveralexamplesofsuchHadith:

Hudhayfa bin Asid reported that the Prophet said, “Two angels visit every foetus in the

wombupon the completionof forty or forty-fivenights and say, ‘OLord! Is itmisguidedorrighteous?’Thentheywrite[theanswer].Thentheyask,‘Olord!Isitmaleorfemale?’Thentheywrite[theanswer].Theyalsowriteitsdeed,wealthandmeansoflivelihood,anddeath.Thentheyrollofftheparchmenttowhichnothingisaddednordetractedafterwards.”8

Abu Huraira reported Muhammad as saying: “Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of

adulterywhichamanwillindulgeinandwhichheofnecessitymustcommit.”9

A Hadith found in both Muslim and al-Bukhari (the two most authoritative sources of

Hadith) has Moses, upon meeting Adam, asking him: “Are you the Adam, the father of allhumanity,whomHecreatedwithHisownhand....Whydidyougetusandyourselfexpelledfrom the garden?” To this Adam replies, “Are you the Moses whom God chose for Hismessengership,distinguishedhimbyspeaking tohimandwrote theTorah forhimwithHisownhand?Howlongbeforemycreationdidyoufindthewordspre-written:‘AdamdisobeyedHisorderandwentastray(Qu’ran20:121)?’”Mosesthenanswers:“Thiswas[pre-written]somuchtimebefore[yourcreation].”10ThusdoesAdamconfoundMoses.

AQur’anic verse supporting thisorientation says: “SowhoeverAllahwants toguide—Heexpands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide—He makes hisbreasttightandconstrictedasthoughhewereclimbingintothesky”(6:125).And“WhenyoushotitwasnotyouwhoshotbutGod”(8:17).

Counterpoised to these are other citations from the Qur’an that seem to confirm theQadaritepositionandmakeclearthatmancanchoosefreelyandwillbeheldaccountableonjudgmentday.Forexample,theQadaritescouldquote:“Whosoeverdoesanevildeedshallberecompensed only with the like of it, but whosoever does a righteous deed, be it male orfemale,believingshallenterParadise,thereinprovidedwithoutreckoning”(40:40).Or,“Say,‘The Truth is from your Lord.’ Let him who will, believe; and let him who will reject [it]”(18:29).Or,“Eachsoulearnsbutitsowndue”(6:164).Also:“AndAllahcreatedtheheavensand theearthwith truth, so thateachsoulmightbe recompensedaccording towhat ithasearned, with no one wronged” (45:22). There are many such verses that refer to man’sresponsibilityandaccountabilityforhisactions.

TheconundrumcreatedbythesetwoconflictingpositionsseemstobecontainedwithinthesameQur’aniccitation:“IfAllahsowilled,hecouldmakeyouallonepeople.ButHe leavesstrayingwhomHepleases,andHeguideswhomHepleasesandyoushallcertainlybecalledtoaccountforallyouractions”(16:93).

The Qur’an’s ambiguity allowed room for this dispute and for political maneuver and

advantagefromit.BoththeQadariteandtheJabriteviewshadprofoundpoliticalimplications.The Umayyad caliphs ruling in Damascus enjoyed the sanction provided by the Jabariyyadoctrinebecauseitexcusedthemfromresponsibilityforanyunjustacts.Howcouldtheybeblamedfortheirforeordainedbrutality?Assuch,outofpiety,theirsubjectsshouldaccept,oratleastignore,theirmisdeeds(whichincludedanattackontheKa’ba).Inordertosecurehispower,UmayyadCaliph‘Abdal-Malikbroughtoneofhisrivals,‘AmribnSa’id,intothepalaceunderfalsepretenses,beheadedhim,andthenhadhisheadtossedtohisawaitingcrowdofsupporterswiththeannouncementthat“theCommanderoftheFaithfulhaskilledyourleader,as itwas foreordained inGod’s inalterabledecree.”11 Theerstwhile supportersof IbnSa’idthenpaidobeisancetothecaliph.

Notall,however,werewillingtoabidebythisinterpretation.Hassanal-Basri(d.728)wasasked his opinion of “those kings [the Umayyad caliphs] who spill the blood of Muslims,appropriate theirpossessions,dowhat theypleaseand say, ‘Ouractionsare indeedpart ofGod’s fore-ordination.’” Al-Basri, whose student, Wasil ibn ‘Ata (d. 748), founded theMu‘taziliteschool,answered:“TheenemiesofGodlie.”12Allah,hesaid,quotingtheQur’an,was“nounjustdealerwithHisservants.”Allahisnotthesourceofevil;menare—intheirevilactions. This theological positionwas taken as a political attack. TwoQadarite theologians,Ma’bad al-Juhani (d. 699) and Ghailan al-Dimashqi (d. before 743), were executed by theUmayyads for their defense of free will, which was considered subversive and a directchallengetotheUmayyadtheologicalrationalizationofitsatrocities.

In750,theAbbasidsoverthrewtheUmayyads,alongwiththeirdoctrineofpredestination.The Abbasids had cause to embrace the Mu‘tazilites, who succeeded to the Qadariyyaposition. The Mu‘tazilites agreed with the Qadariyya that, without man’s freedom, God’sjustice is unintelligible. To be held justly accountable for his acts, man must be free. ThepoliticalimplicationsofthispositionfavoredtheAbbasidattempttoreininthepoweroftheulema(Islamicjurisprudentialscholars),whosemonopolyontheinterpretationoftheQur’angavethemgreatinfluence.Whenheaccededtothethrone,al-Ma’muntookthetitleofimam,andchoseaShi‘aashissuccessor.Theseactionsclearly impliedaclaimonhispartthathealso had the authority to interpret Islamic scripture, and perhaps even to amend it. TheMu‘taziliteteachingthatthefreedomofmanalsomeantthefreedomtointerpretsacredtextsreinforcedthisclaimfromanotherdirection.

The freedomto interpret revelationwasbasedupon theMu‘tazilite teaching,shocking tothetraditionalists,thattheQur’anwascreatedintime.Thestandardorthodoxbeliefwasthatthe Qur’an is uncreated and exits coeternally with Allah. If the Qur’an was created, it issubjecttorationalcriteria.Ifitissubjecttorationalcriteria,itisnottheexclusivedomainoftheulema. An uncreated Qur’an would not allow for this interpretive freedom. Caliph al-Ma’munknewthattheteachingofacreatedQur’anandofman’sfreewillwouldenhancehisauthority and undermine that of the traditionalist ulema. Therefore, he sponsored theMu‘tazilites. He also genuinely embraced their views because he was fascinated byphilosophy.TheSecondStruggle:‘Aql(Reason)versusNaql(TraditionalFaith)TheMu‘tazilites,whocreatedthefirstfullydevelopedtheologicalschoolinIslam,championedtheprimaryroleofreason;reason’sabilitytoknowmorality;thegoodnessandjusticeofGodasrequiredbyreason;theunityofGod;andthenecessityofman’sfreewill.Theyrepresentedthe beginning of the hellenization of Islamic thought insofar as they employed Greekphilosophical concepts and logic in their consideration of theological questions. They wererationalisttheologians.Theirnewdisciplinebecameknownaskalam,anditspractitionersasmutakallimun (though this term is sometimes used to signify the opponents of theMu‘tazilites).AtaverybasicSocraticandAristotelian level, theyembracedthepropositionsthat themind canknow things, asdistinct fromhavingopinions about them; that objectiverealityexists;thatthereissomepurposeimpliedinitsconstruction;thatthispurposehastodowithwhatmancalls “thegood”; and thatman’s soul is ordered to this “good,”which isuniversal.

OneprobleminaccuratelyascertainingthethoughtofthelosingsideinMuslimtheologicaldebates is that the losers’bookswereusuallyburnt.What informationwehave is from theheresiographies of the winning side, which state the positions of opponents only for the

purposesofrefutation(althoughthiswasoftendonewithscrupulousfairness,asinthecaseofal-Ghazali’s writings). In the early 1950s, however, Egyptian scholars discovered a largeamount of texts by the last greatMu‘tazilite theologian, ‘Abd al-Jabbar (c. 935–1025), in amosqueinYemen.Thus,thereisnowareliablereferencebywhichtocometoknowthecoreMu‘taziliteteachings:‘Abdal-Jabbar’sBookoftheFiveFundamentals.

Ingeneral,membersoftheschooladheredtofiveprinciples,whichwereclearlyenunciatedforthefirsttimebyAbual-Hudhayl(d.849),whohelpedtoformalizeMu‘taziliteteachingsinBasra,Iraq.Thesewere:(1)tawhid, theunityofGod;(2)divinejustice;(3)thepromiseandthethreat; (4) the intermediateposition;and(5) thecommandingofgoodandforbiddingofevil.Thefirstthreeprinciplesarethemostrelevanttoaconsiderationoftheroleofreasoninrespect to God. They are particularly significant in their differences with the staunchtraditionalist positions ofwhatwere calledahlal-Hadith, the people of tradition. They alsogeneratedvehementoppositionfromtheAsh‘arites,aschooloftheologydevelopedindirectoppositiontotheMu‘tazilites,whichusedtheMu‘tazilites’owntoolsofGreekphilosophytotrytodestroythem.

The Mu‘tazilite concern with tawhid, or God’s unity, had to do with the multitude ofattributesgiventoAllahby the traditionalistsandtheontologicalstatusof thoseattributes.The Mu‘tazilites thought that these compromised God’s indivisible unity. The traditionalistinsistence on the uncreatedness of theQur’an,whichmade theQur’an eternally coexistentwithGod,wasanotherinfractionofGod’sunityfromtheMu‘taziliteperspective.

The matter of divine justice goes to the heart of who God is and the nature of hisrelationshiptoman.Itinvolvestheveryorderandnatureofcreationasbasedonreason.TheMu‘tazilites held that man’s freedom is a matter of God’s justice, as is reason’s ability toapprehendanobjectivemoralorder.The“promiseandthethreat”isanextensionoftheissueofdivinejusticeinthattheMu‘tazilitesheldthatGodisreasonablyrequiredtokeephiswordand reward good and punish evil, an obligation which their opponents insisted was aninfringementofGod’sfreedomandomnipotence.ThePrimacyofReasonTheMu‘tazilitesdiffered fromtheiropponents in their teaching thatGodhasendowedmanwith reason specifically so that he can come to know the moral order in creation and itsCreator; that is what reason is for. Reason is central to man’s relationship to God. In theFundamentals, ‘Abdal-Jabbarbeginsbypositing theprimary duty to reason: “If it is asked:What is the firstduty thatGod imposesuponyou?Say tohim:Speculativereasoningwhichleads toknowledgeofGod,becauseHe isnotknown intuitivelyorby the senses.Thus,Hemustbeknownbyreflectionandspeculation.”13

Therefore, reason logically precedes revelation. Reason first needs to establish the

existence of God before undertaking the question as to whether God has spoken to man.Naturaltheologymustbeantecedenttotheology.Al-Jabbarsays,“Thestipulatesofrevelationconcerningwhat[weshould]sayanddoarenogooduntilafterthereisknowledgeofGod,”whichknowledge comes from reason. “Therefore,” he concludes, “it is incumbent onme toestablishHisexistenceandtoknowHimsothatIcanworshipHim,giveHimthanksanddowhatsatisfiesHimandavoiddisobediencetowardHim.”14

How does reason lead man to the conclusion of God’s existence? It is through his

observationoftheordereduniversethatmanfirstcomestoknowthatGodexists,says‘Abdal-Jabbar.Asheseesthatnothingintheworldisitsowncause,butiscausedbysomethingelse,manarrivesatthecontingentnatureofcreation.Fromthere,manreasonstothenecessityofa Creator, an uncaused cause; otherwise one is caught in an infinite regress of contingentthings,alogicalimpossibility.(ThiswasafamiliarargumentfrombothGreekphilosophyandChristianapologetics.) It is through theobservationofnature—theways inwhich theworldseemstomoveaccordingtocertain laws—thatmancomestoknowGod.God’s lawsarethelawsofnature(tab’),whicharealsomanifestedindivinelaw,theshari‘a.

Theconceptofan inherentnature inthings (tab’)meansthatGod, thoughhe is theFirstCause,actsindirectlythroughsecondarycauses,suchasthephysicallawofgravity.Inotherwords,Goddoesnotimmediatelyanddirectlydoeverything.Hedoesnotmaketherockfall;

gravity does. God allows some autonomy in His creation, which has its own set of rules,according to how itwasmade. AsMu‘tazilitewriter and theologian ‘Uthman al-Jahiz (776–869) stated, every material element has its own nature.15 God created each thing with anature according to which it consistently behaves. The unsupported rock will always fallwhere there isgravitationalpull.These lawsofnature, then,arenotan impositionoforderfromwithoutbyacommander-in-chief,butanexpressionofitfromwithintheveryessenceofthings,whichhave theirown integrity.Creation ispossessedofan intrinsic rationality fromtheCreator.ThatiswhyandhowmanisabletounderstandGod’sreasonasmanifestedinhiscreation. (This does not discount God’s ability to supersede natural laws in the case of amiracle.)

For scriptural support, the Mu‘tazilites could point to multiple invitations to naturaltheologyintheQur’an.Forexample,inSurah15,“TheBee,”versesremarkinguponnaturalwonders frequently endwith, “Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought,” or“Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason.” Other Surahs further support theMu‘taziliteposition:“Thendotheynotlookatthecamels—howtheyarecreated?Andatthesky—howitisraised?Andatthemountains—howtheyareerected?Andattheearth—howitisspreadout?”(88:17–20).Also:“AnditisHewhogiveslifeandcausesdeath,andHisisthealternationofthenightandtheday.Thenwillyounotreason?”(23:80).Finally,andperhapsmostfamously,thereisSurah2,“TheCow,”164:“Indeed,inthecreationoftheheavensandthe earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sailthrough the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from theheavensof rain,giving life thereby to theearthafter its lifelessnessanddispersing thereinevery [kind of]moving creature, and [His] directing of thewinds and the clouds controlledbetweentheheavenandtheeartharesignsforapeoplewhousereason.”ReasonandReflectionItis,therefore,theexerciseofreasonthatcreatestheopeningtothepossibilityofrevelation.Infact,man’sreasoncomprehendstheneedforsuchrevelationwhenitseesthatrevelationisrequiredbyGod’sjusticetoguidemanrightly.Forconfirmation,theMu‘tazilitescouldpointtotheQur’an:“ItisincumbentuponAllahtogiverightguidance”(16:9).

AfterdeterminingthatGodexists,onecanthenreasonablyaskwhetherGodhasspokentoman.Hasrevelationoccurred?Howwouldoneknowifitisgenuine?Here,‘Abdal-Jabbargoesevenfurtherinhisclaimsforreasonbystatingthatitisreasonthatauthenticatesrevelation.‘Abd al-Jabbar contends that “knowledge of God can only be gained by speculation withrationalargument,becauseifwedonot[first]knowthatHeistruthfulwewillnotknowtheauthenticityof theBook, theSunnaand thecommunalconsensus.”16 It isonly logical then,sinceGodisreasonandreasoncomesfromHim,thatHisrevealedwordsintheQur’anwouldbedecipherablebyman’sreasonandcongruentwithwhatmanknowsthroughHiscreation.

Whatismore,revelationonlyreveals;itdoesnotmakethingsgoodorbadbydecree.Godforbidsmurderbecauseitisevil;itisnotevilbecauseHeforbidsit.Evenifreasoncouldnotindependentlyarriveatthecontentofrevelation,itfindsnothinginitthatisnotreasonable,andreasoncannonethelessconfirmthegoodinit.‘Abdal-Jabbarstates:

Revelationonlyuncoversaboutthecharacteroftheseactsaspectswhoseevilnessorgoodnessweshouldrecognizeifweknewthembyreason;forifwehadknownbyreasonthatprayerisofgreatbenefittous,leadingustochooseourdutyandtoearnRewardthereby,weshouldhaveknownitsobligatorycharacter[also]byreason.Thereforewesaythatrevelationdoesnotnecessitatetheevilnessorgoodnessofanything,itonlyuncoversthecharacteroftheactbywayofindication,justasreasondoes,anddistinguishesbetweenthecommandoftheExaltedandthatofanotherbeingbyHisWisdom.17

It isonly logical fromthisgeneralorientation that theMu‘taziliteswould find theQur’anopen to rational interpretation. Itmustbe, since theQur’an itself admits toverses thatare“univocal”andothersthatare“equivocal”(3:7).Howisonetounderstandwhicharewhich,without reasoned interpretation?Revealed truths, according to ‘Abd al-Jabbar, cannot be incontradictiontothetruthsofreason.AsthephilosopherAverroeswouldlatersay,“Therightdoesnotcontradict the right,butagreeswith itandconfirms it.”18Therefore,says ‘Abdal-Jabbar,“It isobligatoryforyoutocarryoutwhataccordswithreason. . . .Thus, judgethatwhichaccordswithrationalproof tobe true,andbring thatwhichcontradicts [reason] into

accord with it.”19 By this principle, advises ‘Abd al-Jabbar, “That which is transmitted inconflict with the Book and rational evidence we will interpret metaphorically in a soundmanner,justasweinterprettheBookofGodinaccordwithrationalproof,notwiththatwhichis in conflict with it.”20 By this means, the Mu‘tazilites overcame such obstacles as theanthropomorphismsintheQur’an,whichspeaksofGod’s“hands”(38:75),“eyes”(54:14),and“face” (55:27). The traditionalistswere forced into a conundrum by their literal reading ofthese passages, which confounded the doctrine that God was an incorporeal spirit. Inparticular, theybitterlycontested theMu‘tazilite spiritual interpretationof the text inverse75:23thatthoseinparadisewillactually“see”God.21

According to the traditionalists,whatever inconsistenciesmayappear in theQur’anmust

simplybeacceptedwithoutquestioning.MalikibnAnas(715–795),founderofoneofthefourschools of Islamic jurisprudence, addressed the anthropomorphisms, which include Allah“sitting upon the throne” (7:54; 20:5), by purportedly saying: “The sitting is known, itsmodalityisunknown.Beliefinitisanobligationandraisingquestionsregardingitisaheresy[bid‘ah].”22ThisistheclassicHanbalite-Ash‘ariteformulaofbilakayfawalatashbih(withoutinquiringhowandwithoutmakingcomparison).

Tothecontrary,theMu‘tazilitesthoughtthatthegrandharmonizationofman’sreasonwiththeorderintheworldandwithdivinerevelationmustobtainbecauseGodisnotonlypower;He is reason. Reason in man, says ‘Abd al-Jabbar, was the product of God’s “grace.” TheMu‘tazilites would have been in accord with Thomas Aquinas’s proposition that man canapprehend created things with his mind because they were first thought by God. God’sintelligibility is the cause of the intelligibility of creation.Averroesheld this aswell: “Ifwehaveknowledgeofthesepossibles,thenthereisaconditioninthepossibleexistens[existingthings] towhichourknowledgepertains . . .andthis iswhat thephilosophersdesignateasnature.Likewise,theknowledgeofGodisthroughtheexistens,although[God’sknowledge]istheircause...andthereforeitisnecessarythattheexistenscomeaboutinaccordancewithHis knowledge.”23 The Mu‘tazilites trusted that God is guided by the rationality of theuniverseHecreated.TheircosmologyresteduponthetrinityofGodasreason,creationasamanifestationof that reason,andman’sgiftof reasonas themeansbywhich toapprehendGodthroughHiscreationand,then,throughHisrevelation.

Thus for the Mu‘tazilites, as Richard Martin states in Defenders of Reason in Islam,“confidenceintherationalandknowablenatureofphysicalrealityisbasedontheodicy:Godwould not deceive His creatures by creating an irrational universe.”24 In other words, notacting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. (When Benedict XVI cited the ByzantineemperorManuel II paleologus as saying this very thing to a persian in the late fourteenthcentury,manyMuslimsvehementlyprotested—itseemswithoutrealizingthatthiswasoncearespectabletheologicalpositionwithinIslam.)IfGodisreason,thenthereexiststandardsofreasonableness. TheMu‘tazilites believed thatGod actswith purpose and his purposes areintelligibleandbenign.Therecertainlyexistdivinemysteriesbeyondman’scomprehension,butGodwouldnotgoagainstreasoninHisrevelationinsuchawayastorequiremantodenyHis reason. His revelation is addressed to, and does not supplant, man’s reason. For theMu‘tazilites,faithrequiredanintellectualassent;asIgnazGoldziher,authorofIntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw,putit,“therecouldbenobeliefwithouttheexerciseofreason.”25

FatherJamesSchallhaspointedoutthedeepsignificanceofthisviewingeneral:

Therationalcreaturecanonly“participate”intheeternallawofGodifthatlawisitselffoundedinLogos,inWord[orReason].Ifitisgroundedmerelyinwill,evenifitisGod’swill,asvarioustheologiesandphilosophiesaretemptedtomaintain,therecanbenoreal“participation”intheeternallawbythehumanbeing.Why?Essentially,becausethereisnothingtoparticipateinifwhatisgroundedinandknownonlybywillcan,atanytime,betheoppositeofwhatitisatfirstthoughttobe.26

Fromal-Jabbar’swritings,itisclearthattheMu‘tazilitessawmanasafullparticipantintheeternallawinthisveryway,justastheiropponentsexplicitlydidnot.TheObjectivityofMorality:KnowingtheGoodManasaparticipantintheeternallawmeansthat,quiteapartfromrevelation,manhastheability tomakemoral discernments concerning good and evil, justice and injustice. Reason

candistinguishbetweengoodandevilbecausethestandardofgoodandevilexistsobjectively.Themoralcharacterofactsisintrinsictothem.Al-Shahrastani,anAsh‘ariteopponentoftheMu‘tazilites, fairly characterized the Mu‘tazilite position regarding the imperatives issuingfrommoralreasoningas follows:“Theadherentsof justice[astheMu‘taziliteswereknown]say:Allobjectsofknowledgefallunderthesupervisionofreasonandreceivetheirobligatorypowerfromrationalinsight.Consequently,obligatorygratitudefordivinebountyprecedestheordersgivenby[divine]Law;andbeautyanduglinessarequalitiesbelongingintrinsicallytowhat is beautiful and ugly.”27 Because good and evil are intrinsic to the nature of actsthemselves, man can know their moral character through his reason alone. For theMu‘tazilites,apurelyrationalethicsispossible,justasitwasfortheGreeksandforAristotleinTheEthics.

Itispreciselyman’sabilitytodiscernthesethingsthatmakesamorallygoodlifeobligatory.The status of reasonwas the key toMu‘tazilite support of freewill,whichmakesno senseunless man can know the difference between good and evil, justice and injustice. In turn,man’s freedom, said the Mu‘tazilites (like their Qadarite predecessors), was necessary tovindicateGod’s justice.Manisresponsiblebecausehe is free.Otherwise,Godwouldnotbejustified in rewarding or condemningman for his actions. In answering the claim thatGodcreatesman’sacts,‘Abdal-Jabbarresponds,“IftheyweredonebyGodthenwhatgoodwouldthere be in His commanding those that are ethically good and prohibiting those that areethically bad, and praising and rewarding obedience but blaming and punishingdisobedience?”What ismore,says ‘Abdal-Jabbar,“HowcanitbepossibleforGodtocreateerroneous behaviour in them and then punish them, thus saying: ‘Why do you disbelieve?’Isn’tthatthesameassomeonecommandinghisslavetodosomething,thenpunishinghimforit?Andthatwouldclearlybecorrupt.”28

TheGoodnessandJusticeofGodImplicitinthelastsentenceistheMu‘tazilitebeliefthatGodissubjecttoHisownjusticeandthatHecannotactoutsideof it.Hecannotbecorrupt. Inotherwords,Godcanbeheld toaccount.Certainthingsare incumbentuponHim.TheMu‘tazilitesweretheonlytheologicalschooltousethetermwajib(obligatory)inreferencetoGod.ThenotionthatGodhadtodosomethingwas anathema to the traditionalists and to theAsh‘arites. For them,Allah is notbound by anything. Nothing is obligatory for Him. If it were, His omnipotence would becompromised.TheMu‘taziliteresponsetothiswasthatGodmustbeconsistentwithHimself,andthatinnowaycompromisesHisomnipotence.ItsimplydefineswhoHeis.

For theMu‘tazilites, God is good and cannot do evil. TheMu‘tazilite al-Nazzam (d. 848)claimedthatitisimpossibleforGodtoactunjustly.29Neo-Mu‘taziliteHarunNasution(1919–1998)statedthat“becauseHeiscompletelyperfect,Godcannotdothatwhichisnotgood.”30

Though likeotherMuslims, theMu‘taziliteshadnonotionof“originalsin,” they firmlyheldthatevilisaconsequenceofman’sactions,andthatGoddoesnotwillevil,evenifHeallowsit. “Thus every immoral thing that happens in the world,” says ‘Abd al-Jabbar, “must be ahumanact,forGodtranscendsdoingimmoralacts.Indeed,GodhasdistancedHimselffromthat with His saying: ‘But Allah wills no injustice to His servants’ (40:31) and His saying:‘VerilyAllahwillnotdealunjustlywithhumankindinanything’(10:44).”31

What then of disease and sickness? ‘Abd al-Jabbar answers with a notion of providence:

“Verily,ifHecausedsickness,Hewouldturnitintogreateradvantageinthehereafter.IfthatwerenotsothenitwouldnotbeethicallygoodforHimtocauseanimalsandchildrentobesick,justasitwouldnotbeethicallygoodforustohiresomebodyandworkhimtoexhaustionwithoutpayinghimhiswage.”32‘Abdal-JabbarmakesitclearthatGodisnotoutsidetheideaof justicewithwhichHehasendowedman. “Thus, ifGodcommitted injusticeHewouldbeunjust, just as if He acted justly He would be just, and whoever says [otherwise] is anunbeliever.”33

ByHisjustice,accordingtoal-Jabbar,GodisalsoobligedtokeepHiswordtomanandtolet

manknowwhatHisword is. “Wedonotbelieve thatHiswordwasa lieandanorder thatcouldbenullified,forthatthenwouldnecessitatethatwe[could]nottrustinHispromiseandthreat. And we do not believe that He sends prophets to the Hellfire and enemies andunbelievers toParadise.Anyonewhodid such thingswouldnot commandour obedience toHimbecausewe couldnotbe safe fromHis evil, andbyobeyingHimwewould create the

utmosthavoc.”34Therefore,“HewillnotgobackonHisword,norcanheactcontrarytoHispromiseandthreatnorlieinwhatHereports.”35

AsMajidFakhrysummarizesinAHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy:“Godcannotenjoinwhatis

contrarytoreasonoractwithtotaldisregardforthewelfareofHiscreatures,insofarasthiswould compromise His justice and His wisdom. Unlike the Traditionalists, those ethicalrationalistscouldnotreconcilethemselvestotheconceptofanomnipotentDeitywhocouldactintotalviolationofallthepreceptsofjusticeandrighteousness,torturetheinnocent,anddemandtheimpossiblesimplybecauseHewasGod.”36

As‘Abdal-Jabbarsays,“GodisremovedfromallthatismorallywrongandallHisactsare

morallygood.”37And “Hedoesnot transgressHis rule. . . .Hedoes thebest for all ofHiscreatures.”38ByHisnature,Godmustdowhatisbestforman.ItisnotpossibleforGodtobeunfaithful toman.TheseviewswereanathematothetraditionalistsandtheAsh‘arites,whosaw them as an impermissible imposition of obligations on an omnipotent God thatcompromisedHistotalfreedom.TheUnityofGodTheMu‘tazilitescalledthemselvestheupholdersof“divineunityandjustice.”Wehaveseenwhat theymeant byGod’s justice. Theunity refers to tawhid, theunity ofGod, the centraldoctrineofIslam.Asnoted,Mu‘tazilitemonotheismwasachallengetotheorthodox,whoheldthatGod’squalities,suchasthosementionedinthefamousninety-ninenames,arepossessedby Allah as attributes, the chief seven of which are: living, knowing, omnipotence, willing,seeing, hearing, and speaking.* They include others as well, such as compassion, mercy(invokedat thebeginningof all but oneof the114Surahs in theQur’an), forgiveness, andwisdom.Thedisputeconcernedtheontologicalstatusof theseattributes.Thetraditionalistsheld that the attributeswere distinct fromGod’s essence, but somehow existed coeternallywithHim.

TheMu‘tazilitesobjectedthat,ifGodisone,howcouldHehavethesenumerousattributessomehowcoexistingseparatelywithHim?Inwhatwaydotheycoexist?IftheyarenotpartofGod’sessence,whatarethey?Theywere,suspectedtheMu‘tazilites,personificationsbecomeother gods existing coeternallywith Allah; in otherwords, a form of polytheism, theworstoffense to Islam.Wasil ibn ‘Ata, one of the firstMu‘tazilites, declared: “Hewho affirms aneternal quality beside God, affirms two gods.”39 So the Mu‘tazilites insisted that a greatlyreducednumberofattributeswere,infact,God’sessence.DuncanMacdonaldwritesthatAbuHudhayl“taughtthatthequalitieswerenotinHisessence,andthusseparablefrom,thinkableapartfromit,butthattheywereHisessence.”40Therefore,forinstance,GodknowsthroughHis essence, which is omniscience, and not through an attribute separable from Him.Likewise,GodispowerfulbyHisessence,andsoforth.Becauseofthisposition,theopponentsoftheMu‘tazilitescalledthemal-mu‘atillah—thosewhodenyGod’sattributes.

The orthodox and the Ash‘arites, who followed them, had no answer to the dilemma ofGod’sunityandHisattributes.Yetthey insistedthatGod’sattributeswerenotHisessence,butstillnotcompletelyseparatefromit.Inresponsetothequestionastohowthiscouldbe,theysimplysaidithadtobeaccepted,bilakayfa(withoutsayinghow).“Secondly,”asM.M.Sharifobserved,“theyarguedthatifalltheattributesofGodareidenticalwithHisessence,the divine essence must be a homogeneous combination of contradictory qualities. Forinstance, God is merciful (rahim) and also revengeful (qahhar); both the contradictoryattributeswouldconstitutetheessenceofGod,which isone,unique,and indivisible (ahad),andthatisabsurd.”41

This was a hugely significant dispute, as one would expect when it comes to an

understandingofwhoGod is.FortheMu‘tazilites,GodmustbewhoHe isandnoother.Asoddas itmay sound to express it in thisway,He isbound to bewhoHe is.He cannot actagainst or deny His own nature. For instance, God does not have reason; He is reason.Therefore,Hecannotdoanythingunreasonable.This isnotaconstraint; it is freedom.Theability to negate who and what you are is not freedom; it is nihilism. For the Ash‘arites,however,God,aspurewill,isnotboundbyanything,includingHimself.Hisfreedomofwillisabsolute. He has no “nature” to deny. He has reason, but is not reason. Therefore, by

removingGod’sattributesfromHisessence,theAsh‘aritesmadetheseattributesproductsofHiswill. Inotherwords,Godwasnotmercy,butmercifulwhenHewished tobe.Likewise,therewasnoimpedimenttoHisactingunreasonablywhenHewishedtodoso.

ThestrippingdownofGod’sessencetoHiswillandmakingHisattributesproductsofHiswillguaranteedHisabsolutefreedomandpower.42Thus,HedidnotbyanynecessityofHisnatureneedtobemerciful(indeed,anotherofHisattributeswas“vengeful”).Hecouldchoosetobeunmerciful,aswell,withoutcontradictingHimself.Purewillcannotcontradictitself.TheMu‘tazilitesfoundthisabhorrent.GodmustdowhatisgoodbecauseitwouldbeagainstHisnature,whichisgoodnessitself,todootherwise.

IntheFifthSurah,theQur’aninveighsagainsttheJewsforhavingsaid,“ThehandofAllahischained.”Inresponse,theQur’anstates:“Chainedaretheirhands,andcursedaretheyforwhat they say” (5:64). Nothing constrains Allah or chains His hand. Al Fakhr al-Razi, anAsh‘ariteof the late twelfth century,used this sameverse from theFifthSurahagainst theMu‘tazilitesfortheirhavingchainedGod’shandbysayingthatAllahmustactincertainwaysandnotinothers.Nothingcouldimputealowerregardfor,orexpressagreateroutrageat,theMu‘tazilites thancomparingthemwith the Jews,whoareaccused in thesameSurahofhavingchangedGod’swordsandbrokentheircovenant.TheCreatedQur’anandMan’sFreeWillThedisputeaboutfreewillinvolvedthedebateaboutthenatureoftheQur’an.Wasitcreatedin time, or has it coexistedwithAllah in eternity?Doctrinally, the traditionalist school heldthat theQur’anwas not created in time; theQur’an has forever coexistedwith Allah on atablet inheaven inArabic, as it exists today.TheQur’an isoutside the scopeofhistory.Al-Ash‘ari,whosupportedthetraditionalistposition,statedclearly:

TheQur’anisonthepreserved(heavenly)tablet....Itiswrittendowninbooksinreality;itisrecitedbyourtonguesinreality;it isheardbyusinreality. . . .Alloftheseareessentiallyidenticalwiththeuncreateddivineword,whichhasbeenontheheavenlytabletfromalleternity,inreality,andnotinsomefigurativesense,notinthesensethatallthesearecopies,citations,orcommunicationsofaheavenlyoriginal.No;alltheseareidenticalwiththeheavilyoriginal;whatis true of the original is true of those spatial and temporalmanifestations that ostensibly come intobeing throughahumanagency.43

AlthoughcoeternalwithGod,theQur’anissomehow,likeHisattributes,distinctfromGod’sessence. The profound problem with this position, which the Mu‘tazilites pointed out, wasdismissedbyHadithcollectoral-Bukhari(d.933),whosaid,“TheQur’anisthespeechofGoduncreated,theactsofmenarecreated,andinquiryintothematterisheresy.”44

Nevertheless,totheutterdismayofthetraditionalists,theMu‘tazilitesdidinquireintothe

matter,andthisdifferencebetweenthembecamethemostbitterandcostlyoftheirdisputes.The Mu‘tazilites held that the Qur’an had to have been created; otherwise, the historicaleventsitrelateswouldhavenecessarilybeenpredetermined.ThedoctrineofKhalqal-Qur’an,thecreatednessoftheQur’an,accordingtoJosephKennyinTheologicalThemesCommontoIslamandChristianity,meansthat“thehistoricaleventsmentionedintheQur’anwouldnothavebeendeterminedfrometernityandroomwouldbeleftforfreehumanchoice.”45Also,asIslamicscholarNealRobinsonpointsout,fortheMu‘tazilitesitmadenosense“tothinkofhiscommandmentsasexistingbeforethecreationofthebeingstowhomtheyareaddressed.”46

TheMu‘taziliteswerecorrect indetectingtheprofoundtheologicalproblempresentedby

the doctrine of an uncreated Qur’an, the logic of which brought the Qur’an uncomfortablyclose to the conception of the Christian Word. As Thomas Aquinas would later teach inReasons for the Faith againstMuslimObjections, “TheWord of God . . . is co-eternalwithGod.”47TheforceofAquinas’sargumentindevelopingtheimplicationsofthispositionrevealsexactlywhytheMu‘tazilitesobjectedtotheChrist-likestatusoftheuncreatedQur’an;itledineluctablytoanotherPersonintheGodhead,aconclusioninimicaltotawhid.

Like the Mu‘tazilites, Aquinas held that “in God understanding is not different from hisbeing.” In other words, His understanding is not an attribute separable from His essence.Therefore,anuncreatedWordhadtobeinHisessenceandequaltoHim.AsAquinassaid:

ThedivineWordmeasuresuptothepowerofGod,becausebyhisessenceHeunderstandshimselfandeverythingelse.SotheWordHeconceivesbyhisessence,whenHeunderstandshimselfandeverythingelse,isasgreatashisessence.Itisthereforeperfect,simpleandequaltoGod.WecallthisWordofGodaSon,assaidabove,becauseHeisofthesamenaturewiththeFather,andweprofessthatheisco-eternalwiththeFather,onlybegottenandperfect.48

TheMu‘tazilites,sensingtheinexorableforceofthelogicofthisposition(wellbeforeitwaselaborated by Aquinas), equated the doctrine of the uncreated Qur’an with polytheism, agraveviolationofthedoctrineoftawhid.“IftheQur’anwasuncreatedthenitmustbeanotherGod,andthereforetheunityofGodwouldbeviolated.”49

TheTemporaryTriumphoftheMu‘tazilitesIn 827, theMu‘tazilites succeeded in this dispute to the extent of having the teaching of acreated Qur‘an (Khalq al-Quran) enshrined as a state doctrine by Caliph al-Ma’mun. Al-Ma’munwasthegreatestsupporterofGreekthoughtinIslamichistoryandthecreatorofthefamousBait al-Hikmah, theHouse ofWisdom, a great library and translation center,whichopened in 830. According to Arab historian Ibn al-Nadim, Aristotle was supposed to haveappeared to al-Ma’mun in a dream.When asked about the nature of the good, Aristotle isreported to have replied that, in the first instance, it is “what is rationally good.”50 Thatanswerwasembracedby theMu‘tazilites,aswellasby the firstArabphilosopher,al-Kindi,whowasalsosponsoredbyal-Ma’mun.Oneoftheshiningstarsofal-Ma’mun’sreignwastheNestorianHunaynibnIshaq(d.873),whohailedfromal-HirahinIraq.Hunayn’ssonIshaq(d.911)wasresponsiblefortranslatingAristotle’sNicomacheanEthicsintoArabic.

In al-Ma’mun’s court, Christians such as Theodore Abu Qurrah, bishop of Harran and adiscipleofSt.JohnofDamascus,couldappearbeforethecaliphtodebateMuslimtheologiansover the truth of their respective religions. There are even extant accounts of some of thedialoguefromthisdebate.Theretookplaceanotherveryinterestingencounterbetweentwoof al-Ma’mun’s courtiers, one a Muslim, who was a cousin to the caliph, and the other alearnedArabChristiannamedal-Kindi(nottobeconfusedwiththeArabphilosopherofthatname).Thisdebate,conductedinletters,isstillavailableinabook,TheApologyofAlKindi,or “The Epistle of Abdallah ibn Ismaîl the Hâshimite to Abd al Masîh ibn Ishâc al Kindy,invitinghimtoembraceIslam;andthereplyofAbdalMasîh,refutingthesame,andinvitingtheHâshimitetoembracetheChristianFaith.”Al-Ma’munwassaidtohavebeensointerestedinthisexchangethathehadthelettersreadtohimwithoutstopping.

AddressedtohisChristianadversary,IbnIsmaîl’spreambletothedebateisworthquotingat length for what it reveals about the spirit of free inquiry at al-Ma’mun’s court and theesteeminwhichreasonwasheldatthetime.ItalsocontainsclearreferencestoMu‘taziliteteachingsoffreewillandresponsibility.

Thereforebringforwardalltheargumentsyouwishandsaywhateveryoupleaseandspeakyourmindfreely.Nowthatyouaresafeand free tosaywhateveryouplease,appointsomearbitratorwhowill impartially judgebetweenusandleanonlytowardsthetruthandbefreefromtheemperyofpassion:andthatarbitratorshallbereason,wherebyGodmakesusresponsibleforourownrewardsandpunishments.HerebyIhavedealtjustlywithyouandhavegivenyoufullsecurityandamreadytoacceptwhateverdecisionreasonmaygiveformeoragainstme.51

WhileanyMuslimconverttoChristianitywouldhavebeenexecutedforapostasy,thefactthat discussions of this kind could be openly held in the court of the caliph is highlyremarkable,allthemoresosinceaftertheMu‘tazilitecaliphsthiskindofthingrarelyifeverhappened. Al-Kindi’s letters were subsequently banned. In fact, the extent of al-Ma’mun’sliberality in allowing the exchange should be appreciated in light of the lengths to whichsubsequentauthoritieswent tosuppress it.Atone time, the lawofEgyptrequired thatanyhouseinwhichTheApologyofAlKindimightbefoundwasliabletoberazedtotheground,alongwithfortyhousesaroundit.

Theperiodofal-Ma’mun’sreign(813–833)isoftenreferredtoasthegoldenageof Islamforitsextraordinaryintellectualopennessandrichness.SciencewriterFrancesLuttikhuizenstates in Christianity and Science that “al-Ma’mun, strongly influenced by the Mutazilitemovement,was thegreatestpatronofphilosophyandscience in thehistoryof Islam.”52Byanystandard,thepersonofal-Ma’munandhiscourtinBaghdadareamongthemostnotableinhistory.

Itwasalsounderal-Ma’mun’spatronagethatthefirstMuslimArabphilosopher,AbuYa‘qub

al-Kindi (801–873), appeared. Al-Kindi’s views reflected the same rational orientation:“Nothingshouldbedearertotheseekeraftertruththantruthitself.”53RegardingsourcesoflearningoutsideofIslam,hedeclared,“Weoughtnottobeashamedofappreciatingthetruthandofacquiring itwherever itcomes from,even if itcomes fromracesdistantandnationsdifferentfromus.Fortheseekeroftruthnothingtakesprecedenceoverthetruth,andthereisno disparagement of the truth, nor belittling either of him who speaks it or of him whoconveys it. [The statusof]noone isdiminishedby the truth; ratherdoes the truthennobleall.”54 The caliph appointed al-Kindi to the House of Wisdom, and made him tutor to theprince, his brother, who followed al-Ma’mun on the throne as al-Mu‘tasim. Al-Mu‘tasim, inturn,appointedal-Kindiasatutortohisson.

InOnFirstPhilosophy,al-Kindiwrote,“Philosophyistheknowledgeoftherealityofthingswithinpeople’spossibility,becausethephilosopher’sendintheoreticalknowledgeistogaintruth and in practical knowledge to behave in accordancewith truth.” To his traditionalistreligiousopponents,al-Kindiresponded:“Soanyonewhomakesbusinessoutofreligionhasnoreligion,andshouldrightlybedeprivedof[theoffices]ofreligionforhavingopposedthedesiretoknowthetruthofthingsandforcallingthisdesiredisbelief.”55InthephilosophicaltwilightoftheIslamicworld,Averroes,orIbnRushd,(1126–1198)echoedal-Kindi’spositionin his Book of the Decisive Treatise. He wrote that, since “their [the Ancients’] aim andintentionintheirbooksistheveryintentiontowhichtheLawurgesus....Whoeverforbidsreflectionuponthembyanyonesuitedtoreflectuponthem. . .surelybarspeoplefromthedoor through which the Law calls them to cognizance of God.”56 And in his Exposition ofReligiousArguments,hewrotethat“religioncommandsthestudyofphilosophy.”57

Al-KindiassimilatedwhathecouldfromAristotle,whilerejectingthepositions inimicalto

his Islamic faith. W. Montgomery Watt, author of A Study of Al-Ghazali, wrote, “What isremarkableinal-Kindi istheabsenceofanysenseofconflictortensionbetweenphilosophyand the Islamic sciences [meaning jurisprudence].”58 In fact, al-Kindi held that, althoughprophecy is superior in someways to philosophy, the content of both is the same.Like theMu‘tazilites, al-Kindi achieved a harmony between reason and revelation by giving anallegoricalinterpretationtoanypassagefromQur’anthatseemedtocontradictreason.Atthesametime,hedefendedtheIslamicdoctrinesofthecreationoftheworldexnihiloandoftheresurrectionofthebody.MostMuslimphilosopherswhocameafterhimdidneither,andwerenot accepted as a result. Almost without exception, they were supporters of neo-Platonicnotions of emanationism, materialistic pantheism, the eternity of the universe, and theimmortalityofthesoul,butnotofthebody.Whendealingwithal-Ghazali,weshallseemorespecificallywhatwasobjectedtoinphilosophyandwhyitwasrejected.

Al-Ma’mun’spronouncementofacreatedQur’anas statedoctrinedidnotgounopposed.The caliph required religious judges to swear an oath that theQur’anhadbeen created.Akindofinquisition,themihnah(thetesting),wasinstitutedtoenforcethis(from833–848).Themostseverepenaltywasdeathforunbeliefforthosewhorefusedtotakethetest.OnlythosewhowouldtestifythattheQur’anwascreatedcouldbelegalwitnesses.ThosewhobelievedintheuncreatedQur’ancouldbeandwerepunishedandimprisonedforabandoningthedoctrineof tawhid. The mihnah was later extended to include the doctrine of free will and othermatters.

OneofthemostfamousprisonerswasAhmadibnHanbal(d.855),thefounderofthemostliteralist school of Islamic jurisprudence. He was flogged, but his life spared. During hisinquisition,heansweredallquestionsbyquoting fromeither theQur’anor theHadith. Ifaquestioncouldnotbeansweredinthisway,heremainedsilent.IbnHanbalbecametheheroof the traditionalists.Thesloganofhis supporterswas: “nothingwhich isofGod iscreatedandtheQur’anisofGod.”(TheforceemployedonbehalfoftheMu‘tazilitesissometimesusedtodiscreditthem.Butanargumentcanbemadethattheuseofforcetodefendrationalityisin itselfreasonable—infactrequiredundercertaincircumstances.Obviously,theenemiesofreasoncannotbeopposedbyreasonalone.)

Afteral-Ma’mun,Mu‘tazilitedoctrinewasupheldbythenexttwocaliphs,al-Mu‘tasim(833–842)andHarunal-Wathiq(842–847),althoughwithoutal-Ma’mun’senthusiasm.

*AccordingtoafamousHadith(SahihMuslim),Muhammadsaid,“Verily,thereareninety-ninenamesofGod,onehundred

minusone.HewhoenumeratesthemwillgetintoParadise.”ThesenamesaresaidtobeintheQur’anandtheHadith,thoughthereisnoagreedlistofthem.

Chapter2THEOVERTHROWOFTHEMU‘TAZILITES:THECLOSINGCOMMENCES

AlthoughtheMu‘tazilitesenjoyedsupremacyunderseveralcaliphs,itwasnottolast.

InthesecondyearofthereignofCaliphJa’afaral-Mutawakkil(847–861),thetableswereturned.ThemihnahwasshutdownandtheMu‘tazilitejudgesresponsiblefortheinquisitionwere cursed from the pulpits by name.1 Holding the Mu‘tazilite doctrine became a crimepunishablebydeath.TheMu‘taziliteswereexpelledfromcourt,removedfromallgovernmentpositions, and their works were largely destroyed. Al-Mutawakkil released the aged IbnHanbalfromprisonandprohibited“discussingtheintricaciesofwhatiscreatedandwhatisuncreated in a copy or vocal recitation of the Qur’an.”2 He also closed down al-Ma’mun’sHouseofWisdom(thoughheiscreditedbysomewithreopeningitandsupportingscientificresearchandtranslationactivity).Despitehisreligiousorthodoxy,al-Kindiwaspersecutedanddriven from Baghdad.3 Al-Mutawakkil confiscated al-Kindi’s library, and the sixty-year-oldphilosopherwasadministeredsixtylashesbeforeanapprovingcrowd.4

Thingswere to get evenworse.HistorianAbu JafarMuhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838–923)relatesthatintheyearfromApril892toMarch893,“thebooksellerswereswornnottotrade in books of theology (kalam), dialectical disputation (gadal) or philosophy (falsafa).”5

And “In 885, all professional copyists in Baghdad were required to promise under oath toexclude from their professional activities the copying of books of philosophy.”6 Also, “thetraditionists’[sic]oppositiontoMu‘tazilismandtothesesubjects[philosophicaltheologyanddialectical disputation] had consequences in later educational policy because it was thetraditionists [sic]whoeventually formed thecurriculumof formal legaleducation in Islamicsocieties.Inthiscurriculumtheydidnot include,aswastobeexpected,thesesubjects,butneitherdidtheyincludeanyoftheothertranslatedsciences.”7Kalam (theology)wasbannedfromthecurriculumofcollegesoflawandgenerallyfromanyinstitutionsoflearningbasedonthecharitabletrust,knowaswaqf.

The persecution did not immediately end the Mu‘tazilite school of thought. Nor did theMu‘tazilitesuppressionpreventtheflourishingoftheGreek-influencedfaylasuf(philosophers)who followed them, suchasAlfarabi,Avicenna, andAverroes.SomeMu‘tazilites fled to themore hospitable Shi‘a areas under the Buwayhid rulers in eastern Persia. As Wadi Kayaniremarks,“TheBuwayhidperiodclearlygaveroomfortheMu‘taziliteschooltodevelopmuchfurther,tospreadandrefineitselfwhichisshownbytheworkofQadi‘Abdal-Jabbar,secondlythisperiodwasalsowhenthe12thImamoftheShi‘ahImamiswentintomajoroccultationandthusfortheShi‘ahaninfallibleguidetodeveloptheirdoctrinewasnolongeravailable;thisestablishedagreatintellectualbondbetweentheShi‘aandtheMu‘tazilitemutakallimun.”8Intheabsenceof an imam toguide them infallibly, theShi‘ahad to think for themselves.TheMu‘tazilitescouldshowthemhowtodothis.Eventually,wrotehistorianAlbertHourani,“themostwidelyacceptedShi‘iteachingcontainedelementsderivedfromtheMu‘tazilischool.”9

However,thelongprocessofdehellenizationandossificationhadbegun.British-Lebanese

scholar George Hourani claimed that “the turning point in the suppression of Mu‘tazilismoccurred in the eleventh century with credal proclamations of the caliph Qadir beginning1017,followedbyHanbalitedemonstrationsinBaghdadinthe1060sandthefavourshowntotheAsh‘aritesby theSeljuqsultansandtheirwazirNizamal-Mulk.”10 “Thusended,”writesPakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy, “the most serious attempt to combine reason withrevelationinIslam.”11“Bythe12thcentury,”heconcludes,“theconservative,antirationalistschoolsofthoughthadalmostcompletelydestroyedtheMu‘tazilainfluence.Sohardwasthisreaction,thatal-Ash‘ariisconsideredtoberelativelymoderateascomparedwithIbnHanbal,andlatertheWahhabis,whodidnotallowanyformofspeculation.”12IslamicstudiesscholarRichardMartinaddsthisprovisionalobituary:“Mu‘tazilism,bytheendoftheAbbasidAgeinthethirteenthcentury,wasnolongeranintellectualforceinDaral-Islam[theabodeofIslam].

Itexistedonlyinsmall,remoteoutpostsintheCaspianregionandinthemadrasas[schools]andlibrariesofZaydiinnorthernYemen.”13

By the fourteenth century, these antirationalist tendencies had reached a stage that led

ArnoldToynbeetosayofthegreatestIslamicthinkeratthattimethat“thelonelinessofIbnKhaldun’sstarisasstrikingasitsbrilliance.”14Ironically,IbnKhaldunwasanAsh‘arite.EveninhissuperbworktheMuqaddimah(“Introduction”),thedamageisevidentinhisdismissalofphysics: “Wemust refrain from studying these things [general classes] since such restraintfalls under the duty of the Muslim not to do what does not concern him. The problems ofphysicsareofno importance forus inour religiousaffairsorour livelihoods.Thereforewemustleavethemalone.”15

AnaptsymbolofthetensionbetweenreasonandrevelationinIslamwasthefamouslibrary

ofCordoba.ItwasoneofthegloriesofMoorishcivilization.Inthetenthcentury,thelibrarycontainedsome400,000volumes—morebooksthanwereinFranceandquitepossiblyallofwesternEuropeatthattime—withsomefivehundredattendants.However,Muslimsnotonlybuilt it, theyalsodestroyed it,although,according toArabhistorian IbnSa’id (1214–1286),thiswasdonebyBerbers,notArabs, in1013.Amuchearlierapocryphalstory,whichHegelrelatedinhisPhilosophyofHistory,holdsthatCaliphOmarorderedthedestructionofwhatwasleftofthelibraryofAlexandriain638.Thestoryisspurious(asthelibrarydidnotexistatthat time), but Omar is supposed to have said, “These books either contain what is in theQur’anorsomethingelse.Ineithercase,theyaresuperfluous.”16This,ofcourse,soundsverymuch like a paraphrase of what, according to Ibn Khaldun, Omar wrote to his victoriousgeneral in Persia ordering the destruction of captured books. More recently, the Talibanfollowedasimilar injunctionandordered thedestructionofallbooks inAfghanistanexcepttheQur’an.TheOppositionoftheTraditionalistsThose most offended by the Mu‘tazilites were the traditional religious scholars and thefollowersofAhmadibnHanbalwhohadbeenimprisonedandfloggedforrefusingtoconsenttothedoctrineofacreatedQur’an.Hanbalismisthemostliteralistschooloffiqh,orIslamicjurisprudence.Itcontinuestobefollowedtoday,mostnotablyinSaudiArabia.

HereoneshouldbrieflypointouttheroleofthefourSunnilegalschoolsandtheroletheyplay.Al-Shafi‘i (767–820),AbuHanifa (c.699–767),Ahmad ibnHanbal (780–855),andMalikibnAnas (c. 715–796) founded the fourSunni legal schools, ormadhabs, fromwhichSunniMuslimscouldchoosewithanassuranceof orthodoxy. Interpretation (ijtihad) of theQur’anandtheSunnah,insofarasitwasneeded,wasaccomplishedbythesefourimamsbytheearlyninth century. By the twelfth century, it was thought that there was no need for furtherinterpretation or elaboration, just application; the door to ijtihad (the authorization forscholars individually to interpret the sacred texts through ra’y, personal judgment) closed.After the fixation of the law, taqlid (the opposite of ijtihad), or imitation of the recognizedrulings,becamethenorm.Thisiswhy,accordingtoBritishscholarW.MontgomeryWatt,“thecentraldisciplineinIslamiceducationwasnottheologybutjurisprudence.”17Therightpathhad been set. Within it, all human actions were categorized as: obligatory, “duty” (fard);“recommended” (mandub); legitimate or indifferent, “permitted” (mubah); discouraged,“reprehensible”(makruh);and“forbidden”(haram).Therewasnothingonecoulddoforwhichguidance was not available and necessary. One needed only to follow the prescriptions asinstructedbytheulema(Islamicjurisprudentialscholars).Therewasnoneedtolookbeyondsacred scripture. This was obviously not an orientation conducive to philosophy, ethics, ornatural theology. In fact, thesubjectofphilosophywasremoved fromthecurriculumof thefamousal-AzharuniversityinCairoandwasnotreinstateduntillateinthenineteenthcenturyattheinsistenceoftheEgyptianreformerMuhammad‘Abduh.18

Thedoortoijtihadwasshutsodecisivelythateveneffortstoopenitintheearlynineteenth

century were rebuked. When Muhammad Ali as-Sanusi (1787–1859), known as the GrandSanusi, attempted to reopen the gates to ijtihad, he was rebuked in a typical fatwa by themufti of Cairo, who said, “For no one denies the fact that the dignity of ijtihad has longdisappearedandthatatthepresenttimenomanhasattainedthisdegreeoflearning.Hewhobelievedhimselftobeamujtahid[ascholarqualifiedtoexerciseijtihad]wouldbeundertheinfluenceofhishallucinationsandofthedevil.”19

Althoughall four legalschoolswerehighlycriticalofkalam (speculative theology), itwas

theHanbali that totally rejected the application of philosophical thought to theQur’an andeven protested against the Ash‘arites when they used Aristotelian logic to attack theMu‘tazilites, their common adversary. According to the Hanbalites, one should not becontaminatedbyemployingtheweaponsoftheenemy.InIstihsanal-Khaud(TheVindicationof the Science of Kalam), al-Ash‘ari described the objections raised by the orthodox schoolagainsttheuseofreasoninmattersoffaith:

A section of the people [i.e., the Zahirites and other orthodox people] . . . became inclined to blind faith and blindfollowing(taqlid).Theycondemnedthosewhotriedtorationalizetheprinciplesofreligionas“innovators.”...Theysaidthathad suchdiscussionsbeen the right thing, theProphet andhisCompanionswouldhavedefinitelydone so; theyfurther pointed out that the Prophet, before his death, discussed and fully explained all those matters which werenecessaryfromthereligiouspointofview,leavingnoneofthemtobediscussedbyhisfollowers;andsincehedidnotdiscusstheproblemsmentionedabove,itwasevidentthattodiscussthemmustberegardedasaninnovation.20

Innovation(bid‘ahorbida‘ah)isahighoffenseinIslam.InaHadith,Muhammadhadwarned,“Every innovation is Bida‘ah and every Bida‘ah is a misguidance (Dalalah) and everymisguidanceisinhellfire.”21

IbnHanbalthoughtthatreligionwasbetteroffwithouttheology.SinceGodhasspokento

man,mannolongerneedstothinkinanycriticalfashion.Revelationreplacesreason.IntheQur’anand theSunnah (practicesof theProphet, orhiswayanddeeds),Allahprovidedallthatmenneededtoknow;itwasunnecessarytoconsideranythingelse.IbnHanbalstated:

Religion isonly thebookofGod, theathar [sayingsoractsofpiousmen], thesunan [standardpractices],andsoundnarratives from reliablemenabout recognized soundvalidTraditions [akhbar] confirmingoneanother . . . until thatendswiththeMessengerofGodandhisCompanionsandtheFollowersandtheFollowersoftheFollowers,andafterthem the recognized imamswho are taken as exemplars,whohold to theSunna and keep to theathar, who do notrecognizeheresyandarenotaccusedoffalsehoodorofdivergence[fromoneanother].Theyarenotupholdersofqiyas[analogicalreasoning]andra’y[personalopinion],forqiyasinreligionisworthless,andra’yisthesameandworse.Theupholdersofra’yandqiyasinreligionarehereticalandinerror.22

Since theQur’andid not authorize the use ofkalam, there is no need for it. IbnHanbalstated,“WhoeverinvolvesthemselvesinanytheologicalrhetoricisnotcountedamongsttheAhl us-Sunnah, even if by that he arrives at the Sunnah, until he abandons debating andsurrenderstothetexts.”23Theuseofrationalargumentsviolatedfaith.Faithisnotaddressedto reason. Simply accept—bilakayfa (without saying how). As Ibn Hanbal declared, “EverydiscussionaboutathingwhichtheProphetdidnotdiscussisanerror.”24IbnHanbalwassaidtohavenevereatenwatermelonbecausetherewasnoknowninstanceofMuhammadhavingdoneso.25

Imitation (taqlid) is the way and is above criticism. Ibn Hanbal instructed: “He who

supposes that taqlid [following an authority without criticism] is not approved and that hisreligion is not thus following anyone . . . onlywants to invalidate theathar and to weakenknowledgeandtheSunna,andtostandisolatedinra’yandKalamandheresyanddivergence[from others].”26 Ibn Hanbal’s teaching resonated with the Muslim man in the street. Hebecamesopopularthat150,000peoplearesaidtohavefloodedthestreetsofBaghdadforhisfuneral.27

Thetraditionalistswereknownasahlal-Hadith,thosecommittedtodefendingtradition,the

authority of the Hadith. (The Hadith are the “traditions” which report various sayings andactions of Muhammad that were first passed on orally before being written down incollections, six of which are accepted as genuine sources of revelation.) A contemporaryexpressionofHanbalisentiment fromSaudiArabia,whichcontinuesto followthisschooloffiqh,is:“Abandondebateandsurrendertothetext.”28Ifwhatisrevealedinthetextdemandsthedenialoftheintellect,sobeit,bilakayfa.TheDemotionofReasonAsthetheologicalschoolmostopposedtotheMu‘tazilites,theAsh‘aritessupportedHanbalitedoctrine, though they employed philosophical tools to do so. They abjured reason as

comprising man’s first duty or as exercising the leading role in validating revelation. Theautonomy of reason was anathema to them. Revelation was primary and supreme. InAsh‘arism,asweshallsee,theprimacyofrevelationoverreasonrisesfromtheverynatureofwhat is revealed: God as pure will and power. The response to this God is submission, notinterrogation.

Itwasonlywithinrevelation’sstricturesthatreasoncouldlegitimatelyoperateinalimitedway. According to Pakistani Muslim scholar M. Abdul Hye, “[Reason’s] function was torationalizefaithinthebasicprinciplesofIslamandnottoquestionthevalidityortruthoftheprinciplesestablishedonthebasisofrevelationasembodiedintheQur’anandtheSunnah.”29

Logicandevenmetaphysicscouldbeusedtoexplainanddefendthetruthofrevelation,butnot as independent sources of religious or moral knowledge.30 As the renowned Algerian-FrenchphilosopherMuhammadArkouncharacterizes it, the facultyof reasonhadtoaccept“theroleofhandmaidtotherevealedText;itssolefunctionistoshape,bendandsystemizerealityinaccordancewiththeidealmeaningsitrecognizesinGod’s‘signs.’”Onthisbasis,theroleofthemindisto“reflect”—intheliteralsense—truthsthatarealreadygivenorrevealed,“notthosethatmightbefoundattheendofagradualsearch,letaloneaspeculativequest.”31

Certainly, nothing outside of the Qur’an and the Hadith could be brought to bear upon itsinterpretation.Otherwise,reasonmustremainsilentbeforewhat itmight findcontradictoryandcouldnotunderstand(bilakayfa).

TheAsh‘ariteswereparticularlyoffendedbytheMu‘taziliteclaimthatunaidedreasoncoulddiscern good and evil. They vehemently denied this, and said that the Mu‘tazilites wereundermining theneed for scriptureby saying allmenhadaccess to this knowledge. If thiswere so, what would be the need for the Qur’an (even though the Mu‘tazilites held thatrevelation was necessary for God to make His way clear to man)? Together with theHanbalites,theAsh‘arites,assarcasticallycharacterizedbyBritishmissionaryscholarW.H.T.Gairdner,“cursedthemenwhothoughtthatGod’sconcernforHiscreatures’goodmightbelooked for as the motive for His actions towards them; and who asserted that man wasresponsibletoseekforthewillofGod,andtoperformitifheknewit.”32

ThenameoftheAsh‘ariteschoolcamefromitsfounder,AbuHasanal-Ash‘ari(873–935).Al-

Ash‘arihadbeenaMu‘taziliteuntiltheageofforty.Hethenannounced:“Hewhoknowsme,knowswhoIam,andhewhodoesnotknowme,lethimknowthatIamabual-Hasan‘Alial-Ash‘ari,thatIusedtomaintainthattheQur’aniscreated,thateyesofmenshallnotseeGod,and that the creatures create their actions. Lo! I repent that I have been a Mu‘tazilite. IrenouncetheseopinionsandItaketheengagementtorefutetheMu‘tazilitesandexposetheirinfamyandturpitude.”33

There are two stories as to why al-Ash‘ari renounced and then tried to destroy the

Mu‘taziliteschool.OneisthathehadthreedreamsinwhichMuhammadcametohimtotellhim to defend the Hadith. As a consequence of the first two dreams, al-Ash‘ari abandonedrationalmethodsanddevotedhimselftothestudyoftheQur’anandtheHadith.Inthethirddream,accordingtoW.MontgomeryWatt,Muhammad“angrilysaidthathehadcommandedhim to defend the doctrines related from himself, but had not commanded him to give uprationalmethods.”34Therefore,al-Ash‘arireturnedtokalam(rationalorspeculativetheology),butasananti-Mu‘tazilitetodefendthetraditionaldoctrinesofIbnHanbal.

TheotherstoryisthathisdisillusionmentapparentlycameaboutthroughanunsatisfactoryanswertoacasehehadputtohisoldMu‘taziliteteacher,al-Jubba’i.InordertochallengetheMu‘taziliteconceptsofGod’sprovidenceandjustice,al-Ash‘ariposedtohisteacherthecaseofthreebrothers.ThefirstbrotherlivedasafaithfulMuslimandwenttoparadisewhenhedied.Thesecondbrotherlivedasaninfidel,performedevildeeds,andwenttohellwhenhedied.Thethirdbrotherdiedin infancy,andendedupsomewherebetweenparadiseandhellbecausehedidnothavetimetobecomeabelieverbutwasnotaninfideleither.

why, asked al-Ash‘ari, did God not allow the infant to grow up? Because, al-Jubba’ipurportedlyresponded,Godknowsbestandthechildmighthavegrownuptobean infidellikehisolderbrother.

Butwhythen,retortedal-Ash‘ari,didGodprolongthelifeofthesecondbrotherifHeknewhewasgoingtobecomeaninfidel?IsnotGodobligedtodothebestforman?Inwhichcase,

Hemustmakeallmenbelieverssotheywouldgotoparadise.Thisisclearlynotthecase,asmostmenintheworldareinfidels.Therefore,concludedal-Ash‘ari,theMu‘tazilitetheorythatGodmustdothebestformanisfalse.

The interesting thingaboutal-Ash‘ari’sargument is itspresumption that theexistenceofman’s free will is incompatible with God’s justice and providence. Unless people arecompelledtobegood,Godcannotbejust.Itisasiftosaythat,ifmanisfree,therecannotbeaGod.Al-Ash‘ariresolvedthedilemma,asweshallsee,bydenyingbothman’sfreewillandGod’s justiceas implyinganythingGod isrequiredtodo.UnderlyingtheAsh‘ariteview isaconceptionofGodaspurewill,withoutorabovereason.

Itisextremelyimportanttospelloutthetheology,epistemology,andmetaphysicsinvolvedinthispositionbecauseofitsformativeimpactonsubsequentSunniIslamicculture.Also,theextremityofitsviewsmustbeappreciatedwithintheperspectiveofitshavingbeenseenasa“middleway”betweentheliteralismofthetraditionalistsandwhatwasconsideredtheradicalrationalismoftheMu‘tazilites.ThePrimacyoftheWillTheAsh‘ariteviewdevelopedatheologicalbasisfortheprimacyofwillbyclaimingthattherevelationofMuhammademphasizesmostparticularly,andaboveall,twoattributesofGod:Hisuncompromisingomnipotenceandwill.“AllahdoeswhatHewills”(Qu’ran14:27).God’snatureisHiswill.Heis“thegreatDoerofwhatHewills”and“EffecterofwhatHeintends”(Qur’an 85:15). All monotheistic religions hold that, in order to be one, God must beomnipotent. But the Ash‘arite argument reduced God to His omnipotence by concentratingexclusivelyonHisunlimitedpower,asagainstHisreason.God’s“reasons”areunknowablebyman. God rules as He pleases. Allah had only to say “be” in order to bring the world intoexistence,butHemayalso say “notbe” tobringabout its end—withouta reason fordoingeither.Hiswordissufficientforcreationorannihilation,thoughHiswordisHiswill,ratherthananexpressionofHisreason(Logos).Therefore,creationisnotimprintedwithreason.Itcannotreflectwhatisnotthere.Asaresult,thereisnorationalorderinvestedintheuniverseuponwhichonecanrely,onlythesecond-to-secondmanifestationofGod’swill.

Godissopowerfulthateveryinstantistheequivalentofamiracle.Nothingintervenesorhasindependentorevensemi-autonomousexistence.Theuniverseisinnowayself-subsistent.Inphilosophicallanguage,thisview,called“voluntarism,”holdsthatGodistheprimarycauseof everything and there are no secondary causes. There is no causal mediation. Therefore,what may seem to be “natural laws,” such as the laws of gravity, physics, etc., are reallynothing more than God’s customs or habits, which He is at complete liberty to break orchangeatanymoment.

Morethan150yearsafteral-Ash‘ari’sdeath,oneofhissuccessors,AbuHamidal-Ghazali(1058–1111),wroteinDeliverancefromError:“NatureisentirelysubjecttoGod;incapableofactingbyitself,itisaninstrumentinthehandoftheCreator;sun,moon,stars,andelementsaresubjecttoGodandcanproducenothingofthemselves.Inaword,nothinginnaturecanactspontaneouslyandapartfromGod.”35

Onecouldsaythateverythingthathappensistheresultofsupernaturalcauses,thoughthe

wordsupernatural becomes meaningless in the absence of the wordnatural from which todistinguishit.AsDuncanMacdonaldobserved,“Miraclesandwhatweregardastheordinaryoperations of nature are on the same level.”36 In the introduction to his translation ofAverroes’sTheIncoherenceof the Incoherence,SimonVanDenBerghquipped:“Onemightsaythat,forthe[Muslim]theologian,allnatureismiraculousandallmiraclesarenatural.”37

Inotherwords,every“natural”eventistheresultofaparticulardivineact.Ifthisistrue,ifdivineinterventionisusedtoexplainnaturalphenomena,thenrationalexplanationsforthemorinquiriesintothembecomeformsofimpiety,ifnotblasphemy.

Theconsequencesof thisvoluntaristicviewaremomentous. Ifcreationexistssimplyasasuccession of miraculous moments, it cannot be apprehended by reason. Other religions,including Christianity, recognize miracles. But they recognize them precisely as temporaryand extraordinary suspensions of the natural law. In fact, that is what defines them asmiracles. One admits to the possibility of a miracle only after discounting every possible

explanation of its occurrence by natural causes. In voluntaristic Islamic thought, however,therearenonaturalcausestodiscount.Asaresult,realitybecomesincomprehensibleandthepurposeof things in themselves indiscerniblebecause theyhaveno inner logic. Ifunlimitedwill is the exclusive constituent of reality, there is really nothing left to reason about. Theprimacyofwillhasnoboundariesinreason.

Macdonaldwrotethat,foral-Ghazali,“thefundamentalthingintheworldandthestartingpointofall speculation iswill.”38Whereas thephilosophersand theMu‘tazilites shared theview that things exist because God has first thought them, al-Ghazali reversed thisrelationshipbystatingthat“GodhascognizanceoftheworldbecauseHewills itandinHiswilling it.”39 Inotherwords,GodknowsbecauseHewills;will precedesknowledge.For al-Ghazali, thought or knowledge does not come before act; it is the act that producesknowledge.Thoughwrittenmore thanhalf amillenniumbeforeGoethe’sFaust,al-Ghazali’sstatement neatly presagesFaust’s substitution of the “Deed” for the “Word” (Logos) at thebeginningoftheGospelofSt.John.“InthebeginningwastheWord”istransformedinto“InthebeginningwastheDeed.”ThiscontrastcapturesthetworadicallydifferenttheologiesoftheMu‘tazilitesandtheAsh‘arites.FazlurRahmansummedupthedifferencesbysayingthatAsh‘arism“hadrenderedGodaconcentrateofpowerandwill,justastheMu‘tazilahadmadeHimaconcentrateofjusticeandrationality.”40

AccordingtotheM.AbdulHye,theAsh‘aritesheldthat“God,beingabsolutelyfreeinHis

action,isnotboundtoactonrationalpurpose.Hedoesnotactteleologicallyfor,otherwise,His actions would be determined by something external to and other than Himself and Hewouldnotremainabsolutelyfree.Externalpurposewouldputa limittoGod’somnipotence.Like Spinoza, al-Ash‘ari held that there is no purpose in the mind of God which woulddetermineHisactivity.From thisanti-teleological view it follows thatasGod’saction isnotteleological, He is not bound to do what is best for His creatures. He does whatever Hewills.”41 Purewill hasnopurposeother than the indiscriminateexerciseof itself. In andofitself,itisdirectionlessandthereforearbitrary.TheUnknowableGodIfGod ispurewill, thenHe is incomprehensible.Thereare tworeasons for this.One is thedoctrine of tanzih, which refers to God’s absolute transcendence and utter incomparability.There isnocorrespondenceatallbetweenGodandHiscreation.Thedistancebetween theinfiniteandthefiniteisimmeasurable.ThisisthemeaningofthesecondhalfoftheHanbalite-Ash‘arite formula, bila kayfa wala tashbih (without inquiring how and without makingcomparison).ComparisonbetweenGodandmancannotbemadebecausemanisnotmadeinHis image or likeness. “Nothing is like Him” (Surah 42:11). While there are numerousstatements in the Qur’an as to God’s closeness or nearness to man, this is necessarily onaccountofthecompletecontingencyofcreation;itistheclosenessoftheWillertothewilled.

TheotherreasonfollowsasasimpleconclusionfromtheincomprehensibilityoftheworldasthedirectandinstantaneousproductofthewillofGod.Iftheworldcannotbeunderstoodby reason, how possibly could its Creator? What would be the point of access? God isincomprehensibleinHimselfbecausepurewillhasnoreason.GodisunknownbecauseHeisunknowable.WhatAllahrevealsintheQur’anisnotHimself,butHisrulesforman.TheresultiswhatDuncanMacdonaldcalled“theawfulimpassabilityofthelogicallyunifiedabsolute.”42

AsaconsequenceofAsh‘ariteviews,FazlurRahmansaid,theendeavor“tosearchforends

andpurposesinHislawsisnotonlymeaningless,butalsogravedisobediencetoHim.”43Thetheology of pure will anathematizes the search for rational meaning. “Theology thusmonopolized thewhole fieldofmetaphysicsandwouldnot allowpure thought anyclaim toinvestigaterationallythenatureoftheuniverseandthenatureofman.”44

WecanseehowthisideaofGodinfluencedMuslimthinkersuptothepresentday,including

thosemostknownforreforminthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.ThefamousEgyptian reformer Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849–1905), who hoped to reconcile Islam withmodernity,said:“Butreasonquitelacksthecompetencetopenetratetotheessenceofthings.Fortheattempttodiscernthenatureofthings,whichnecessarilybelongswiththeiressentialcomplexity,wouldhavetoleadtothepureessenceandtothis,necessarily,thereisnorationalaccess.”Ofcourse,ifonecannotknowathing’sessence,onecannotknowwhatitis.‘Abduh

appearstobesayingthatanattempttoapprehendathing’sessencewouldleadineluctablytoGod’sessence,thepureessence,andthisisaforbiddenpursuit.Hecontinues:

Thoughtontheessenceofthecreator,orthedemandtoknowtheessence—theseareinterdictedtohumanreason.Forthere is, as we know, a complete otherness between the two existences, and the Divine Being is immune from allcompositeness. To ask to know it is totally to overextend the power man possesses and is a vain and dangerousenterprise.It is infactadelusionbecauseitessaystheinconceivableandadangerbecauseitconducestoanoffenceagainstfaith,involvingawilltodefinitionoftheindefinableandthelimitationoftheillimitable.45

In a similar vein, renowned Palestinian-American philosopher and professor of IslamicstudiesIsma‘ilAl-Faruqi(1921–1986)wrote:

ThewillofGodisGodinpercipe—thenatureofGodinsofarasIcanknowanythingaboutHim.ThisisGod’swillandthatisallwehave—andwehaveitinperfectionintheQur’an.ButIslamdoesnotequatetheQur’anwiththenatureoressenceofGod.Itisthe“WordofGod,theCommandmentofGod,theWillofGod.”ButGoddoesnotrevealHimselftoanyone.Christians talkabout therevelationofGodHimself—byGodofGod—but this is thegreatdifferencebetweenChristianity and Islam. God is transcendent, and once you talk about hierophancy and immanence, then thetranscendence of God is compromised. You may not have complete transcendence and self-revelation at the sametime.46

TheImplicationsfromChristianityTo understand the ultimate significance of the Ash‘arite teaching of an unreasoning God,contrastittotheChristianteachingthatwassimilarlytemptedtosuchextremes,butresistedthem.Why, for instance,didthisexclusivepreoccupationwithGod’somnipotencenotafflictChristianity,which is,afterall, alsomonotheistic?Christianityholds thatGod isomnipotentand the primary cause of all things, as well. In fact, there were strong tendencies withinChristianitytomoveintheverysamedirectionastheAsh‘arites.

TheearlyChristianthinkerTertullianquestionedwhatpossiblerelevancereasoncouldhavetoChristianrevelation inhis famousremark: “WhathasAthens todowith Jerusalem?”Theantirational view was apparent in Duns Scotus’s and Nicholas of Autrecourt’s advocacy ofvoluntarism.47 ItwasviolentlymanifestedinthemillenarianmovementsoftheMiddleAges,andsomewhatwithinthemovementthatwasknownasfideism—faithalone,solascriptura.Initsmost radical form, thisschoolheld that thescripturesareenough.Forget reason,Greekphilosophy,andThomasAquinas.

Yet the antirationalist view in its more extreme forms has never predominated inChristianity,andwasconsideredbroadlyheretical.ThereasonChristianitywasinsulatedfromanobsessionwithGod’somnipotencewastherevelationofChristasLogosintheGospelofSt.John.IfChristisLogos, ifGodintroduceshimselfasratio,thenGodisnotonlyall-powerful,Heisreason.WhiletheMu‘tazilitesclaimedsomethingsimilar,theydidnothaveascripturalauthorityofsimilarsignificance toconfirmtheirposition inanunassailableway,while theiropponentshadamplescripturalmaterialtoopposethem.

Also,ChristianrevelationclaimsthateverythingwascreatedthroughChristasLogos.SinceitwasthroughLogosthatallthingswerecreated,creationcarriestheimprintofitsCreatorasreason.Naturebespeaksanintelligibilitythatderivesfromatranscendentsource.BenedictXVIoftenspeakstothispoint.Hehasreferredtothe“worldasaproductofcreativereason”and said that “at the origin of everything is the creative reason of God.”48 What is more,Christ,asLogos,isHe“whosustainsallthingsbyhismightyword”[myemphasis]”(Hebrews1:3).BecauseitisprimarilyHisWorduponwhichcreationrests—ratherthansolelyHiswill—creationhasasteady,rationalfoundationuponwhichmancanrely.Thisviewconstitutesanopen invitation to examine the rules and laws of creation in order to know theCreator, aninvitation very familiar from the Old Testament (Wisdom 13:1–6). In Romans 1, St. Paulreiterated itby saying, “Eversince thecreationof theworld, the invisibleexistenceofGodand His everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of createdthings.”ThelawsofnaturearenotachallengetoGod’sauthoritybutanexpressionofit,asseen inThomasAquinas’sstatement thatweareable toapprehendcreated thingswithourmindsbecausetheywerefirst“thought”byGod.Reasonandrevelationarecompatible.ThetensionbetweenAthensandJerusalemwasreconciledinRome.

As the then Cardinal Ratzinger said in his 2005 Subiaco address, “From the beginning,

Christianityhasunderstood itselfas thereligionof the ‘Logos,’as thereligionaccording toreason.Inthefirstplace,ithasnotidentifieditsprecursorsintheotherreligions,butinthephilosophicalenlightenmentwhichhasclearedthepathof traditionto turnto thesearchofthetruthandtowardthegood,towardtheoneGodwhoisaboveallgods.”49

Ultimately, this theologicalviewdeveloped into the realistmetaphysicsofAquinas,which

then became the foundation for modern science, as Father Stanley Jaki, a Hungariantheologian and physicist, explained in his voluminous writings on the origins of modernscience.Jakilaidout,aswell,thereasonsmodernsciencewasstillbornintheMuslimworldafterwhatseemedtobeitsrealstart.50Nooneoffersamoreprofoundunderstandingoftheconsequences of the view of God as pure will than Jaki has. The metaphysical support fornatural lawnotonly laidthefoundations formodernsciencebutalsoprovidedthebasis forthegradualdevelopmentofconstitutionalgovernment.

Islam,incontrast,lostitsbalanceinitsAsh‘ariteform.TheAsh‘aritesfearedLogoswouldsomehow compromise the omnipotence that God must have in order to be one. Ash‘aritetheologiansthendeducedfromtheirvoluntaristicviewofGod,inanaprioriway,oneofthestrangest,mostextrememetaphysical constructseverconceived. If this iswhoGod is, theyseemedtothink,thenthisisthewaythingsmustbemetaphysically.

Chapter3THEMETAPHYSICSOFTHEWILL

Al-Ash‘ari elaborated a metaphysics to support his voluntaristic theology. This metaphysicshadprofoundimplicationsforcausality,epistemology,andhumanfreedom.

Al-Ash‘ariusedearlyGreekatomisticphilosophytoassertthatrealityiscomposedofatoms.Whereas the ancientGreeks andRomans (Lucretius) used atomism as the foundation for amaterialisticphilosophy,al-Ash‘ariputittooppositeuse.Throughatomism,Lucretiuswishedtodemonstratethatthereisnodivineinterventionintheworldandthatthingsdonotmovein“furtheranceofsomedivineplan,”1butrandomly.Al-Ash‘ariwishedtoshowthereverse:thateverythingdependsdirectlyonGod’sintervention.Hewasabletoemployatomisminthiswaybecause, unlike Lucretius, who believed matter was eternal, al-Ash‘ari, like all orthodoxMuslims, believedmatter was created ex nihilo. God’s configuration of these atoms at anygiven moment makes things what they are. In Islam in the World, British analyst MaliseRuthvenexplains,“TheAsh‘arisrationalizedGod’somnipotencewithinanatomistictheoryofcreation,accordingtowhichtheworldwasmadeupofthediscretepointsinspaceandtimewhoseonlyconnectionwasthewillofGod,whichcreatedthemanewateverymoment.”2Forexample,thereisacollectionofatomswhichisaplant.Doestheplantremainaplantasyouarereadingthis linebecauseithasthenatureofaplant,orbecauseAllahwishesittobeaplantfromthismomenttothenext?TheAsh‘aritesheldthatitisaplantonlyforthemoment.FortheplanttoremainaplantdependsonthewillofAllah,andifonecontendsthatithastoremain a plant because it has the nature of plant, this is shirk—blasphemy (in the form ofpolytheism,or“theassociationofotherswithAllah”).

In order to realize exactly how radical Ash‘arite metaphysics is, consider the followingexamplesthatmaketheinstabilityoftheAsh‘aritemetaphysicalschemestartlinglyclear:

In Islam and Science, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Islamabad University, writes ofAsh‘arites,“Evenaspeedingarrowmayormaynotreachitsdestination,theysaid,becauseateachmoment along its pathGod destroys theworld and then creates it afresh at the nextmoment.Wherethearrowwillbeatthenextmoment,giventhatitwasataparticularspotatanearliermoment,cannotbepredictedbecauseitisGodalonewhoknowshowtheworldistoberecreated.”3

Movementisactuallyillusory.Thingsdonotchangeinthemselves.Abodyonlyseemstobe

moving.Whatisreallyhappeningisthattheatomsofthebodyinonepositionareannihilated,andtheobjectisthencompletelyreconstitutedbyneworsimilaratomsinasecondlocationminutelyremovedfromthefirst,andsoonuntiltheappearanceofmotionismadebyaseriesofsuccessiveannihilationsandrecreations.Thingsactuallyhavenopastorfuture.Theyexistonlyinthenow.

However, this sequence of near instantaneous annihilation and creation is also true ofstationaryobjects,aswellasoftheirproperties,suchascolor.AsCanadianphilosopherFloyE.Doulldescribesit in“PeacewithIslam,”“Forexample,wehavenotreallydyedthedressredwhenwebelievewe’vecoloureditwithreddye;rather,atthatinstantGodhasmadethered colour the property of the dress, and continuously recreates the red colour instant byinstant.”4

DuncanMacdonaldsummarizes:

The time-atoms, if the expressionmay be permitted, are equally unextended and have alsoabsolutevoid—oftime—betweenthem.Justasspaceisonly inaseriesofatoms,sotimeisonlyinasuccessionofuntouchingmomentsandleapsacrossthevoidfromonetotheother

with the jerk of the hand of a clock. Time, in this view, is in grains and can exist only inconnection with change. The monads differ from those of Leibniz in having no nature inthemselves, no possibility of development along certain lines. TheMuslimmonads are, andagainarenot,allchangeandactionintheworldareproducedbytheirenteringintoexistenceanddroppingoutagain,notbyanychangeinthemselves.5

MajidFakhryexplainsfurther:

The world, which they defined as everything other than God, was composed of atoms andaccidents.Nowtheaccidents(singular‘arad)theyargued,cannotendurefortwoinstantsoftime,butarecontinuallycreatedbyGodwhocreatesorannihilatesthematwill.Al-Baqilani(d. 1013) who appears to follow the lead of Al-Ash‘ari in this respect, actually defines theaccidentasentities“thedurationofwhichis impossible . . .andwhichceasetoexist inthesecondinstantoftheircomingtobe.”Similarly,theatoms(sing.al-juz’)inwhichtheaccidentsinherearecontinuallycreatedbyGodandenduresimplybyreasonoftheaccidentofduration(baqa’) which God creates in them. But insofar as this accident of duration, like the otheraccidents, is itself perishable, the whole world of atoms and accidents is in a state ofcontinuousgenerationandcorruption.6

For al-Ash‘ari’s disciple, Abu Bakr al-Baqilani (d. 1013), the atomistic discontinuity ofcreatedthingsitselfprovestheabsolutetranscendenceandomnipotenceofAllahasthesoleagent.Ifcreationisagroupoffree-floatingatomsinspaceandtime,thenipsofactoonlyAllahcanmakethemwhattheyareatanygiventimeinanygivenway.7Al-Baqilaniwentsofarastosay that this concept of atomism was “co-essential” with the text of the Qur’an. Soconsequential was his thought that Ibn Taymiyya, the thirteenth-century Muslim thinkerrevered by today’s Islamists, saluted al-Baqilani as “the best of the Ash‘ari mutakallimun,unrivalledbyanypredecessororsuccessor.”8

TheLossofCausalityThe catastrophic result of this view was the denial of the relationship between cause andeffect in the natural order. In The Incoherence of the Philosophers, al-Ghazali, whovehementlyrejectedPlatoandAristotle,insistedthatGodisnotboundbyanyorderandthatthere is, therefore, no “natural” sequence of cause and effect, as in fire burning cotton or,morecolorfully,asin“thepurgingofthebowelsandtheusingofapurgative.”9Ratherthanaclear andbinding relationshipbetween cause and effect, there aremerely juxtapositions ofdiscreteeventsthatmakeitappearthatthefireisburningthecotton,butGodcouldjustaswell do otherwise. (This doctrine is known as occasionalism.) In other words, there is nocontinuousnarrativeofcauseandeffect tying thesemoments together inacomprehensibleway.

Al-Ghazali’s refutationofcausalitymustbequotedat length toappreciate its radicalandcomprehensivenature.InTheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,hestated:

Theconnectionbetweenwhatishabituallybelievedtobeacauseandwhatishabituallybelievedtobeaneffectisnotnecessary,according tous.Forexample, there isnocausalconnectionbetweenthequenchingof thirstanddrinking,satietyandeating,burningandcontactwithfire.Lightandtheappearanceofthesun,deathanddecapitation,healingandthedrinkingofmedicine,thepurgingofthebowelsandtheusingofapurgative,andsoonto[include]all[thatis]observableamongconnectedthingsinmedicine,astronomy,arts,andcrafts.TheirconnectionisduetothepriordecreeofGod,whocreatesthemsidebyside,nottoitbeingnecessaryinitself,incapableofseparation.Onthecontrary,itiswithin [divine] power to create satiety without eating, to create death without decapitation, to continue life afterdecapitation,andsoontoallconnectedthings....

Ouropponentclaimsthattheagentoftheburningisthefireexclusively;thisisanatural,notavoluntaryagent,andcannotabstain fromwhat is in itsnaturewhen it isbrought into contactwitha receptive substratum.Thiswedeny,saying:TheagentoftheburningisGod,throughHiscreatingtheblackinthecottonandthedisconnectionofitsparts,and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or withoutintermediation. For fire is a dead bodywhich has no action, andwhat is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, thephilosophershavenootherproofthantheobservationoftheoccurrenceoftheburning,whenthereiscontactwithfire,butobservationprovesonlysimultaneity,notcausation,and,inreality,thereisnoothercause...butGod.10

It is interesting to contrast this viewwith that of ThomasAquinas in theSummaContra

Gentiles,wherehestatesthat“whoeveranswersthequestion,whywoodgothot,becauseGodhaswilleditso,answersappropriately ifhe intendstocarrybackthequestiontotheprime

cause;but inappropriately, if he intends to exclude all other causes.” Aquinas said that thelatterposition“isthemistakeofthosewhobelievethatallthingsfollow,withoutanyrationalplan,fromGod’spurewill.ThisistheerroroftheexponentsoftheLawoftheMoors,asRabbiMoses [Maimonides] says; according to them, itmakes no differencewhether fire heats orcools,unlessGod[directly]willsitso.”11

Without causality in the natural order, anything can come of anything, and nothing

necessarily follows.How, in such circumstances, canman live in any practical, daily sensewithoutknowingwhatwillfollowwhat?Asal-Ghazalisays(inmimickingtheobjectionsofhisopponents), “For God is capable of everything, and it is not necessary for the horse to becreatedfromthespermnorthetreetobecreatedfromtheseed—indeeditisnotnecessaryforeitherofthetwotobecreatedfromanything.”12Howthendoesthehorsebreederorthehorticulturalistproceedwithhiswork?Iffiredoesnotburncotton,howdoesthecookstartafire tocookameal?Al-Ghazalianswers that“GodhascreatedwithinusknowledgethatHewillnotbringabouteverythingthat ispossible.”13God,apparently,sticks tohishabits—thedoctrine of ‘ada (God’s “habit”). “They are possibilities thatmay ormay not occur. But thecontinuoushabit of their occurrence repeatedly, one timeafteranother, fixesunshakably inourmindsthebeliefintheiroccurrenceaccordingtopasthabit.”14Butitisonlythat—abeliefinahabit,nothingmore.

Theultimatemeaningof this is that “there isnounity in theworld,moralorphysical ormetaphysical; all hangs from the individual will of Allah.”15 Averroes expressed theinescapable consequence of this position by saying that “once it is held that there are nointermediates between the beginnings and the ends of products, onwhich the existence oftheseendsdepends,therewillbenoorderororganization[inthisworld].Andifthereisnoorder or organization, then therewouldbeno indication that these existing entitieshaveawillingandknowingagent.Fororder,organization,andthefoundingofeffectsuponcausearetheindicatorsthat[existingentities]wereproducedthroughknowledgeandwisdom.”16Thisisexactly thedisputedpoint: forAverroesandAquinas the sourceof creation isknowledgeand wisdom; for al-Ghazali it is will and power. Knowledge and wisdom have an inherentorder;willandpowerdonot.

Al-Ghazali seems tohavebeen impelled to embrace this viewbecausehe, like al-Ash‘ari,thought that the acceptance of cause and effect in the natural orderwouldmean thatGodacted out of necessity rather than free will. This would mean a world created necessarily,rather than freelyexnihilo. If “xcausesy” in thenaturalorder insuchaway that “ymustfollow x,” then a deterministic sequence of necessary causality could be retrofitted up thechain of being all the way to Allah Himself. God would then be incapable of miracles, thedefense of which seems to concern al-Ghazali foremost. Also, the suggestion of theautonomous or semiautonomous operation of natural cause and effect would vitiate God’somnipotenceandimpliespolytheism,asitallowsforacauseotherthanGod.IfHeisnottheonlycause,thenHeisnotGod,whowillhavenoothercausesbeforeHim.

SuchwastheinfluenceoftheAsh‘ariteschoolandofal-GhazaliinparticularthatthedenialofsecondarycausalitybecameembeddedinSunniorthodoxy.ItwasrepeatedbytheEgyptianHanafijuristAhmadibnNaqibal-Misri(d.1368)inRelianceoftheTraveller:AClassicManualofSacred IslamicLaw.Al-Misriwrote that “the scienceof thematerialists” is basedon the“conviction of materialists that things in themselves or by their own nature have a causalinfluenceindependentofthewillofAllah.TobelievethisisunbeliefthatputsonebeyondthepaleofIslam.”17

Carryingthisteachingintothefifteenthcentury,MuhammadYusufas-Sanusi,usingsomeof

al-Ghazali’sexamples,wrote:“Youbecomeawareoftheimpossibilityofanythingintheworldproducing any effect whatsoever, because that entails the removal of that effect from thepowerandwillofourmajesticandmightyProtector....Forthatmatter,foodhasnoeffectonsatiety,norwateronmoisteningtheland...norfireonburning....KnowthatitisfromGodfromthestart,withouttheotheraccompanyingthingshavinganyintermediacyoreffectonit,neitherbytheirnature,norbyapowerorpeculiarityplacedin itbyGod,asmanyignorantpeople think. . . .Whoever holds that those things produce an effect by their nature is anunbeliever.”Asfortheappearanceofcauses,“Godhascreatedthemassignsandindicationsof the things hewishes to createwithout any logical connection between themand that ofwhichtheyaretheindications.ThusGodcanbreaktheaccustomedorderofthingswhenever

hewishesandforwhomsoeverhewishes.”18

Thisteachinganditsprofoundeffectsarethereasonwhy,eveninthetwenty-firstcentury,

FouadAjamiwouldreport,“WhereverIgointheIslamicworld,it’sthesameproblem:causeand effect; cause and effect.”19 The following is an example of this problem from the latetwentiethcentury.InIslamandScience,PakistaniphysicistPervezHoodbhoywritesabouttheattemptbytheInstituteofPolicyStudies,anoffshootoftheIslamistgroupJamaat-e-Islami,toensurethatPakistan’ssciencetextbooksweresufficientlyIslamized.Theinstitute’sguidelinesdirectedthat“inwritingasciencebookforClass3children,oneshouldnotask, ‘Whatwillhappenifananimaldoesnottakeanyfood?’Instead,thefollowingquestionshouldbeasked:‘Whatwill happen ifAllahdoesnotgive theanimal food.’”20Also, statesHoodbhoy, “Effectmustnotberelatedtophysicalcause.Todosoleadstowardsatheism.Forexample,saystheIPS recommendation, ‘there is latent poison present in the subheading Energy CausesChanges because it gives the impression that energy is the true cause rather than Allah.’”Hoodbhoy concludes, “The basic assumption of science—that each physical effect has acorresponding physical cause—is being specifically refuted. Instead of physical forces, it iscontinuousdivineinterventionwhichmovesmatter.”21

The elimination of cause and effect makes prediction epistemologically impossible and

theologically undesirable. This can result in some unusual behavior affecting everydaymatters. Thus, points out Hoodbhoy, “Many, if not most, orthodox ulema contend thatprediction of rain lies outside ofwhat can be lawfully known toman, and infringes on thesupernaturaldomain.Consequently,between1983and1984,weatherforecastswerequietlysuspendedbythePakistanimedia,althoughtheywere laterreinstated.”22 Ifan incalculableGoddirectlycreatestheweather,thentheweathercannotbecalculable.TheLossofEpistemologyTheweatherreportwasnottheonlyepistemologicalcasualtyofAsh‘arism.Inhisrebuttaltoal-GhazaliinTheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence,Averroessaidthattheactivityofreasonis“nothingmorethanitsknowledgeofexistingentitiesthroughtheknowledgeoftheircauses.”Therefore,“whoeverrepudiatescausesactuallyrepudiatesreason.”23Thedenialofcausalitymakes“genuineknowledgeimpossible[and]willonlyleaveuswithopinion(doxa).”24Orfromthe same work, “To deny the existence of efficient causes which are observed in sensiblethings is sophistry. . . . Denial of cause implies the denial of knowledge, and denial ofknowledgeimpliesthatnothingintheworldcanreallybeknown.”25Again,hepointsoutthatifcausalityisdenied,“thereisnofixedknowledgeofanything,”because“trueknowledgeisthe knowledge of the thing according to what it is in itself.”26 In this way, Ash‘aritemetaphysicsmakesepistemology impossibleandclosesoff itsadherents fromknowledgeofreality.

Certainly,onecannotknowethics.AsBritish-LebanesescholarGeorgeHouranipointedout,themainobjectional-Ash‘ariraisedagainstrationalisticethicswasthat“independenthumanreasonimpliesalimitonthepowerofGod;forifmancouldjudgewhatisrightandwronghecouldruleonwhatGodcouldrightlyprescribeforman,andthiswouldbepresumptuousandblasphemous.” The Ash‘arites also objected that theMu‘tazilites “arrogated the function ofrevelationandrenderedituseless.”27Intheirmetaphysics,theAsh‘aritesmadesurethatsuchethicalknowledgeisunobtainableindependentofrevelation.

Morality, or what is just, cannot be known rationally for two reasons. One is practical:reasonistoocorruptedbyman’sself-interest.AsMuslimscholarFazlurRahmancharacterizesthe Ash‘arite view, “In a natural state the only law was self-interest. And, because humanbeingswill deemall such things that promote their self-interest to begood, and those thatthwart their self-interest as bad, therefore God has to declare, through revelation, what isgoodandwhatisevil.”28Thisderogationofthestatusofreasoninrespecttoitscorruptionisrepeated inal-Ghazali’sModeration inBelief,wherehewrites that reason is so infectedbyman’s self-interest that it cannot know moral principles; they can be known only throughrevelation.Thiswas the typicalAsh‘arite view thatmancalls “good’whateveradvanceshisself-interests,and“bad”whateversubvertsthem.Therefore,man’slawsareonlyexpressionsofhiscorruptedwill.

TheMu‘tazilites objected to al-Ghazali’s position that each person will simply create hisown“good”inconformitywithhisdesires,saying:

Yourdiscoursecomestothis:that(rational)“good”and“bad”arereducibletobeingconducivetoandthwartingdesires.Butweseethatarationalbeingregardsasgoodthatwhereinhedoesnot(necessarily)seeanybenefitand(sometimes)regardsasbadthatwhereinhemayfindbenefit....Ifsomeoneseesamanorananimalonthevergeofperishing,heregardsitasgoodtosavehim...althoughnotbelievingintheshari‘aandevenwhenhedoesnotexpectanybenefitfromthisinthisworld,andeventhoughthismayoccurinaplacewherethereisnobodytoseehimandpraisehimfordoingso.Wemayindeedsupposetheabsenceofevery(selfish)motive....Itisclearthenthat“good”and“bad”haveameaningotherthanwhatyouhavedescribed.29

Al-Ghazalirespondedtothisobjectionwithanapproachthatissoreductionistitisalmostproto-Marxian indefiningreasonasanexcrescenceofself-interest, ifnotofmaterial forcesthemselves. As paraphrased by Fazlur Rahman, al-Ghazali claimed that “the rescuer isprimarilyledtosavealivingbeingindanger,becauseifhedoesnotdosothiswouldhurthisownnaturalstrongfeelingsofcompassion:heisthussatisfyinghimselfbyrescuingthepersonindanger.”30

Theotherreasonmancannotindependentlyknowrightfromwrong,whichreallymakesthe

firstreasonclosetodisingenuous,isepistemological:mancannotknowwhatdoesnotexisttobeknown(whetherheisself-interestedornot).Sincenothingisrightorwrongintrinsically,thereisnothingtobeknowninthisrespect.Asaconsequence,theAsh‘aritetheologianAbu‘lel-Ma‘ali al-Juwayni (1028–1085), al-Ghazali’s teacher, concluded “that there is nothingobligatory by reason for the servant or for God.”31 This important statement means thatnothing that man knows or can learn by his reason can possibly carry any moral weightconcerningwhathemustdoornotdo.Italsomeansthatthe“moral”obligationsthatGodsetsuponman do not originate in reason, nor is there anything that God is obligated to do byreason.Godcancommandwhatiseviltobegood,orgoodtobeevil.Reasonhasnothingtodowithjusticeormorality.Onlyabsolutedivinewilldoes.TheLossofObjectiveMoralitySince reason is not a source ofmoral truth, al-Ghazali reaches the same conclusion as al-Juwayni:“NoobligationsflowfromreasonbutfromtheShari‘a.”32Themetaphysical reasonfortheexclusiveauthorityofrevelationinmoralmattersisthatthingsoractsarenotgoodorbadinthemselves,accordingtotheirnatureoressence.Theyhavenonatureoressence.Allactsareinthemselvesmorallyneutral.Asal-Juwaynitaught,“Theintellectdoesnotindicateeither thata thing isnobleor that it isvile ina judgment thatobliges (hukmal-takif). It isinformedaboutwhat itmustconsiderasnobleandasvileonlyby theresourcesof the law(shar’) and by what tradition renders necessary. The principle of what must be said [on asubject] isthatathingisnotnoblebyitself,by itsgenre,orbyanattributethatbelongstoit.”33

ThisversionofIslamdecisivelyanswersSocrates’famousquestionfromtheEuthyphro:“Is

thepiousorholylovedbythegodsbecauseitispious?Orisitpiousbecauseitislovedbythegods?”34TheAsh‘ariteansweristhatitisthelatter.Allahdoesnotcommandcertainbehaviorbecauseitisgood;itisgoodbecauseHecommandsit.Likewise,Hedoesnotforbidmurderbecauseitisbad;itisbadbecauseHeforbidsit.

IfAllah ispurewill,goodandevil areonlyconventionsofAllah’s—some thingsarehalal(permitted/lawful)andothersareharam(forbidden/unlawful),simplybecauseHesayssoandfornoreasonsinthemselves.Evilissimplywhatisforbidden.Whatisforbiddentodaycouldbepermittedtomorrowwithoutinconsistency.God,inshort,isalegalpositivist.

Al-Ash‘ariexpressedthisviewinaquestionandanswerdialogue:

SincetheCreatorissubjecttonooneandboundbynocommand,nothingcanbeevilonHispart.Objection:ThenlyingisevilonlybecauseGodhasdeclaredittobeevil.Answer:Certainly.AndifHedeclaredittobegood,itwouldbegood;andifHecommandedit,noonecouldgainsay

Him.35

Thus,al-Ash‘ariexcludedanythingobjectiveinthecharacterofactsthemselves.Evilisonly

a rule, or rather it is not obeying the rule. For al-Ash‘ari, a thing is evil only because it is

proclaimed as such by God. We know the limits and boundaries because they have beenrevealed.Al-Juwayni stated: “Thus themeaningof ‘good’ is that forwhichscripture revealspraiseforitsagent,andtheintentionof‘evil’isthatforwhichscripturerevealsblameforitsagent.”36

No one, however, is in authority overGod to set limits or boundaries forHim.Al-Ash‘ari

wrote:“TheproofthatHeisfreetodowhateverHedoesisthatHeistheSupremeMonarch,subjecttonoone,withnosuperioroverHimwhocanpermit,orcommand,orchide,orforbid,orprescribewhatHeshalldoandfixboundsforHim.Thisbeingso,nothingcanbeevilonthepartofGod.Forathingisevilonourpartonlybecausewetransgressthelimitandboundsetfor us anddowhatwehaveno right to do.But since theCreator is subject to no one andboundbynocommand,nothingcanbeevilonHispart.”37

Therefore,Godisnotsubjecttojusticeandinjustice.ThereisnostandardbywhichHecan

bequestioned.IfAllahispurewill,oneactofHispurewillcannotbemorallydifferentiatedfromanotheractofHispurewill.TherearenostandardsoutsideofHimbywhichtodoso;infact, therearenostandardswithinHim,either,orat leastHe isnot subject to them.He isbeyond good and evil. In this sense, God is a Nietzschean. The Ash‘arite view of God is avindication, or theological expression, of Thrasymachus’s famous assertion inThe Republicthatrightistheruleofthestronger.Ash‘arismisthetheologyof“mightmakesright”inthatitassertsthatmightshouldmakeright.AsGodisthestrongest,Hisruleisright,bydefinition.Allah, then, is not only a Nietzschean; He is also a sophist, like Thrasymachus. GeorgeHouranicallsthis“theisticsubjectivism.”Hestates:“Itissubjectivistbecauseitrelatesvaluestotheviewofajudgewhodecidesthem,denyinganythingobjectiveinthecharacterofactsthemselves, that would make them right or wrong independently of anyone’s decision oropinion.AndtheisticbecausethedeciderofvalueistakentobeGod.Amoreusualnameis‘ethical voluntarism.’”38 Iranian philosopher Abdulkarim Soroush calls the Ash‘arites the“nominalists”ofIslam.39

What kind of society does the embrace of this Nietzschean God produce? This will be

discussed later in thebook.Fornow,onemaywonder if there isanyconnectionbetween itandthesituationobservedinJerusalembyFrenchauthorChateaubriandinhisItinérairedeParisàJérusalem (1811),whichcomesuncannilyclose towhatonemight imagineasocietyorganizedaroundThrasymachus’sdictumwouldlooklike:“Accustomedtofollowthefortunesofamaster,theyhavenolawthatconnectsthemtoideasoforderandpoliticalmoderation:tokill,whenone is the stronger, seems to thema legitimate right; theyexercise that right orsubmit to itwiththesame indifference. . . .Theydon’tknowliberty; theyhavenopropertyrights;forceistheirGod.”40

Inanycase,itwouldappearthatthisextraordinaryconceptionofaGodwithoutmoralsis

thesolutiontotheproblemoftheodicythatAsh‘arismcreatedbydenyingman’sfreewill,butatthesametimestillbeingleftwiththeexistenceofevil.WhiletheMu‘tazilitescouldclaimthat the origin of evil was in man’s free but disordered will, the Ash‘arites did not haverecoursetothisexplanationbecauseoftheirdenialofthatfreedom.IfGodisthesolecauseofeverything,isHenotalsothecauseofevil?InordertoabsolveGodofthischarge,theymadeHim above or without morality. Al-Juwayni dismissed the Mu‘tazilites’ explanation forsuffering,whichjustifiedGodbysayingthatHewouldusesufferingastherequitalforsinsorasthebasis forsomegreater futuregood.Toal-Juwayni,such justificationwasunnecessaryandpresumptuous;GeorgeHouraniparaphrasesal-Juwayniassayingofthe“painsinflictedbyGod on men and animals” that “it is enough to know that they are created by God, andeverything created by God is good for that reason alone.”41 With this bit of positivisticlegerdemain,theproblemofevildisappears.

ThoughnotanAsh‘arite,Ahmad ibnHazm,a followerof theZahiri sect (interpreting theQur’an according to its literal meaning and without the use of qiyas or analogies), clearlyarticulated the same view in eleventh-century Spain, which shows how widespread therebuttaltotheMu‘taziliteshadbecome.Heproclaimed:“AnyonethatsaysthatGodwoulddonothingsavewhatisgoodaccordingtoourunderstandingandwouldcreatenothingthatourunderstanding classes as evil, must be told that he has . . . perversely applied humanargument toGod.Nothing is goodbutAllahhasmade it so, andnothing is evil, butbyhisdoing.Nothing in theworld, indeed, is good or bad in its own essence; butwhat God hascalledgoodisgood,andthedoerisvirtuous;andsimilarly,whatGodhascalledevilisevilandthedoerisasinner.AlldependsonGod’sdecree,foranactthatmayatonetimebegoodmay

bebadatanothertime.”42InhisRegensburgaddress,PopeBenedictXVIwasreferringtothisaspectofIslamwhenhequotedIbnHazmassaying,“WereitGod’swill,wewouldevenhavetopractiseidolatry.”43Thus,moral“obligationisintelligibleonlyintermsofthecommandsofrevelation,”andcertainlynotfromreason.IbnHazmsaid,“ItbelongstotheintellectonlytounderstandthecommandofGodtheExaltedand[tounderstand]theobligation[ornecessity](wujub)ofavoidingtransgressionincaseswhereeternalpunishmentistobefeared.”44

Inthefourteenthcentury,al-MisrireiteratedtheAsh‘ariteteachingsonreason’sinabilityto

knowethicsandrevelation’smonopolyonthisknowledge:“ThebasicpremiseofthisschoolofthoughtisthatthegoodoftheactsofthosemorallyresponsibleiswhattheLawgiver(AllahorHismessenger) has indicated is goodbypermitting it or asking it bedone.And thebad iswhattheLawgiverhasindicatedisbadbyaskingitnotbedone.Thegoodisnotwhatreasonconsiders good, nor the bad what reason considers bad. The measure of good and bad,accordingtothisschoolofthought,isthesacredLaw,notreason.”45

MuhammadYusufas-Sanusishowedhowconsistentlythisviewwasheldwhenherestatedit

in the early fifteenth century: “It is impossible for the Most High to determine an act asobligatoryorforbidden...forthesakeofanyobjective,sinceallactsareequalinthattheyarehiscreationandproduction.Thereforethespecificationofcertainactsasobligatoryandothersasforbiddenorwithanyotherdeterminationtakesplacebyhispurechoice,whichhasnocause. Intelligibilityhasnoplaceatall in itrather itcanbeknownonlybyrevealed law(shari‘a).”46

Thisviewremainsrelevanttoday.AsEdHusain,aBritishMuslim,recountsinTheIslamist,

“SheikhNabhani [the founderofHizbut-Tahrir, agroupdedicated to the restorationof thecaliphate]alwaystaughtthattherewasnosuchthingasmoralityinIslam;itwassimplywhatGodtaught.IfAllahallowedit,itwasmoral.IfHeforbadeit,itwasimmoral.”47

TheconsequencesofthisethicalorientationwerecapturedinthegreatHungarianJewish

scholarofIslamIgnazGoldziher’sdescriptionsofArabbehaviorafterMuhammad:“Peopledidnotsomuchaskwhatwas,inagivensituation,goodorproperinitself,aswhattheProphetandhisCompanionshadsaidaboutthematter,howtheyhadacted,andwhathadaccordinglybeen passed down as the proper view and the proper action.”48 Since nothing is good orproper in itself, thiswas theonlyalternative—akindofcomplete legalpositivism, rooted inscripturaltextsandreportsofMuhammad’ssayingsanddoings.Insteadofengaginginmoralphilosophy,onehadtodiscerntheisnad,orchainoftransmission,toauthenticateasayingofMuhammadintheHadiththatmightapplytoacertainsituationformoralguidance—incasetherewasnotacleardirectivefromtheQur’anitself.ThesayingorHadithcouldbejudgednot on the basis of any intrinsic merit or moral worth, but only on its genealogy and thecredibilityofthewitnessestoit.Forinstance,hereisanexampleoftheuseof isnadtogivevalidity toaHadithusedbyOsamabinLaden’sdeputy,Aymanal-Zawahiri: “Weheard fromHarunbinMa’ruf,citingAbuWahab,whoquotedAmrubinal-HarithcitingAbuAliTamamahbin Shafi that he heard Uqbah bin Amir saying, ‘I heard the Prophet say from the pulpit:“Againstthemmakereadyyourstrength.”’”49

The significance of the Ash‘arite position can hardly be overstated. It makes moral

philosophy,asinAristotle’sEthics,impossible.ThereisnosenseinthisformofIslamofmanfulfillinghisnature,orofthe“good”asthatwhichaidshimindoingso,orofthefulfillmentofman’s nature as defining his “good.” Rather, the good is understood only as a matter ofobedience to the external commandments ofGod—whatever theymaybe—unrelated to anyinternallogicinmanhimselforincreation.AstheQur’anstates:“Itmaybethatyoudislikeathing that is good for you and like a thing that is bad for you.Allah knowsbut youdonotknow”(2:216).Notonlydoyounotknow,butyoucannotknow.Therefore,onecanperceivewhatisgoodorbadonlythroughtheQur’anortheShari‘a.Thismeansthat, inthisformofIslam, there can be no distinction between law and morality. Law is morality. There is nomoralityoutsideof the revealed law.Asaconsequence,wroteFazlurRahman, the teachingthat“purereasonyieldsnoobligationsor‘reasonisnotaLegislator’(innal-aqllaysabi-shari)becamethe juristicaxiomofallMuslimjurists.”50Onecanseethispervasiveviewwell intothenineteenthcentury.‘Abdal-AliMuhammadalAnsaristated,“NoonewhoprofessesIslamwouldbesobrazenastoregardthehumanreasonaslaw-giver.”51

This accounts for the overwhelming prominence of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. Its

dominance is the direct result of the occasionalistmetaphysics, the consequent collapse ofepistemology,andthevoluntaristicethicsprofferedby theAsh‘arites. Itsprominencecomesfroma process of elimination.Fiq, or jurisprudence, is all that is left. This had significant,long-rangeconsequencesfortheMuslimworld.AscontemporaryMuslimscholarBassamTibiexplains,“Thefiqh-orthodoxyhadthepowertodeterminethecurriculumofIslamiceducation.Thus,thedistinctionbetweenfiqhandfalsafa[philosophy]waslost.InIslamilm/science’wasidentifiedwith fiqh. No debate was allowed and this mindset led to the decline of Islamiccivilization.”52Headds,“Thecontroloftheeducationalsystemallowedthefiqh-orthodoxytopreventthespreadoftheIslamicrationalists’attempttobreakoutoftheinheritedreligiousconceptoftheworld’snaturalorder.”53Thisresultedinthedisplacementofcriticalthinkingbyrotelearning.ThemostprominentfeatureofMuslimeducationbecamememorization.

Thedelegitimizationofethicsasafieldofrationalinquiryhasalsoled,quitelogically,tothemoral infantilization of many Muslims, who are not allowed to think for themselves as towhetheranactisgoodorevil,lawfulorforbidden.Ifoneiswithouttherequiredknowledgeofthelawregardingaspecificact,onemustconsultjurisprudentialauthority.IncontemporaryIslam,thishasresultedinsuchthingsasdial-a-fatwaprogramsinplaceslikeCairo,whereamuftistandsbyonthephonelines,atanextracharge,tomeetthemoralquandariesoftheday. TV, radio, and newspapers also offer streams of fatwas. The reductio ad absurdum towhichthishasgonewasillustratedbyFatherSamirKhalilSamir,anEgyptianJesuit,withthefollowingexamplesfromCairoin2006:

“Should or should not a launderer (laundry shops are everywhere in Egypt) handle theclothesofawomanwhonormallydoesnotwearanIslamicveil?”“Ifawomangetsoutofthebathnakedandthereisadogintheapartment,hasshedonesomethingforbidden?”Answer:“It depends on the dog. If the dog is male, the woman has done something which isforbidden.”

Anotherfatwa,reportedbynewspapers:“WhileIprayawomangoesby.Ismyprayervalidornot?”Answer:“Ifadonkey,awoman,orablackdoggoesby,theprayermustberepeated.”Theexplanation:“Thedonkeyisanimpureanimal;theblackdogcouldbeSatanindisguise;womenareimpureregardless.”54

Rather than accepting morality as within the reach of reason, the Ash‘arites seemed to

sufferfromanunderlyingfearthatifmancouldautonomouslyreachanunderstandingofgoodandevil,perhapshemightbecomeautonomous,aswell.Thispossibilitycouldnotbeallowed,asitwoulddirectlychallengetheradicallycontingentstatusofmanastotallyreliantonanall-powerfulGod.Godisnot“like”anything,orcomparabletoanything.Ifmancouldascertainmorality through his reason, he would be, in a way, God-like or in His likeness. Such apropositionwassheershirk.

Thosesearching for the reasonwhy freedomofconscience isnotacknowledged inSunniIslam’s four legal schools may dwell on this teaching for a possible explanation. Theunderlyingpremiseof freedomofconscience is thatman iscapableofgraspingmoral truthandthatallmenareendowedwiththemeansforreachingitthroughtheirreason.Thisistrueeven in lightofman’scorruptionbyself-interest.AsSt.Augustinewrote, “There isnosoul,albeitcorrupted,aslongasitcanreason,inwhoseconscienceGoddoesnotspeak.Forwhowrotenaturallawintheheartsofmen,ifnotGod?”55

Undermine the integrity of reason and you subvert the foundation for freedom of

conscience.SincereasoniswithoutintegrityinAsh‘ariteIslam,thereisnobasisforfreedomofconscience.Infact,thereisnotanArabicwordforconscience.56This,ofcourse,doesnotmean that Islam is without amoral sense. It simplymeans that itsmoral sense is not theproduct of conscience. In fact, this formof Islamdoesnot allow for thepossibility of therebeinganyrationalgroundsonwhichtorejectIslam,becauseitprovidesnogroundsforreasonatall.Islamiscalledthedinal-fitra,thereligionthatis“natural”toman,sinceitisdirectlyrevealedbythefirstandonlycause,Allah.Therefore,deviationfromitmustbeseenasaformofwillfulperversity.TheQur’anwarns,“IfanyonedesiresareligionotherthanIslam,neverwillitbeacceptedofhim;andinthehereafterhewillbeintheranksofthosewhohavelost”(3:85).

ThisiswhyeverySunnilegalschoolprescribesdeathforapostasy.

LossofJusticeLawisallthatisleftintheruins—lawasawillful,externalimpositionbyGod.Whatismore,itis law unrelated to justice in the classical meaning of the term. It is hollow law, purelyjuridical, without foundation in natural law. If justice is giving to things what is their dueaccordingtowhattheyare,thenonemustknowwhatthingsareinordertoactjustly.SincethingsintheAsh‘ariteviewhavenonature,however,onecannotapprehendtheminthisway;theyareonlymomentaryassemblagesofatoms.

What,then,isjustice,andhowcanitbediscussed?Only,itseems,bysayingthatAllahsaystodocertainthingsandnottodocertainotherthings—theexclusiverealmofrevelation.Asal-Shafi‘i,thefounderoftheShafi‘ilegalschool,definedit,“JusticeisthatoneshouldactinobediencetoGod.”57Whateverthelawordainsisjust,andthereisnowaytothinkofjusticeoutsideofthisdefinition.InAl-Mustasfafi‘Ilmal-Usul(thebest[orchoicest]onthesubjectof[Islamic]theology),al-Ghazalimadethisexplicit:“Wajib[whatisobligatoryornecessary]hasnomeaning(ma’na)butwhatGodtheExaltedhasmadenecessary(awjaba)andcommanded,with threatofpunishment foromission; so if there isno revelation,what is themeaningofwajib?”58

Theanswertothisrhetoricalquestion,obviously,isthatthereisnone.Nothingisnecessary

inthejustman’sbehaviorotherthanwhatGodhasrevealedtobenecessary;noristhereanywaytoanswerthequestionastowhatthejustmanshoulddootherthanbywhatisrevealed.

Andasal-Ghazaliasks,againrhetorically,“IfHedidnotannounceithowwoulditbeknownthatthereistobeReward?”59Ofcourse,onAsh‘aritepremises,itwouldnotandcouldnotbeknownifHedidnotannounceit.UnliketheMu‘tazilites,al-Ghazalicannotanswerthatrewardcouldbe inferred from thenatureof aGodwhoseessence includes theattributeof justice,somesenseofwhichHehasimbuedinman.AndcontrarytoMu‘taziliteteaching,revelationdoesnotsimplyrevealwhatisgoodandevil;itconstituteswhatisgoodandevil.Therefore,itisthesolesourceforinformationonwhatistoberewarded.

WhyhasGoddecidedonpunishmentforcertainactsandrewardforothers?BecauseGodcanissueruleswithoutreason,therecanbenoanswertothisquestion.Butwhatmightthecontentofthisjusticebe?Ifonebehavesaccordingtothisunderstandingofjustice,arethereconsequences for one’s behavior onwhich one can rely? Since things areharam only as amatterofAllah’sconvention,mayAllaharbitrarilydecidetorewardthosewhocommitsuchacts,andpunishthosewhoseactsarehalal?ThiswouldseemtogodirectlyagainsttheQur’aninverse24ofSurah3:“SohowwillitbewhenWeassemblethemforaDayaboutwhichthereisnodoubt?Andeachsoulwillbecompensated[infullfor]whatitearned,andtheywillnotbewronged.”

But the Qur’an also states, “He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and punisheth whom Hepleaseth”(2:284).And“HeforgiveswhomHewills,andHepunisheswhomHewills.AndtoAllahbelongsthedominionoftheheavensandtheearthandwhateverisbetweenthem,andtoHimisthe[final]destination”(5:18).And“HepunisheswhomHewillsandforgiveswhomHewills,andAllahisoverallthingscompetent”(5:40).

Al-Ghazaliexplains: “Allah’s justice isnot tobecomparedwith the justiceofman.Amanmaybesupposedtoactunjustlyby invadingthepositionofanother,butno injusticecanbeconceivedonthepartofAllah.Itisinhispowertopourdowntorrentsuponmankindandifhewere to do it, his justice would not be arraigned. There is nothing He can be tied to, toperform, nor can any injustice be supposed of him, nor canHe be under obligation to anypersonwhatever.”60

NoinjusticecanbeconceivedonthepartofAllahbecause,accordingtoal-Ghazali,justice

meansperforminganobligation—somethingthatwouldcauseseriousharmifnotperformed.Godhasnoobligations,andcannotbeharmed.Goodandbad,justiceandinjustice,pertaintowhethersomethingachievesorfrustratesapurpose.SinceGodhasnopurpose,thesetermsaresuperfluoustoHim.Hecandoanything,andtherecouldnotpossiblybeanyblame.AstheQur’anstates,“HecannotbequestionedconcerningwhatHedoes”(21:23).

InTheMiddlePathinTheology,al-Ghazalistates:“Weassertthat it isadmissibleforGod

the Exalted not to impose obligations on His servants, as well as to impose on themunachievable obligations, to cause pain to His servants without compensation and without[preceding] offence [by them]; that it is not necessary for Him to heed what is mostadvantageousforthem,ortorewardobedienceorpunishdisobedience.”61This,ofcourse,istheantithesisoftheMu‘tazilitepositionthatGodmustrewardgoodandpunishevil,andthatHewillnotimposeonmanobligationsthatarebeyondhiscapacitytoperform.

Al-GhazaliputsthesewordsintothemouthofGod:“Thesetobliss,andIcarenot;andthesetotheFire,andIcarenot.”62Asdisturbingasthisexpressionofdivineindifferencemayseem,it isclearlybasedonasupportingHadith:“AbuDarda’reportedthattheHolyProphetsaid:AllahcreatedAdamwhenHecreatedhim.ThenHestrokehisrightshoulderandtookoutawhiteraceasiftheywereseeds,andHestrokehisleftshoulderandtookoutablackraceasiftheywerecharcoals.ThenHesaidtothosewhowereonhisrightshoulder:Towardsparadiseand I don’t care.He said to thosewhowereonhis left shoulder: TowardsHell and I don’tcare.”63

A popular story of a most likely fictional incident, related by the nineteenth-century

historianSirWilliamMuir,illustratesthesamepoint:

WhentheCaliphOmarjourneyedtoJerusalemtoreceiveitssurrender,hedeliveredanaddress,inthecourseofwhichhe used this quotation from the Corân: “Whomsoever the Lord desireth to guide, he shall be guided aright; andwhomsoevertheLordshallmislead,thoushaltnotfindforhimapatron,noranyguide.”“Godforbid!”criedaChristianpriestfromthecrowd,interruptingthecaliph,andshakinghisraimentintokenofindignantdissent;“theLorddothnotmisleadanyone,butdesirethrathertherightdirectionofall.”OmarinquiredwhatthatChristian“enemyoftheLord”wassaying.Hesaith,repliedthepeople,that“Godmisleadethnoone.”Omarresumedhisdiscourse,andasecondtimethepriestinterruptedhimattheobnoxiouswords.Omarwasangry,andsaid:“BytheLord!ifherepeatthisagain,Iwillsurelybeheadhimuponthespot.”SotheChristianheldhispeace,andOmarproceeded:“WhomtheLordguideth,himnonecanmislead;andwhomtheLordmisleadeth,forhimthereisnoguide.”64

Of course, the words of the priest in this dialogue could have come just as well from aMu‘tazilite.

ThisviewofAllah’sarbitrarinesshasbeenconsistentlymaintainedbyAsh‘ariteandalliedschools.IntheKitabal-Fisal(DetailedCriticalExamination), IbnHazm(994–1064)asserted,“He judges as He pleases and whatever He judges is just.”65 Ibn Hazm makes clear that“whatever”canmeananything:“IfGodtheExaltedhadinformedusthatHewouldpunishusfortheactsofothers. . .orforourownobedience,allthatwouldhavebeenrightandjust,andweshouldhavebeenobligedtoacceptit.”66Ash‘aritetheologianAlFakhral-Razi(1149–1209)declared: “It ispossibleaccording toour religion thatGodmay sendblasphemers toparadise and the righteous andworshipers to (eternal) fire, because ownership belongs toHim and no one can stopHim.”67 This is, of course, the exact opposite of Abd al-Jabbar’steachingon“thepromiseandthethreat,”asitisofmultipleversesintheQur’anwhichspeakofAllah’sjusticeasreliable.

Tooutsiders, thecapriciousdimensionof this formof Islamwasclearas longagoas theMiddleAges.ThegreatJewishphilosopherMaimonides(1135–1204)spokeofhisexperiencesinEgypt to illustrate theway someMuslims think.Everymorning the caliph rides throughCairoandeverymorninghetakesthesameroute,saidMaimonides,buttomorrowhecouldtakeadifferentroute.Why?Becauseheisthecaliphandhecandoashewills.EverymorningthesunrisesintheEastandsetsintheWest.Ithashappenedforyears; ithappenedtoday.ButtomorrowitmightriseintheSouthandsetintheNorth.ThatdependsonthewillofAllahandthereisnosayingthatitwillnot.(Infact,someIslamicapocalypticalliteraturepredictsthesunwillriseintheWest.)Maimonidesconcludedthat“thethingwhichexistswithcertainconstant and permanent forms, dimensions, and properties [in nature] only follows thedirectionofhabit....Onthisfoundationtheirwholefabricisconstructed.”68

Maimonideswasnottheonlyonetohavenoticedthatthisisaproblem.InLecturesonthe

History of Philosophy,Hegel observed that, in this version of Islam, “the activity of God isrepresented as perfectly devoid of reason.”69 Hegel said, “All we can discern here is thecomplete dissolution of all interdependence, of everything that pertains to rationality. . . .[God’sactivity]iswhollyabstract,andthatiswhythedifferentiatingthathasbeenpositedbymeansofitiswhollycontingent....TheArabsdevelopedsciencesandphilosophyinthisway,wherealliscaprice.”70

InTheDeclineoftheWest,OswaldSpenglerwrotethat“Islamispreciselytheimpossibility

ofan Iasa freepowervis-à-vis thedivine. . . . In theentire cosmic cave there is onlyonecausewhichistheimmediategroundofallvisibleeffects:thedeity,whichitselfhasnolongeranyreasonsforitsacts.”71

This aspect of Allahwas also remarked upon by the Islamist radical SayyidQutb inThe

Shadowof theQur’an: “Every time theQur’an states a definite promise or constant law, itfollows it with a statement implying that the Divine will is free of all limitations andrestrictions,eventhosebasedonapromisefromAllahoralawofHis.ForHiswillisabsolutebeyondanypromiseoflaw.”72

TheLossofFreeWillJustasAsh‘aritemetaphysicsmakesanynotionofGod’sjusticeincomprehensible—asjusticeis defined aswhateverGoddoes—it also has a devastating impact on the notion of humanfreedom. While for the Mu‘tazilites, man’s freedom is a matter of God’s justice, for theAsh‘arites,man’s freedom is an offense to God’s omnipotence. To them, Godwould not beomnipotentifanotherbeingwereevenpotent.Powerisindivisible.Ifmanisthecauseofhisown actions, then how couldGod be omnipotent? TheFirstCausemust be the only cause.What, then, are the implications forman if he is constituted by space-time atoms that areinstantaneously coming into and going out of existence directly by God’s command? Dohumansretainanycapacity toacton theirown? Inhisbook,Al-Ibanah ‘anUsul al-Diyanah(TheClearStatementontheFundamentalElementsoftheFaith),al-Ash‘aridescribesGod’sarbitrarypowerasoverwhelminghumaninitiative:

WebelievethatAllahhascreatedeverything,bysimplybiddingit:Be,asHesays[inQur’an16:42]:“Verily,whenwewilla thing, our only utterance is: Be and it is”; and that there is nothing good or evil on earth, exceptwhat Allah haspreordained.WeholdthateverythingisthroughAllah’swillandthatnoonecandoathingbeforeheactuallydoesit,ordoitwithoutAllah’sassistance,orescapeAllah’sknowledge.WeholdthatthereisnoCreatorbutAllah,andthatthedeedsofthecreaturearecreatedandpreordainedbyAllah,asHesaid[inQur’an37:94]:“Hehascreatedyouandwhatyoumake.”...WeholdthatAllahhelpsthefaithfultoobeyHim,favorsthem,isgracioustothem,reformsandguidesthem;whereasHehasledtheunfaithfulastray,didnotguideorfavorthemwithsigns,astheimpioushereticsclaim.However,wereHetofavorandreformthem,theywouldhavebeenrighteous,andhadHeguidedthemtheywouldhavebeenrightlyguided....ButitwasHiswillthattheyshouldbeungodly[singular:kafir],asHeforesaw.AccordinglyHeabandoned them and sealed their hearts. We believe that good and evil are the outcome of Allah’s decree andpreordination[qada’waqadar]:goodorevil,sweetorbitter,andweknowthatwhathasmisseduscouldnothavehitus,or what has hit us could not have missed us, and that creatures are unable to profit or injure themselves, withoutAllah.73

Man, therefore, canneither originatenor complete an action.According to al-Ash‘ari, hecanonlyintend,anditistheintentionbywhichheisjudged.DuncanMacdonaldsumsupal-Ash‘ari’sview:“NootherbeingthanAllahpossessesanyactatall—anyactatall.FromAllahandofAllahareallacts.Innosensecanitbesaidwhen,forexample,Iliftthisbook,thatthatactbelongstome....Sothemovementofmyhandtotakeholdofthisbook,itsmovementupwiththebook,themovementofthebookitselfupwards,allinvolveaseries—rapidofcourse—invisible—ofmiraculouscreationsdirectlybyAllah.”74Foral-Ash‘ari,accordingtoMacdonald:“Mancannotcreateathing;Godistheonlycreator;nordoesman’spowerproduceanyeffectonhisactionsatall.GodcreatesinHiscreaturepower(qudrah)andchoice(ikhtiyar).ThenHecreatesinhimhisactionscorrespondingtothepowerandchoicethuscreated.”75Togiveal-Ash‘ari’sownexample,amanpicksupapenandwrites.Itis,however,Godwhocreatesinhimthewilltowrite,thepowertowrite,andthenthemotionofthehandtothepaperwiththepen.Allahthenalsocausesthefigurestoappearonthepaperasthepentouchesit.

Inwhatway,then,canthesebeman’sacts?Al-Ash‘arianswerswiththecuriousideathatman“acquires”themfromGod,whoistheirrealcause.Thetheoryofacquisitionissomewhatsimilar to thatof the Jabrite JahmbinSafwan (d.745),whosaid thatman’sactionscanbeimputed to him only in the way as one imputes “bearing fruit to the tree.” Ash‘arite AlShahrastani (d. 1153) attempted to explain that “God creates, in man, the power, ability,choice,andwilltoperformanact,andman,endowedwiththisderivedpower,choosesfreelyone of the alternatives and intends or wills to do the action and, corresponding to thisintention,Godcreatesandcompletestheaction.”76Also,Allahcreatesinthemindofthemanactinghisacceptanceofhisaction,whichmeansthatevenhisacquisitionofhisactisdirectlycreatedbyAllah. If aman feelshe is acting freely, it is onlybecauseAllahhasplaced that

feelinginhim.

Al-Ash‘aridoesnotflinchfromtheunrealityofman’sacts—inthesenseoftheirnotbeingactstrulyproducedbyman’sfreewillandaction—impliedinthistheory,asheexplainsthatGodcancreatetheactandthewilltoact,aswell.“IfitispermissiblethatGodcreateprayerinanotherpersoninorderthattheotherpersonbecomesaprayingone,whyshoulditnotbepermissible for Him to create a will in another? [In so doing] that person becomes anintendingone.Or[whynotcreate]speech,wherebythatpersonbecomesaspeaker?”Hethenstates the Mu‘tazilite objection that such speech is not speech in reality because of itsinvoluntary character, like someone talking in their sleep. Al-Ash‘ari responds: “Nor is thespeechofanepilepticorasleepingpersonspeech inreality;nor is thespeechofawakingperson speech in reality”77 Al-Ash‘ari equates conscious, rational speechwith unconscious,irrationalmurmurings.Thewakingpersonisaslittlethecauseofhisspeechasthesleepingpersonisofhis,becausetheonlyrealcauseandactorisGod.

Al-Ash‘arimakesthisclearinadialogueformat:

Question:Whyis itthattheoccurrenceoftheactwhichisanacquisitiondoesnotprovethat ithasnoagentsaveGod,justasitprovesthatithasnocreatorsaveGod?

Answer:Thatisexactlywhatwesay.Question:ThenwhydoesitnotprovethatthereisnoonewithpoweroveritsaveGod?Answer:IthasnoagentwhomakesitasitreallyissaveGod,andnoonewithpoweroveritsothatitwillbeasit

reallyis,inthesensethathecreatesit,saveGod.78

Ifmaniswithoutthecapacitytocausehisownacts,freewill,ofcourse,makesnosense,

nordoestheideaof“acquisition.”InAverroes’scritiqueoftheAsh‘ariteposition,hesaidthattheyholdthat“althoughmanhasthepowerto ‘earn,’whatheearnstherebyandtheactofearningarebothcreatedbyGod.”“Butthis,”saidAverroes,“ismeaningless,becauseifGodAlmighty creates both the power to earn and what man earns, then the servant mustnecessarilybedeterminedtoearnit.”79

In place of free will, the Ash‘arites reinforced the traditionalist predilection for

predestination. Al-Ghazali said, “Behind this sea [of comprehending God’s justice] is themystery of predestinationwhere themanywander in perplexity andwhich thosewhohavebeen illuminated are forbidden to divulge. The gist is that good and evil are foreordained.Whatisforeordainedcomesnecessarilytobeafteraprioractofdivinevolition.Noonecanrebel against God’s judgement. No one can appeal His decree and command.”80 It isinteresting tonote thatal-Ghazali,whorebelledat the ideaofdeterministiccausality in thenaturalworldasanecessaryrelationbetweencauseandeffect,was,nonetheless,athoroughpredestinarianwhoinsistedthateverythinghappensnecessarily.Itappearsthatcausality,assuch,didnotseemtobetheproblem,butratherwhowasdoingthecausing.

HowdoesGod’sdirectactiononhumanbehaviorworkmetaphysically?IslamscholarLenGoodmanobserved:“TheAsh‘aritesconcededthatweactbycapacities....Butcapacities,ontheAsh‘arite account, are created byGod at the verymoment of the action. They have noprior existence (as mere dispositions or unactualized potentialities), and they are notpolyvalent [capable ofmore thanone thing]. If the capacity for an actionpredated the act,Ash‘ariargued,thentheactwouldalreadyhavetakenplace.”81Inotherwords,everythingisinstantaneousor,asGoodmansuggests,“onlytheactualisreal.”Also,potencyexistsonlyforaparticularactandisnotapreexistingpowertoact ingeneral.Asal-Ash‘arisaid,“Noonecandoathingbeforehedoesit.”82FazlurRahmanillustrateswhatthismeans:“BeforeIraisemyarm,Ihavenopowertoraisemyarm;GodcreatesthispowerinmeatthetimeIactuallyraisemyarm.”83Theactionthattakesplaceistheonlyactionthatcouldhavetakenplace.Al-Ash‘ariexplained,“Itisaconditionofcreatedpowerthatitsexistenceincludestheexistenceoftheobjectofthepower.”84Theactionhadtohappen.Inotherwords,thisisthereverseofFazlurRahman’sformulationoftheJabriteobjectionthatfreedomformanisbondageforGod.FortheAsh‘arites,freedomforGodmeansbondageforman.

This Ash‘arite position accounts for the preference in many Muslim thinkers to use theterms“substanceandaccidents” indescribingrealityand theirconcomitantaversion to theAristotelianterms“potencyandact”or“matterandform.”Potencyandact inhere inthingshavinganaturethatendures.Thenatureofathingdefinesinpotencywhatithasthecapacitytobecome—infact,whatitoughttobecome—inactuality,butnotyethas.Therefore,anacornisanoaktreeinpotency.Nomatterwheretheacornisinitstrajectoryonitswaytobecoming

anoak,itsnaturepreventsitfrombecomingaman,orsomethingotherthananoak.

This ispreciselywhat theAsh‘aritesdisputedwith their insistenceon the simultaneityofpotencyandact.A thing iswhat isonly for themoment inwhich it is,afterwhich itmightbecomesomethingelse,or rather,moreaccurately,be replacedbysomethingelse.Theoaktreemay seem to be the same thing over time but only because the series ofmoments inwhich it exists form familiar sequences. For reasons man cannot fathom, God’s direct willusually keeps these sequences in a familiar order, but they have no order of, or within,themselves.Evenal-GhazaliwonderedattheconsistencywithwhichGodkeepsinsequencefire and the burning of cotton, but he shut the door to any inquiry that could produceknowledge concerning it: “The predisposition for receiving forms varies through causeshidden fromus, and it is notwithin the power of flesh to know them.”85 Thus, there is noentelechy,nosuchthingas“havingone’sendwithin,”asAristotleputit.JustasGoddoesnotactteleologically,Hiscreatureshavenotelos.

The extraordinary claim of the simultaneity of potency and act comes perilously close todenyingtheprincipleofcontradiction—thatathingcannotbe,andnotbe,inthesameway,atthesametime, in thesameplace—withoutwhicheverything lapses into incoherence. It isapowerfuldemonstrationofthelengthstowhichtheAsh‘aritesfeltitnecessarytogotoprotecttheirnotionof theradicalsovereigntyandomnipotenceofAllah, for thesakeofwhich theyplacedallelseinmetaphysicaljeopardy.Italsoemptiesthetermpotencyofanyrealmeaning,since an atom cannot exist with the potential to be anything other than what it is in itsinfinitesimal instance of existence. There really is no such thing as potency, only pure,instantaneousact,withAllahastheonlyactor.

Muchislostwiththedenialoftheexistenceofpotency.Aristotle’snotionofpotencyandactwasasolution to theperplexingmetaphysicalproblemofhowthingscouldchangeandstillsomehowremainthesame.Pre-Socraticshadproposedeitherthatallwaschangeandnothingremainedthesame(Heraclitus)orthateverythingstayedthesameandchangewasanillusion(Parmenides).Bothnotionsrancountertothedailyexperienceofmankindofthingschangingbutsomehowkeepingtheir identity.Somethingpersists throughthechange.ThepositionoftheAsh‘aritesseemstobeareversiontothepre-SocraticpositionofHeraclitus.Italsosharesin the huge epistemological problem that Socrates pointed out to a disciple of Heraclitus,Cratylus:Ifchangeisall,howcanmanknow?Socratesasked:“Canwetrulysaythatthereisknowledge, Cratylus, if all things are continually changing and nothing remains? Forknowledgecannotcontinueunlessitremainsandkeepsitsidentity.Butifknowledgechangesitsveryessence,itwillloseatonceitsidentityandtherewillbenoknowledge.”86

Bysubvertingthefoundationofknowledgeinthismanner,theAsh‘aritepositionalsoraises

problemswithitself:Ifitweretrue,howcouldoneknowittobetrue?Howcouldonenoticethat everything is changing unless something in the observer of the change remained thesame?Inotherwords,howcouldmemory,thebasisofidentityandcivilization,exist?

Sincesuchaviewofthingscouldhardlyhavebeenarrivedatempirically,whatmighthavebeenthemotivationinadoptingit—particularlywhenitseemsatsuchoddswiththeordinaryexperienceofreality?Why,onewonders,didtheAsh‘aritesfeelitnecessarytoembraceGreekskepticismtothisextent?

Fazlur Rahman suggested, “TheMutakallims rejected the Aristotelian doctrine ofmatterand form as a prerequisite for rejecting natural causation and restated the early Ash‘ariteatomismwith fresh arguments until affirmation of atomism and denial of natural causationcametobelookeduponasalmostacardinalreligiousdogmaregardedasanecessarysteptoprove the temporalcreationof theworldandthe Islamiceschatology.”87Theybeganwithaconclusion received fromrevelation,and thendeducedwhat they thoughtwasnecessary tosupportitinmetaphysicalterms.Thisdrovethemtoabandoncausalityinthenaturalworld.Inshort,theAsh‘ariteswerecompelledbytheirtheologytodenyreality.

Concerning al-Baqilani and the Ash‘arite school in general, Macdonald offered a relatedhypothesis: “In truth, their philosophy is in its essence a skepticism which destroys thepossibilityofaphilosophyinordertodrivemenbacktoGodandHisrevelationsandcompelthem to see in Him the one grand fact of the universe.”88 In other words, Ash‘arism’sscorched-earthpolicytowardreasonattemptedtoleavemanwithnoalternativetoitself.ItiseithertheirGodornothing.

Chapter4THETRIUMPHOFASH‘ARISM

Despiteitsradicalism,Ash‘arismsweptthroughpracticallytheentireSunniworld.Indeed,theulema (Islamic legal scholars) of every school but the literalist Hanbali came to acceptAsh‘arism.SetagainstthehereticalrationalistMu‘tazilitesandthetraditionalistHanbalites,the Ash‘arite school became known—rather remarkably—as the “middle way.”* ThisperceptiondevelopedbecausetheHanbaliteswereactuallymoreextremeintheirrejectionofreason.Theydisputedevenal-Ash‘ari’s limiteduseof it indefendingorexplainingreligiousdogmas.WhentheHanbaliteshadtheupperhandinBaghdadundervizieral-Kundri,Fridayprayers

includedcursesagainst theAsh‘arites.Around1063,however,Nizamal-Mulk, thepowerfulviziertoSeljuksultanAlp-Arslan,hadthecursesstopped.AccordingtoBritishIslamscholarW. Montgomery Watt, al-Mulk also “began to implement a policy of supporting andstrengthening the Ash‘arites against the other theological and legal schools.”1 In 1067, al-Mulk opened a college in Baghdad, the Nizamiyya, to propagate Ash‘arite teachings, andfoundedat leasteightmoreinplacesrangingfromMosultoHerat.“Thus,”concludesWatt,“Ash‘arite theologybecame the formof Islamicdoctrine supportedby thegovernment.”2 In1077,al-GhazalibeganhisstudiesattheNizamiyyacollegeinNishapur,whereheremaineduntil1085.Later,from1091to1095,al-GhazaliservedastheheadoftheNizamiyyacollegeinBaghdad.Withstateaid,theinfluenceoftheAsh‘ariteschoolspreadtobecomethemostinfluentialin

the Sunni Arab world.With its success came the broadly accepted understanding that theMu‘tazilite school was heretical. In his El Khutat El Maqrizia (The Maqrizian Plans), thefamousMuslimhistorianal-Maqrizi (d.1442)givesanaccountofhowAsh‘arismtriumphed,whichismadeallthemoreinterestingbecauseoftheprominentroleofthefamousSaladin,whorecapturedJerusalemfromtheCrusaders:

Themadhdhab[school]ofAbu’l-Hasanal-‘Ash‘arispreadinIraqfromaround380AH*sandfromtherespreadtoSham[theLevant].WhenthevictoriouskingSalahuddeenYsufbinAyyubtookcontroloverEgypt,hismainjudgesadruddeen‘AbdulMallikbin’IsabinDarbasal-Maraniandhimselfwereadherentstothisschoolofthought.Themadhdhabwasalsospread by the just ruler Nuruddeen Mahmood bin Zinki in Damascus. Salahuddeen memorised a text authored byQutbuddeenAbu‘l-Ma‘aliMas‘oodbinMuhammadbinMas’oodan’Naysaburiandthis(Ash‘ari)textwasthenstudiedandmemorisedbySalahuddeen’soffspring.Thisgaveprominenceandstatustothemadhdhab[attributed]toal-‘Ash‘ariandwastakenonboardbythepeopleduringtheirrule.ThiswascontinuedbyallofthesuccessiverulersfromBaniAyyub(theAyyubid)andthenduringtheruleoftheTurkishkings(Mamluks).Abu‘AbdullahMuhammadbinTumart,oneoftherulersoftheal-Marghrib(Morocco),agreedwiththis(Ash‘ari)trendwhenhetravelledtoal’-Iraq.Hetookthe‘Ash‘arimadhdhabonboardviaAbuHamidal-GhazaliandwhenIbnTumartreturnedtoal-Maghribhecausedaclashandbegantoteachthepeopleofthelandthe‘Ash‘arimadhdhabandinstituteditforthepeople.3

Al-GhazaliandtheAttackonPhilosophyWhileAsh‘arite influence effectively suppressedMu‘tazilite teachings in theSunniworld, itwasal-GhazaliwhoextendedtheAsh‘aritecritiquetophilosophyitself.Al-Ghazaliisatitanicfigure, consideredbymanyMuslims tobe the secondmost importantperson in Islam,nextonlytoMuhammad.Hehasbeencalledthe“ProofofIslam”andwasconsideredaMujaddid(reviver or reformer), who Muhammad promised would arrive every century to revitalizeIslam.Al-Ghazaliiswidelyreveredtothisday.Inlargepart,itisbecauseofhisinfluencethatAsh‘arismbecameSunniorthodoxyandthatphilosophysuffereditscoupdegrâce.Itwasalsoal-Ghazaliwho integratedSufism, themysticalsideof Islam, intotheorthodoxSunniworld,where it hadbeenheld highly suspect for its neglect of Islamic duties and it propensity topantheism.Theassaultonphilosophy,ledbyal-Ghazali,naturallygrewoutoftheobjectionsAsh‘arites

raised against a rational theology and a rational ethics. Such objections applied equally to

philosophy,becausetheyareobjectionstotheroleofreasonitself.Butbeyondthesegeneralissues, al-Ghazali spelled out a number of objections specific to philosophy that ensured itwouldnotgainwideadherenceintheMuslimworld.Al-Ghazali’sintentionwastodemonstratethat,onaphilosophicalbasis,themajorpositions

ofthephilosophers(andparticularlythoseofAvicenna[981–1037],theforemostphilosopherandphysicianofhistime)couldnotbeprovedbyreason.Evenfurther,hewishedtoshowthatphilosophyandreasonwereincapableofprovidingintellectualcertitude.Infact,heasserted,philosophyhasnotruthsofitsowntooffer.4InTheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,hesaid,“What . . . we assert is that the philosophers are unable to know these things by rationaldemonstration.Ifthesethingsweretrue,theprophetswouldknowthemthroughinspirationorrevelation;butrationalargumentscannotprovethem.”Therefore,heannounced,“Ihavebeen led to reject philosophic systems.”5 After undermining the path of reason, al-Ghazaliturned toward Sufism, where, he claimed, he found the certitude he sought in mysticalexperiences.Inhisautobiography,DeliverancefromError,al-GhazalifirsttakestotasktheMaterialists,

who deny a Creator, and then Naturalists, who, while admitting a Creator, deny theimmortality of the soul. Both these schools were refuted by the Theists, among whom al-GhazalicountsSocratesandPlato.AristotleimproveduponSocratesandPlato,“buthecouldnoteliminatefromhisdoctrinethestainsofinfidelityandheresywhichdisfiguretheteachingofhispredecessors.Weshouldthereforeconsiderthemallasunbelievers,aswellastheso-calledMuslim philosophers, such as Ibn Sina [Avicenna] and Al Farabi, who have adoptedtheirsystems.”Aristotle’sphilosophy,al-Ghazalisays,canbedividedintothreeportions:“thefirstcontainsmatterjustlychargeablewithimpiety,thesecondistaintedwithheresy,andthethirdweareobligedtorejectabsolutely.”6While admitting the validity ofmathematics, logic, andphysics as inoffensive to faith, al-

Ghazali charges thatmetaphysics is themost offensive because it is “the fruitful breeding-groundoferrorsofthephilosophers.”Theseerrorshereducesto“twentypropositions:threeof them are irreligious, and the other seventeen heretical.” The three most egregiouspropositions are: (1) “Bodies do not rise again; spirits alonewill be rewarded or punished;futurepunishmentswillbethereforespiritualandnotphysical”;(2)“‘Godtakescognizanceofuniversals, not of specifics.’ This ismanifestly irreligious”; and (3) “Theymaintain that theuniverseexistsfromalleternityandwillneverend.”7Thesethreepropositions,hemaintains,areindirectcontradictiontotheIslamicteachingsofbodilyresurrection;physicalsufferinginhell and pleasure in paradise;God’s omniscience; and creation ex nihilo. In taking on eachargument,al-Ghazalidemonstratestheuncertaintyofanypositiononthesemattersreachedbyreason.Whilethephilosophersclaimedthatonlythesoul is immortal,al-GhazaliassertsthatGod

canrecreatethebodyattheresurrection,justasHehadcreatedthebodyinthefirstplace—either exactly as it was, or analogously. God could easily recreate what He had madenonexistent.ThemistakenobjectiontothispossibilitycomesfromthosewhodonoacceptGodas the immediate and direct cause of everything. Within Ash‘arite atomistic metaphysics,bodilyresurrectionisnotaproblem.The philosophers held that God could know only universals and not particulars, because

knowledgeofparticularsimpliessomechangeinGod,whichisimpossible.Hedoesnotknowparticulars,which are the conditions of time andplace, because these are objects of senseexperience of which God, as spirit, cannot partake. Al-Ghazali’s rebuttal is that God isomniscient, soHemust knowparticulars, aswell. Al-Ghazali defends theQur’anic doctrinethat“thesmallestparticleinheavenoronearth”doesnotescapeGod’sknowledge.Changeintheobjectofknowledge,heclaims,doesnotimplychangeintheKnower,whohasknownallthingssimultaneouslyineternity.FororthodoxIslam,themajorstumblingblockinAristotleistheeternityofmatter,which

wasacceptedbyalmostalltheMuslimphilosophers,withexceptionofal-Kindi.AlFarabiandAvicenna embraced the view that the heavens were eternally and necessarily produced byGod. Not only does a necessary, eternal world compromise creation ex nihilo, but itunavoidablyleadstopantheism.Al-GhazalispendsalmostaquarterofhisfamousbookTheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers

onthisissue.Hefindsparticularlyobjectionabletheideathattheworldexistsnecessarily,asanemanationfromGod,liketheraysfromthesun.Thephilosopher’spositionwasdrivenbytheconsiderationthatGod’screationoftheworldataparticularmomentintimewouldimplya change inGod,which is impossible.Aperfectbeing cannot change.Therefore, theworldmusthavealwaysexisted,eternallyemanatingfromGod.Toal-Ghazali,thephilosophers’claimcontradictsGod’sfreedomtocreateornottocreate;

in other words, an eternal world is a denial of God’s free will. Al-Ghazali responds to thephilosophers’ position by saying that it is inconsistent, that they could not disprove thepossibilityofcreationexnihilo.AristotlearguedfortheexistenceofGodastheFirstCausebecauseaninfiniteregressofuncausedcausesisimpossible.Thisargumentfallsapart,saysal-Ghazali, if theworld is eternal, because, if bodies areeternal, they requireno cause.Aninfiniteserieswouldnotbeimpossible;infact,theeternityoftheworldwouldrequirethataninfiniteseriesofcausesandeffects,fathersandsons,hadalreadycomeandgone.Wherewithin this infiniteseriescouldone insertaFirstCause?asksal-Ghazali. Itwould

clearlybeimpossible.Therefore,thephilosopherswhoholdthispositioncannotdemonstratethe existence ofGod as theFirstCause. Also, one cannot properly speak of aCreator of auniverse that is eternally emanating from the Creator. How could there be a causalrelationshipbetweentwoeternallyexistingthings?Withthissyllogism,al-Ghazalineatlydispatchesthecasefortheeternityoftheworld:“An

actualinfinitecannotbecompletedbysuccessiveaddition.Thetemporalseriesofpasteventshasbeencompletedbysuccessiveaddition.Thetemporalseriesofpasteventscannotbeanactualinfinite.”8While this brief summary is inadequate to the merits of the arguments, it is meant to

demonstratethegeneralpointofal-Ghazali’semphasisontheinadequacyofreasontoarriveatcertainty.Hewishedtoshowthatwhatthephilosophersheldwasnottheresultofreason,but was really a different form of faith, antithetical to one based upon Islamic revelation,because the philosophers “oppose the principles of religion.” unlike Islam, their faith wasgroundless.SamplechapterheadingsinTheIncoherenceillustratehispurposeindebunkingtheability

ofphilosopherstoproveanything:

IV.Toshowtheirinabilitytoprovetheexistenceofthecreatoroftheworld;

V.OftheirinabilitytoprovebyrationalargumentsthatGodisone,andthatitisnotpossibletosupposetwonecessarybeingeachofwhichisuncaused;

...IX.Oftheirinabilitytoprovebyrationalargumentsthatthereisacauseorcreatoroftheworld;

...XII.ToshowtheirinabilitytoprovethatGodknowsHimselfeither;

...XIV.Toshowtheirinabilitytoprovethattheheavenisliving,andobeysGodthroughitsrotatorymotion;

...XVIII.Of their inability to give a rational demonstration of their theory that the human soul is a spiritual substancewhichexistsinitself.9

It isquitebesidethepointastowhetheral-Ghazaliactuallydefeatedthephilosopherson

theseissues.InTheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence,aspiritedrebuttalofal-Ghazali,Averroescertainlydisputedthathehad.Thepointremains,however,thatal-Ghazaliwasgenerallyseenashavingdonesoratherthoroughly.TheTriumphofSkepticism:TheUncertaintyofKnowledgeAfter the thoroughdrubbingof thephilosophers, thequestionremained:Ofwhat, then,canmanbe sure andhow ishe to know?This is the intriguingquestion that al-Ghazali puts tohimselfinhisautobiographicalaccountinDeliverancefromError.Heaudaciouslyannouncestothereaderthathewillrelate“myexperienceswhiledisentanglingtruthlostinthemedleyof sects anddivergenciesof thought, andhow Ihavedared to climb from the low levels of

traditionalbelieftothetopmostsummitsofassurance.”10Al-Ghazaliimmodestlyclaimsthat,topreparefortheenterprise,hemasteredthesumtotalofrelevantknowledge:“Thereisnophilosopher whose system I have not fathomed, nor theologian the intricacies of whosedoctrineIhavenotfollowedout.Sufismhasnosecrets intowhichIhavenotpenetrated.”11Heisthemasterofall.Al-Ghazali relates that he left behind “the fetters of tradition and freed myself from

hereditarybeliefs”atayoungage.Hethensetsout“inthefirstplacetoascertainwhatarethebasesofcertitude.”Hedefinescertitudeinanextraordinaryway:“certitudeistheclearandcompleteknowledgeofthings,suchknowledgeasleavesnoroomfordoubtnorpossibilityof error and conjecture, so that there remains no room in the mind for error to find anentrance.”12Thiscertitudemustbesosolidthatevenamiraclecouldnotshakeit.“Allformsof knowledge which do not unite these conditions [imperviousness to doubt, etc.] do notdeserve any confidence, because they are not beyond the reach of doubt, and what is notimpregnable to doubt can not constitute certitude.”13 This standard would seem to carrywithin itself a recipe for disaster; by definition, human beings would find it impossible toattainsuchcertainknowledge.From where, one wonders, might al-Ghazali have gotten his criteria for certitude? How

couldanythingbethatcertain?Thenanechosoundsfromasimilarassertionofcertitude.Itcomesfromtherealsourcefromwhichhewasworkingandtowhichhereturnedintriumph.TheanswerisatthebeginningofthesecondSurahoftheQur’an,whichstates:“ThisistheBookaboutwhichthereisnodoubt,aguidanceforthoseconsciousofAllah”(Qur’an2:2).Itseems, then, that the thingaboutwhich there isnodoubt is theQur’an.Buthow is one toarriveatthisrealization?Whatarethemeansforachievingthiscertitude?Itwouldseemthatonemust be “conscious of Allah.”Wewill shortly see how al-Ghazali pursued this state ofconsciousness and reached the kind of certitude he needed to fulfill thewish expressed inSurah102:“Ifyouonlyknewwiththeknowledgeofcertainty...”Al-Ghazali’s stated demands for certitude are so strict that there is little suspense in his

explorationsofthevariousfieldsofknowledgetoseewhethertheywillproduceresultsthatmeet his requirements.Of course theywill not; it ismore or less a forgone conclusion.Al-Ghazali’s dogmatic skepticism is too corrosive to allow anything towithstand its dissolventpowers. But dogmatic skepticism is simply that—another kind of dogma, not any moreconvincingthananyotherdogma. In fact, it is lessconvincing,because itspremisescannotwithstandbeingappliedtoitself.Onecaneasilyobjectthatal-Ghazalishouldhavebeenmoreskepticalofhisskepticism.However,heisradicallyskepticaltoapurpose;hisskepticismhastobeunderstoodintermsofthedesireddestinationtowhichittookhim.Al-Ghazali begins to take stock of the thingshe thinkshe knows. “I then examinedwhat

knowledge I possessed, and discovered that in none of it, with the exception of sense-perceptionsandnecessaryprinciples,did I enjoy thatdegreeof certitudewhich Ihave justdescribed.Ithensadlyreflectedasfollows:‘Wecannothopetofindtruthexceptinmatterswhichcarrytheirevidenceinthemselves—that istosay, insense-perceptionsandnecessaryprinciples.’”14Hediscovers,however, thathisconfidence insenseperceptions ismisplaced.Forexample,“theeyeseesastarandbelievesitaslargeasapieceofgold,butmathematicalcalculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and allotherswhichthesensesdeclaretrue,aresubsequentlycontradictedandconvictedoffalsityinan irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason.” Therefore, “my confidence in them wasshaken.”15Hegoeson:“ThenIreflectedinmyself:‘SinceIcannottrusttotheevidenceofmysenses,I

mustrelyonlyonintellectualnotionsbasedonfundamentalprinciples,suchasthefollowingaxioms:Tenismorethanthree.Affirmationandnegationcannotcoexisttogether.Athingcannotbothbecreatedandalsoexistentfrometernity, livingandannihilatedsimultaneously,atoncenecessaryandimpossible.’”16Nexttogowashisconfidenceinthesenecessaryprinciples,includingtheindispensableone

oftheprincipleofcontradiction.Hissystemicdoubtmadethefollowingobjections:“Whocanguaranteeyouthatyoucantrusttotheevidenceofreasonmorethantothatofthesenses?Youbelievedinourtestimonytillitwascontradictedbytheverdictofreason,otherwiseyouwouldhavecontinued tobelieve it to thisday.Well,perhaps, there isabovereasonanother

judgewho,ifheappeared,wouldconvictreasonoffalsehood,justasreasonhasconfutedus.Andifsuchathirdarbiterisnotyetapparent,itdoesnotfollowthathedoesnotexist.”17Al-Ghazali wonders if this is not like when “asleep you assume your dreams to be

indisputably real? Once awake, you recognize them for what they are—baseless chimeras.Whocanassureyou,then,ofthereliabilityofnotionswhich,whenawake,youderivefromthesensesandfromreason?Inrelationtoyourpresentstatetheymaybereal;butitispossiblealsothatyoumayenteruponanotherstateofbeingwhichwillbearthesamerelationtoyourpresent state as this does to your condition when asleep. In that new sphere you willrecognizethattheconclusionsofreasonareonlychimeras.”18Ofcourse,speculationssuchasthesereduceeverythingtogibberishandmakeitimpossible

to think. Once you negate the reliability of the senses and jettison the principle ofcontradiction, all meaningful discourse comes to a halt. Not surprisingly, the effect on al-Ghazaliwasanacutemental,ifnotpsychological,crisis:“Thisunhappystatelastedabouttwomonths, during which I was not, it is true, explicitly or by profession, but morally andessentially, a thorough-going skeptic.” Then “God at last deigned to healme of thismentalmalady; my mind recovered sanity and equilibrium, the primary assumptions of reasonrecovered with me all their stringency and force. I owed my deliverance, not to aconcatenationofproofsandarguments,buttothe lightwhichGodcausedtopenetrate intomyheart—the lightwhich illuminates the threshold of all knowledge.”19 Al-Ghazaliwas, heclaims,healednotbyreasonbutbygrace.Sane again, he embarks upon an examination of the respective claims of the different

seekersaftertruth.Thefirstaretheorthodoxtheologians.Theyhavemeritasapologistswho“preserve the purity of orthodox beliefs from all heretical innovation,” but have theirlimitations.“Theirprincipaleffortwastoexposetheself-contradictionsoftheiropponentsandtoconfutethembymeansofthepremiseswhichtheyhadprofessedtoaccept.Nowamethodof argumentation like this has little value for one who only admits self-evident truths.Scholastic theology could not consequently satisfy me nor heal the malady from which Isuffered.”20Nextcomethephilosophers.Wehavealreadyseenal-Ghazali’sobjections to them inThe

Incoherence. “All, in spite of their diversity, are marked with the stamp of infidelity andirreligion.” He concludes that, for the general run ofmankind, “the reading of philosophicwritingssofullofvainanddelusiveutopiasshouldbeforbidden,justastheslipperybanksofariver are forbidden to one who knows not how to swim.”21 Al-Ghazali did, however,incorporate Aristotelian syllogistic logic into his theology, which had a lasting effect onkalam.22TheSolutionofSufiMysticismLastly, al-Ghazali takes up the Sufis and describes their aim: “To free the soul from thetyrannicalyokeofthepassions,todeliveritfromitswronginclinationsandevil instincts, inorderthatinthepurifiedheartthereshouldonlyremainroomforGodandfortheinvocationof his holy name.” This, then, was not so much an intellectual as a spiritual exercise. “Itbecamecleartomethatthelaststagecouldnotbereachedbymereinstruction,butonlybytransport,ecstasy,andthetransformationofthemoralbeing.”Therefore,saysal-Ghazali,“IsawthatSufismconsistsinexperiencesratherthanindefinitions,andthatwhatIwaslackingbelongedtothedomain,notofinstruction,butofecstasyandinitiation.”23Knowing this path and following it proved to be two different things, and the disparity

betweenthemprovokedthenextspiritualcrisisinal-Ghazali’slife.Thoughhe“sawthattheonly condition of success was to sacrifice honors and riches and to sever the ties andattachmentsofworldly life,”he couldnotquitebringhimself todo it.Hekept resolving togiveuphisprestigiousteachingpositioninBaghdad,andthenfailingtokeephisresolution.At last, “God caused an impediment to chainmy tongue and preventedme from lecturing.VainlyIdesired,intheinterestofmypupils,togoonwithmyteaching,butmymouthbecamedumb. The silence to which I was condemned cast me into a violent despair; my stomachbecameweak;Ilostallappetite;Icouldneitherswallowamorselofbreadnordrinkadropofwater.”24

Herecoveredfromthisdirestate,forwhichthephysicianshadnocure,onlyupontaking“refugeinGodasamanattheendofhimselfandwithoutresources.”HethenresignedfromtheBaghdadNizamiyyacollege in1095, leftprovisions forhis family,gaveawayeverythingelse,andwanderedofftoliveasanasceticinSyria,Palestine,and,finally,Mecca.Hereports:“Ten years passed in this manner. During my successive periods of meditation there wererevealed to me things impossible to recount. All that I shall say for the edification of thereaderisthis:IlearnedfromasuresourcethattheSufisarethetruepioneersonthepathofGod;thatthereisnothingmorebeautifulthantheirlife,normorepraiseworthythantheirruleofconduct,norpurerthantheirmorality.”25In1105,al-GhazaliwasbackinhisnativecityofTus(easternIran),whereheestablishedaSufihostel.In1106,heresumedteaching,thistimeat the Nizamiyya college in Nishapur, at the request of the vizier of the Seljuk prince ofKhurasan.In1109,heretiredandreturnedtoTus,wherehediedin1111.What can seem hubristic in al-Ghazali’s work, such as his extravagant claims in

Deliverance,wasactuallypartofastrategy tovindicateSunniorthodoxyandrevelation.Bydemonstratingthatnoneoftherationalargumentsonvitallyimportantissuesisconclusive,al-Ghazali impelled recourse to revelation as the only authority left, and then substantiated itthrough mysticism. His Sufi quest showed that it is through the supra-rational that thecertaintyoftheBookisconfirmed.He endedDeliverance, as he ended his life, with a beautiful spiritual prayer that helps

explainthedeepreverenceinwhichal-GhazaliisheldintheIslamicworldtothisday.Itreads:“IprayGodtheOmnipotenttoplaceusintheranksofhischosen,amongthenumberofthosewhomHedirectsinthepathofsafety,inwhomHeinspiresfervorlesttheyforgethim;whomHe cleanses from all defilement, that nothingmay remain in them except Himself; yea, ofthose whomHe indwells completely, that they may adore none beside Him.”26 Even thosewithinIslamwhocriticizedal-Ghazali,suchasIbnTaymiyya,didnotdoubthissincerity.Al-Ghazali’sexcursionintoSufism(fromsuf,theroughwoolfromwhichSuficlotheswere

made) was not without its dangers. The orthodox Sunni ulema looked upon Sufism withsuspicionbecause it haddevelopedbeyondpious exercises in spiritual purgation into someextravagantandhighlyheterodoxclaims.Ithadalsobecomeverypopular.TherigidlegalismofSunniIslamanditsemphasisonmandatoryritualobservancesmaketheappealofSufismeasytounderstand.JustasthedenialofcauseandeffectbyAsh‘aritetheologianscouldnotpreventtheaverageMuslimfromsensiblystartingafiretocookameal,thedepersonalizedAsh‘arite deity—placed beyond morality, inscrutable and unapproachable—did not keepMuslims fromenvisaging somethingmore. In reaction to this spiritually sterile depiction ofGod,Sufismarose.Itofferedamorepersonal,lovingencounterwithGod.InSufism,Muslimssoughtandclaimedtofindthemerciful,compassionateAllah,whoknewthemandwithwhomtheycouldhaveapersonalexperience—even,ifonedaresayit,aunion.Al-GhazaliaddressedboththesubjectofloveandthesterilityoftheSunniulema:

LoveforGodisthefurthestreachofallstations,thesumofthehighestdegrees,andthereisnostationafterthatoflove,exceptitsfruitanditsconsequences...noristhereanystationbeforelovewhichisnotapreludetoit,suchaspenitence,longsuffering,andasceticism....Yetsomeofthe“ulam”denythepossibilityofloveforGod,andsaythatitmeansnothingmorethanperseveringinobediencetoGod,beHeexalted,whiletrueloveofGodisimpossibleexceptmetaphoricallyorinveryunusualcircumstances.And,sincetheydenythepossibilityoflovingGod,theyalsodenyanyintimacywithHim,orpassionatelongingforHim,orthedelightofconfidinginHim,andtheotherconsequencesoflove.Thuswemust of necessity dealwith thismatter here, andmention in this book the proofs of the Law on love, andpropounditsrealityanditsoccasioningfeatures.27

Onemaynote thatal-Ghazali speaksonlyofman’s love forGod,notofGod’s love forman.Loving is a particularly problematic attribute forAllah to possess because it placesHim inrelationtoacontingentbeing.HowcanatotallytranscendentBeingloveacreatureinfinitelybelowHim?HowcanGoddesire?ASufitradition,welloutsideofwhatisallowableinSunniorthodoxy, exquisitely expresses God’s yearning for man: “I was a hidden treasure, beingunknown.ThenIdesiredtobeknown.SoIcreatedcreaturesandmademyselfknowntothem;andbyMetheyknewMe.”ThissideofSufism,al-Ghazalicouldnotallow.“Whenthereislove,”saidal-Ghazali,“theremustbeintheloverasenseofincompleteness;

arecognitionthatthebelovedisneededforcompleterealizationoftheself.”ForGodthisisimpossible, asHe is complete inHimself. “The loveofGodmeans thathe removes the veilfromtheheartofman;thatGodwillsandhaswilled,fromalleternity,thatmanshouldknow

Him,andthatGodcausesmantoknowHim.ThereisnoreachingoutonthepartofGod.HeonlyaffectsmansothatmanturnsandgoesouttoHim;therecanbenochangeinGod;nodevelopmentinHim;nosupplyingofalackinHimself.HeonlyaffectsmansothatmancomestoGod.”28Despite themany citations in theQur’anaboutGod’s love forhis obedient servants, this

mustbeunderstoodasGod’spredilection,anexpressionofHiswill.Hemayfavormanwhenhe obeys Him, but He does not love him. The Christian idea of agape, an overflowing,unconditionaldivineloveforman, iscompletelyforeigntoal-Ghazali’sversionofIslam—butnottoSufism.Twootherproblems seemed toplaceSufimysticismoutside thepaleofSunni orthodoxy.

Onewas themonism intowhich theSufi adept (meaningpractitioner)merged andbecameonewithGod.Thisnotionwasblasphemous.ManwasnotdivineandcouldnotbecomedivinebyunitingwithGod.TheotherwastheauthoritativeknowledgesuchSufisclaimedfromtheiruniqueexperiencesthatplacedthemaboveorbeyondtheshari‘a.TheseclaimsreachedtheirextremeinfigureslikeAbuYazidal-Bistami(d.875),whofirstpersonifiedthesedangerswithhis declaration: “Then He changed me out of my identity into His selfhood. . . . Then IcommandwithHimwiththetongueofHisGrace,saying‘howfareitwithmewithThee?’Hesaid: ‘I am thine throughThee; there isnoGodbutThee.’”29While al-Bistami claimed self-extinction in the ecstatic encounter with God, he also implied a self-identificationwith thedivineinhisexclamation:“Glorybetome,howgreatismyworth”30and“WithinthisrobeisnaughtbutAllah.”31Mansural-Hallaj(c.858–922)tookthistothepointofsaying:“Iamthetruth,”32ashockingclaimwhenonerealizesthat“truth” isoneofGod’sninety-ninenames.Unlike otherSufiswho feignedmadness to escapeSunni censure, al-Hallaj insistedhewascompletely sane. He also spoke openly to the crowds: esotericism for the masses. AnextraordinarytribunalinBaghdadtookhisdeclarationasaliteralclaimtobeGod,andhewaseventuallysubjectedtoamostgruesomeexecutionforblasphemy.TheproblemofspecialoresotericSufiknowledgewasmanifestedinastatementattributed

to al-Tustari (d. 896),who said, “Lordshiphas a secretwhich, ifmanifested,woulddestroyProphethood;andProphethoodhasasecret,whichifdivulged,wouldnullifyknowledge;andthegnosticshaveasecretwhich,ifmanifestedbyGod,wouldsetthelawatnaught.”33Settingthelawatnaughtwasexactlywhattheulema feared—anabrogationof thedivine lawuponwhichtheMuslimcommunitywasfoundedbysomethingclaimingtobesuperiorto it.Whatcouldbemoredangerous?TheulemaobservedcertainSufisexemptingthemselvesfromtheritualobservancesof Islamwith theexcuse that theyhad transcendedsuch rituals. Indeed,some even claimed that the truth (al hagg) they had reached transcended confessionaldifferences:“IamneitherChristian,norJew,norMuslim.”34Orevenworse,“Untilbeliefandunbeliefarequitealike,nomanwillbeatrueMuslim.”35Also, the Sufi emphasis on a personal quest for God through contemplation was not

congruentwith the ideaof theumma (communityofbelievers) asapolitical/religious/socialorderforthesalvationofthecommunity.PersonalsalvationshouldnottrumpthecommunalundertakingtorealizetheprojectofauniversalIslam.IntuitionReplacesReasonNonetheless,al-GhazalitooktheriskyplungeintoSufimysticismbecausetheredidnotappearto be any terms of rational discourse left for him to pursue. Itmay be nowonder that heturned inward and became a mystic. One could say that he not so much escaped intomysticismasboxedhimselfintoit.SincereasonwasnotareliablepathtorealityortoGod,howwasonetoknowthetruthofrevelation?Whatdidal-Ghazalihaveleftafterdevastatingthe philosophers and blocking the road of reason to reality? Although his skepticism issometimesseenasapresageofDavidHume’s,al-Ghazali’smoralagnosticismdidnotextendto God and revelation. For al-Ghazali, according to Fazlur Rahman, “only that knowledgedirectlyconducivetothesuccessinthehereafterdeservesthenameinthetruesenseoftheword.Thisknowledge is totallyesotericandexplores thedepthsof theSufiencounterwithGod.”36TheconclusionofthepartialversefromSurah102thatstates“Ifyouonlyknewwithknowledgeofcertainty...”isestimatedtobe“...youwouldnothavebeendistractedfrompreparing for the Hereafter.” Having attained that certainty of knowledge, al-Ghazali’s

attentionwasnowfixed.*ItishardlystrangethatsomeonewhothoughtGod’screationwasunmediatedbysecondary

causes—thateachmomentwas alivewith a direct act ofGod’swill—would finally concludethattheonlysureknowledgecomesfromexperience,withouttheintermediaryoftheintellect.Godcreateswithoutmediation, soanyexperienceofHimmustbedirect. Intuition replacesreason.Allreasoncandoisbringyoutothisrealization.Allreasoncanknowisitsownlimits.“Oneknowsnecessarilythathehasreachedapointbeyondthe intellect,”al-Ghazaliwrites,“andthereopensforhimtheeyefromwhichtheunseenisdisclosedandwhichonlythefewperceive.”37Andwhatisdisclosed?

Theycometoseeinthewakingstateangelsandsoulsofprophets;theyheartheirvoicesandwisecounsels.Bymeansofthiscontemplationofheavenlyformsandimagestheyrisebydegreestoheightswhichhumanlanguagecannotreach,whichonecannotevenindicatewithoutfallingintogreatandinevitableerrors.ThedegreeofproximitytoDeitywhichthey attain is regarded by some as intermixture of being (haloul), by others as identification (ittihad), by others asintimateunion(wasl).Butalltheseexpressionsarewrong,aswehaveexplainedinourworkentitled,“TheChiefAim.”Thosewhohavereachedthatstageshouldconfinethemselvestorepeatingtheverse—WhatIexperienceIshallnottrytosay;Callmehappy,butaskmenomore.Inshort,hewhodoesnotarriveattheintuitionofthesetruthsbymeansofecstasyknowsonlythenameofinspiration....Thispossibleconditionis,perhaps,thatwhichtheSufiscall“ecstasy”(hal),thatistosay,accordingtothem,astate

inwhich, absorbed in themselves and in the suspension of sense-perceptions, they have visions beyond the reach ofintellect.38

“Beyondthereachof the intellect” interms“whichhumanlanguagecannotreach” is the

keypoint.Certainknowledgeissupra-rational.InDeliverancefromError,al-Ghazaliexplainsthat this inspiration or revelation “belongs to a category of branches of knowledge whichcannot be attained by reason,” and that “the perception of things which are beyond theattainmentofreasonisonlyoneofthefeaturespeculiartoinspiration.”39Manmustreachahigherplaneofreality“bywhichheperceives invisiblethings,thesecretsofthefutureandotherconceptsas inaccessible toreasonas theconceptsofreasonare inaccessible tomerediscriminationandwhatisperceivedbydiscriminationofthesenses.”40What,then,isthepointofcorrespondence“beyondtheintellect”betweenmanandGod?As

wehaveseen,al-Ghazalirepeatedlyemphasizesthatitisnotreason.ThereisnoLogoshere,orthere.Ifitisnotman’sreasonthatisthereceptacleforthemessageofGod,whatis?Howis it thatmancanknowGod,who is incomparablyabovehim,atall? IfmancanknowGod,theremustbesomethinginhimcorrespondingtothedivine.WithinJudaismandChristianity,thisisnotaproblem,becauseinGenesisitstatesthatmanwas“createdinGod’simage,”andtheBookofWisdomdeclaresthat“Godformedmantobeimperishable;theimageofhisownnatureHemadehim”(Wisdom1:13–15)Butthis isblasphemyinorthodoxSunniIslam.Thedoctrineoftanzihmeanspreciselythatthereisnocorrespondence.ThereisoneHadiththatseemstogiveanopeningbyechoingGenesis:“Godcreatedmaninhisimage.”ButasFatherSamirKhalilSamirpointsout,“Inreality,themeaningoftheadjective‘his’inIslamis‘intheimageofman.’”41 Thus, the explicated passage reads, “God createdman inman’s image.”HowcanmanrelatetoGodifthereisnosimilaritybetweenthem?TheTriumphoftheWillObviously,thesourceoftherelationshipcannotbereason,sincereasondoesnotabideinGodandisaninferiorfacultyinman.ItwillbenosurprisethattheAsh‘arites,havingreducedGodtopurewill,findthewillastheonlypointofcorrespondencebetweenGodandman.Foral-Ghazali, according to Arab scholarDe LacyO’Leary, “The essential element of this [man’s]soulisnottheintelligencewhichisconcernedwiththebodilyframe,butthewill:justasGodis primarily known not as thought or intelligence, but as the volitionwhich is the cause ofcreation.”42DuncanMacdonaldgivesessentiallythesameanalysis:Al-Ghazali’s“primaryconceptionis,

volo ergo sum [I will; therefore I am]. It is not thought which impresses him, but volition.Fromthoughthecandevelopnothing; fromwill cancome thewhole rounduniverse.But ifGod,theCreator,isaWiller,so,too,isthesoulofman.Theyarekin,and,therefore,mancanknowandrecognizeGod.”43

And this relationship iswhatonediscovers in thehigher stateof consciousness thatSufiexperience alone produces. InGem of the Qur’an, al-Ghazali reports that the higher statereveals that “indeed, there isnothing inexistenceexceptGodandHisacts, forwhatever isthere besides Him in His act.”44 Pure will produces pure act. In The Niche for Lights, al-Ghazaliwritesthatmystics“areabletoseevisuallythatthereisnobeingintheworldotherthanGodandthatthefaceofeverythingisperishable,saveHisface(Qur’an28,88),not inthesense that itperishesat some timeorother,but rather in thesense that it isperishingeternallyandeverlastinglyandcannotbeconceivedtobeotherwise.Indeed,everythingotherthanHe,consideredinitself,ispurenonbeing....Therefore,nothingisexceptGodAlmightyand His face.”45 Of this sort of assertion, Paul Valéry (1871–1945) quipped, “God madeeverythingoutofnothing,butthenothingnessshowsthrough.”46Inrespecttoitself,nothingreallyexists.ThisistheresultnotsimplyofthecreationexnihilodoctrineofIslambutalsoofthemonismofitstheology.Al-Ghazali may have barely skirted the pantheism into which other Sufis had fallen and

wouldcontinuetofall,butonecanwonderhowfinea lineit isbetweensayingthatnothingexistsexceptGodandsayingthatallthatexistsisGod.G.B.MacDonaldobservedthat“itispart of the irony of the history of Muslim theology that the very emphasis on thetranscendental unity should lead thus to pantheism.”47 W. H. T. Gairdner called Islam “apantheismofpureforce.”48AnoveremphasisonGodasOnecaneasilymorphintoGodastheonly One, which then ineluctably incorporates everything into the only One, with nothingoutsideofit.Weareleftwitheithermonismorpantheism.TheLossofRealityGairdnerexplainedthelogicbehindthisintractabledilemma:“Andinfactweoftensee,inthehistory of Islamic thought,menwho have in their very insistence on absolute tanzih [puretranscendence]positivelyassertedthisverything,namely,thatonlyAllahexists,andthatallotherexistenceisillusory,asemblance.ThisisthethoughtthatunderliestheirnameforGod—AlHaqq[theonlyReality].Theymeanthatnootherbeinghasrealityorexistence.Thesemen, whether they know it or not, are pure pantheists, their belief resembling the Indianphilosophicpantheism,wherebyallthatweseeisMaya[illusion].Thuseasilydoespuretanzihfalltoitsextremeopposite.Inthelanguageofthesemen,tawhiddidnotmerelymeancallingGod the One, but calling Him the Only—that is, denying reality or even existence to allphenomena whatsoever.”49 The metaphysical proposition operating here seems to be thatunlesssomethingisthecauseofitsownexistence,therecanbenorealityinit.SinceonlyGodis the cause of His own existence, only God exists; what He has created thenmust be anillusion.If God is the only Reality, then accepting the reality of the world becomes a form of

polytheism—placingtherealincompetitionwiththeonlyReal.However,denyingtherealityoftheworldforthisreasonboomerangsbackintopantheismbythenmakingtheworldpartofthe only Reality. The almost inescapable pull of pantheism from Islam’s doctrine of tanzih,despite the clear Qur’anic injunctions against it, makes particularly ironic al-Ghazali’sexpulsionofphilosophyfromSunniIslamonthegroundsthatitembracedpantheismthroughAristotle’semanationism.The significance of al-Ghazali’s embrace of Sufism for our general topic is that the

insubstantialityofrealityinSufismmakesreasonallthelessimportant,justasitelevatesthatwhichisbeyondreason—AlHaqq.Also,thatwhichisbeyondreasonisnotcommunicable.Itcannot be taught. It is beyond language. Al-Ghazali’s spiritual experience is inherentlyineffableandthereforeprivate.HansJonas,theGermanexpertonGnosticism,diagnosedthetypeofknowledgetowhichal-

Ghazali alluded asGnostic in nature: “It is closely boundupwith revelatory experience, sothat reception of truth either through sacred or secret lore or through inner illuminationreplacesrationalargumentsandtheory.”50Althoughal-GhazalirailedagainstGnosticism,itisfarfromclearthathedidnotengageinithimself.InTheNicheforLights,hespeaksofthemystic “state” of al-Hallaj, and other “inebriates,” and the expressions they emit in theirmystic intoxication—”behindwhich truths,” al-Ghazali says, “also lie secretswhich it is notlawfultoenterupon.”51Hadhetrespasseduponthisforbiddenterritory?

InTheNicheforLights,al-Ghazaliclaimsthattheendofthequestfortruthis“anExistentwho transcends ALL that is comprehensible by human Insight . . . transcendent of andseparatefromeverycharacterizationthatintheforegoingwehavemade.”52Inafootnotetothis statement, the translator and commentator, W. H. T. Gairdner, offers an extremelypenetrating insight intoal-Ghazali: “InGhazzâlî [sic] themostextremeAgnosticismand themostextremeGnosticismmeet,andmeetatthispoint;for,ashesays,‘thingsthatgobeyondoneextremepassovertotheextremeopposite.’Forhim‘CreedbecauseIncredible’becomes‘GnosisbecauseAgnoston.’WhatsavedtheUniverse forhim fromhisnihilistic theologizingwas his ontology. What saved God for him from his obliterating agnosticism was theexperienceofthemysticleap,hisownpersonalmi‘râj.Thismayhavebeennon-rational,butitwastohimexperience.EventhosewhoregardthesensationalexperienceofSûfismashavingbeen pure self-hypnotism cannot condemn them and the sense of reality they brought, inrelation to themanwho had thought his way out of both atheism and pantheism, and yetwould have been left at the end of the quest, by his thinking alone,with anUnknown andUnknowableAbsolute.”53Al-Ghazalimade it safe tobeaSufibyassimilatingSufism intoSunniorthodoxy.For this

synthesis,he iscreditedwithrevitalizingIslam.Althoughal-GhazalicertainlyseemstohaveflirtedwithGnosticism,he resolved thedifficultyof includingSufismwithinSunni Islambysayingthat,accordingtoFazlurRahman,“SufismhasnocognitivecontentorobjectbuttheveritiesoftheFaith.He,therefore,disallowedthepretensionofthetheosophicmysticismandcastigated themenof ecstatic delirium [emphasis in original].”54 Despite this achievement,theulemaremainedsuspiciousofSufismandfoundamplecausetobesowithoneofthemostfamous Sufis, Ibn al-Arabi (d. 1240), whose teachings were thoroughly monistic andpantheistic.BeyondReasonThemainpointhereisthattheincorporationofSufismhardlyenhancedthestatusofreasonwithinSunniIslam,asitsprincipalaccesstothedivineisthroughmeans“beyondreason”thatsimplyaffirmedthroughmysticalexperiencesthetruthsofthefaith.“NoticeinyourhearttheProphet’s knowledge, without book, without teacher, without instructor,” said Jalal al-DinRumi, the great thirteenth-century Persian Sufi poet.55 As Fazlur Rahman wrote, “Sufismproclaimed that only God exists. Both Ash‘arism and Sufism taught passivity vis-à-vis God,sincebothsubscribedtotheinanityofnaturalandhumanvoluntarycausations.”56Inthisway,certain tendencies within Sunni Islam were reinforced. The Ash‘arite absolute dependencyupon the will of God was now joined with the Sufi tendency to discount this world. Theunreality of this world transmitted an indifference to it. The resulting passivity easilytranslatedintoquietism.Weendupwithadoubledisparagementofreason—firstbyAsh‘arismandthenbySufism.

OnemayobjecttotheconclusionthatSufimysticismdenigratedreason.Something“beyondreason” isnotnecessarilyunreasonable,andthis iscertainly true.*Sound reasonadmits itsown limits.God is infinite and the humanmind finite. Some formofmysticismexists in allreligions. But al-Ghazali’s mysticism has to be seen within the context of his having firstundermined theauthorityof reason toknowrealityatall.Reason isnot leftasa safeguardagainstpotentialdelusionsinmysticism;onlythedogmaofrevelationis.Oneisthenleftwithnomeans to address themorebasic inquiry that theMu‘tazilites tried toundertake: Is therevelationitselfreasonable?Al-Ghazalidestroyedthestandardbywhichtojudgeananswertothisvitalquestion,oreventoaskitinthefirstplace.InDeliverancefromError,al-Ghazalistates:“Theonlybeneficialfunctionofintellectisto

teachus that fact [that prophets are the doctors of heart ailments], bearingwitness to theveracityofprophecyand itsown incompetence tograspwhatcanbegraspedby theeyeofprophecy; it takesusby thehandanddeliversus toprophecyas theblindaredelivered toguidesandconfusedpatientstocompassionatedoctors.Thusfaristheprogressandadvanceof intellect; beyond that it is dismissed.”57 Obviously, al-Ghazali rejected the Mu‘tazilitepositionthatthereisnofaithwithoutreason,orthatfaithrequiresrationalassent,sinceforhimreasonis“blind.”Thus,al-GhazalipraisedtheHajj—theobligatorypilgrimagetoMecca—preciselybecauseit

isbeyondreason.Hehighlighteditsirrationalityinordertoemphasizetheself-sufficiencyof

revelation as its justification. In The Revival of the Religious Sciences, he wrote, “ThepilgrimageisthemostirrationalthinginIslam.Thereweperformgesturesandritesthatareabsolutelyirrational.Forthisreason,thepilgrimageistheplacewherewecan,betterthaninanyotherplace,demonstrateourfaithbecausereasondoesnotunderstandanythingatallofitandonlyfaithmakesusdothoseactions.BlindobediencetoGodisthebestevidenceofourIslam.”58On similar grounds al-Ghazali objected to the claims of Muslim ethical philosopher Ibn

Miskawayh(940–1030)concerningthesignificanceofcommunalprayerandotherrituals.AssummarizedinAHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,“Al-GhazaliwasinfuriatedbyIbnMiskawayh’ssuggestion that the point of communal prayer is to base religion upon the naturalgregariousness of human beings in society. This seemed to al-Ghazali to disparage thereligiousenterprise,sincehearguedthatthesignificanceofreligiousritualsisthattheyarespecifiedby the religion,and therecanbenoother reason.Their rationale is that theyareunreasonable. God indicates the huge gap that exists between him and us by setting usunpleasantanddifficulttasks.ForIbnMiskawayh,thereasonfortheritualisthatithasaparttoplay inhelpingusadapt toreligious life,using thedispositions thatarenatural tous, sothat the rules and customs of religion are essentially reasonable.”59 This notion, of course,was inimical to al-Ghazali’s conception of religion as inaccessible to the intellect. IrrationalrulesaremoreefficaciousinbringingmanintosubmissiontoGod.Judah ha-Levi, a Jewish follower of al-Ghazali, wrote an attack on philosophy, entitled

Kuzari, inwhichheconcludedthatmanoughttoapproachrevelationfromGodpreciselybydismissingtheintellect:“Iconsiderhimtohaveattainedthehighestdegreeofperfectionwhoisconvincedofreligioustruthswithouthavingscrutinizedthemandreasonedoverthem.”60For al-Ghazali, the notion of God as pure will ineluctably leads to the elevation ofincomprehensibilityasavirtue.AsRémiBragueexplainsinhisrecentbookTheLawofGod,“Some[Islamic]authorsevenspecifythat‘enslavement’(toGod)formallyexcludesthesearchfor the reasons behind the commandments (ta’lil)”61 Reason is irrelevant to the requiredsubjectionand,infact,anobstacletoit.Acontemporaryversionofthisviewofreason’sirrelevancetofaithisrelatedbyDr.Tawfik

Hamid in his account of terrorist recruitment, The Development of a Jihadist’s Mind. Toappreciatethestory,onemustknowthatthedonkey isconsideredasymbolof inferiority inArabculture (which iswhyChristianswereordered to ridedonkeys, andnothorses,underearly Muslim rule). When Hamid was a medical student in Cairo, he was approached byMuchtar Muchtar from the foremost terrorist group in Egypt, Jemaah Islamiyah. Hamidrecounts:“Ontheway(tothemosque)MuchtaremphasizedthecentralimportanceinIslamoftheconceptofal-fikrkufr,theideathattheveryactofthinking(fikr)makesonebecomeaninfidel(kufr).Hetoldme,‘Yourbrainisjustlikeadonkeythatcangetyouonlytothepalacedooroftheking(Allah).Toenterthepalaceonceyouhavereachedthedoor,youshouldleavethe donkey (your inferior mind) outside.’ By this parable, Muchtar meant that a trulydedicatedMuslimnolongerthinksbutautomaticallyobeystheteachingsofIslam.”62Muchtar’staleisultimatelyrootedinal-Ghazali’sdismissaloftheintellectinMunqidh.The

Muchtar episode is the reductio ad absurdum of the idea of God as purewill, unbound byreason.InMuchtar’sparable,reason—thedonkey—hasnorelationshiptoGod,theking,theall-powerfulpurewill.*Theirrelevanceofreasoneasilyturnsintoantipathytowardit,asseeninplacardspostedinAfghanistanbytheTalibanreligiouspolice:“Throwreasontothedogs—itstinksofcorruption.”63 In Islam,dogsareconsidereduncleananimalsand, therefore, theproperrecipientsofcorruptreason.

*scholarssuchasGeorgeMakdisihavedisputedthis,claimingthatthetraditionalistsactuallymaintainedmoreinfluencethantheAsh‘arites.

*AHstandsforannoHegiare.TheMuslimcalendarstartsfromtheHijra,Muhammad’semigrationfromMeccatoMedina.ThisoccurredinA.D.622(commontime).

* By the Saheeh International-Riyadh translation of the Qur’an—since the actual text ends as indicated, the translatorspeculates,ratherauthoritatively,ontheending.

*Beyondreasondoesnotnecessarilymeanagainstreasonunlessitinsistsontheacceptanceofsomethingdirectlycontrarytoit—suchasthattheworlddoesnotreallyexist,asisthecontentionofsomeSufis.

*Bythiscomparison,Idonotmeantosuggesttheal-Ghazaliwouldbeinsympathywithterrorism,anymorethanIwould

say that Nietzsche was a Nazi. Nonetheless, both had their teachings vulgarized to a level where their emphasis on theprimacyofthewillhadunfortunateresults.

Chapter5THEUNFORTUNATEVICTORYOFAL-GHAZALIANDTHEDEHELLENIZATIONOFISLAM

Al-Ghazali’sinfluenceintheArabandMuslimworldwasoverwhelming.Theoverallimpactofhis thoughthasbeenmuchremarkedupondue to itsenormousconsequences.Hisultimatesignificancemay be that, in thewords of Pakistani philosophy professorM. AbdulHye, he“madetheAsh’aritetheologysopopularthatitbecamepracticallythetheologyoftheMuslimcommunityingeneralandhascontinuedtoremainsouptothepresenttime.”1Assuredbyal-Ghazali, the ascendancy of the Ash’arite school spelled the effective end of the attemptedassimilation of Greek thought into Sunni Islam. The Incoherence of the Philosophers,according to contemporary thinker Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “broke the back of rationalisticphilosophyandinfactbroughtthecareerofphilosophy...toanendintheArabicpartoftheIslamic world.”2 As Fazlur Rahman said, “Having failed to satisfy orthodox requirements,[philosophy]wasdeniedthepassporttosurvival.”3Through the teaching that nothing certain can be known by reason, al-Ghazali inflicted

incalculableharmonSunniIslamicposterity.Caliphal-Ma’mun’sdreamofAristotle(“thegoodiswhat is rationallygood”) turned intoanightmare.Mancouldnotknowwhat isgoodandmust subject his life and mind to blind obedience. While al-Ghazali certainly incorporatedsome philosophical tools into theology, he used those tools to undermine philosophy as anindependentstudy.InTheEncyclopaediaof Islam,G.B.MacDonaldsays:“Al-Ghazali taughtthat intellect shouldonlybeused todestroy trust in itself.”4DuncanMacdonaldconcluded,“Whenhehas finishedthere isno intellectualbasis left for life;hestandsbeside theGreekskepticsandbesideHume.Wearethrownbackonrevelation,thatgivenimmediatelybyGodto the individual soul or that given through prophets.”5 What use, then, did they find forreason?Macdonaldanswered:“Itsuse,theyfound,wastodemonstratethatitwasnotofanyuse... .Theycutawaythepossibilityofdealingwithreligionbymeansofreason... .Theyusedreasontocutawaythepossibilityofphilosophizingabouttheworldandaboutlife,and,then,havingdrivenphilosophyoff the fieldandanypossibilitieson thatside, they fellbackuponwhat their fathers had told themanduponwhat came to them in their own religiousexperience.”6TheattemptedhellenizationofIslamprovokeditsopposite.Almostonehundredyearsafteral-Ghazali’sTheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,Averroes

(1126–1198)triedtolaunchacounterattackagainstal-Ghazali’sdisparagementofphilosophywithTheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence(1180),whichisanalmostline-by-linerefutationofal-Ghazali’sbook.Afterall thedamagethathadbeendonebytheAsh’aritesandal-Ghazali,Averroesattemptedtorestoreparitybetweenreasonandrevelationofthekindthathadbeenespoused by al-Kindi. He also insisted, somewhat like the Mu’tazilites, that the study ofphilosophyiscommandedasanobligationindivinelaw.InTheBookoftheDecisiveTreatise,Averroesstated thatsince“their [theancients’]aimand intention in theirbooks is theveryintention to which the Law urges us . . . whoever forbids reflection upon them by anyonesuitedtoreflectionuponthem. . .surelybarspeoplefromthedoorthroughwhichtheLawcallsthemtocognizanceofGod.”7Averroesalsocorrectlydiagnosedtheethicalsubjectivisminherent inAsh’arismassimilar to thatof theGreeksophists (thedifferencebeingadivinerulerarbitrarilysettingtherulesinAsh’arism,andahumanrulerinsophism).“AlltheseareviewslikethoseofProtagoras!”heexclaimed.8Butitwastoolate.ItisAverroes’sbooksthatendedupbeingburned,notal-Ghazali’s.In

1195, in the town square of Cordoba, 108 of Averroes’s books were incinerated and theteachingofphilosophywasbanned.AsoneofthegreatestinterpretersofAristotle,AverroeshadafargreaterimpactuponmedievalEuropethanuponhisownworld.Infact,mostofhisworkssurvivedbecausetheywerepreservedinEurope.AsFatherJosephKennynotes,“MostofhisimportantcommentariesonAristotle,exceptthatontheMetaphysics,arelostinArabic,havingbeenburnedbyhisenemies,buttheyarepreservedinLatinorHebrewtranslations,thanks to Jewish and European fascination with his thought at the beginning of the 13th

century.”9DehellenizationofIslamThe “intruding sciences”would intrude in Islam nomore. Theywere expelled. As a result,notes Professor Joel Kraemer of the University of Chicago, “the assimilation of the Greekheritage in the Orient may be termed a ‘tragic sterility.’”10 professor of Arabic and NearEastern studies G. E. von Grunebaum stated, “The far-reaching importance of the GreekcontributiontoIslamicculturesshouldnotleadonetosupposethatiteffectedafundamentalchange in its vitality or its concept ofman. There are few traces of theGreek spirit in thehumanidealwithineventhosesectswhich,likethe[Shiite]Isma’iliyya,weremostopentotheinfluenceoftheGreekelementintheinterestofitsowntheologico-philosophicsystem.”Thus,he concluded, “The fundamental structure of Islamic thinking has been left untouched byHellenisticinfluence.”11Here are two more critical assessments of the results of al-Ghazali’s success from

twentieth-centuryMuslims.“Whilethefiercedebatesbetweenthosebelievinginfreewill(theQadarites) and the predestinarians (the Jabrias) were generally resolved in favor of theformer,” Pervez Hoodbhoy avers, “the gradual hegemony of fatalistic Ash’arite doctrinesmortally weakened . . . Islamic society and led to a withering away of its scientific spirit.Ash’arite dogma insisted on the denial of any connection between cause and effect—andthereforerepudiatedrationalthought.”12FazlurRahmanconcursthattheearlierdisputesconcerningpredestinationwerenotfatally

injurious,“butwithAsh’arismatotallyneweraofbeliefdawneduponMuslims.Fromthenon,theycouldnotact inreality;humanaction, indeed,becameameremetaphordevoidofanyrealmeaning.Al-Ashariexplicitlystatedthatevenawakingpersoncannotspeakinreality....ThetruthisthatAsh’arismhelditsswayrightupuntilthetwentiethcenturyandholdsswayeven now in the citadels of Islamic conservatism.”13 The deadening effects, says Rahman,includedthelossofhumaninitiative,activity,andimagination—adevastatingtally,asweshallseewhenweexaminethestateoftheArabworldtoday.Thedamagewasevident in immediateaftermathofal-Ghazali’striumph.InTestament,Al

Fakhral-Razi,acriticofAvicennaandtwelfth-centuryfollowerofal-Ghazali,statedreason’sobituary in the following terms: “I have explored the ways of kalam and the methods ofphilosophy,andIdidnotseeinthemabenefitthatcompareswiththebenefitIfoundintheQur’an.For the latterhurriesus toacknowledge thatgreatnessandmajestybelongonly toAllah,precludingusfrominvolvementintotheexplicationofobjectionsandcontentions.Thisis fornoother reason thanbecausehumanminds find themselvesdeadened in thosedeep,vexingexercisesandobscureway[ofkalamandphilosophy].”14Furthercalcificationwasevidentintheearlythirteenthcentury.Ibn-as-Salah(d.1251),the

headof theDaral-Hadithal-Ashrafiya inDamascus,oneof themostprestigious institutionsforthestudyofHadithintheIslamicworld,wasaskedifitwaspermissibletostudyorteachphilosophyandlogic,thelatterofwhichal-Ghazalihadatleastallowed.Herespondedwithafatwainwhichhedescribedphilosophyas“thefoundationoffolly,thecauseofallconfusion,allerrorsandallheresy.Thepersonwhooccupieshimselfwithitbecomescolourblindtothebeautiesofreligiouslaw,supportedbybrilliantproofs....Asfaraslogicisconcerned,itisameansofaccesstophilosophy.Nowthemeansofaccesstosomethingbadisalsobad....Allthosewhogiveevidenceofpursuingtheteachingsofphilosophymustbeconfrontedwiththefollowingalternatives:eitherexecutionbythesword,orconversiontoIslam,sothatthelandmaybeprotectedandthetracesofthosepeopleandtheirsciencesmaybeeradicated.”15ThedegenerationcontinuedwithIbnTaymiyya(1263–1328),whoprofoundlyinfluencedIbn

Abd al-Wahhab, the founder ofWahhabism, the strict Hanbalite form of Islam practiced inSaudiArabiaandwhosethoughthasbeenresuscitatedbytheIslamists today. IbnTaymiyyasaid thatman’s job is simply to obey.Submit.Reasonplaysno role.According toLebanesescholarMajidFakhry,he“insuredthevictoryofNeo-Hanbalismoverscholastictheologyandphilosophy.”16Al-Ghazali’smore finely temperedviewbecomes lost, andnoweven theologybecomesapathtoperdition.IbnTaymiyyadidtotheologywhatal-Ghazalididtophilosophy;he exiled it.He cited predecessorswho had devoted their lives to these sciences, butwholaterrecanted,suchasAl-Shahrastani,who“confessedthatitwasfollytodiscusstheology.”

HerelishedAbuYusuf,“whosaidthathewhowouldseekknowledgebythehelpofscholastictheology (kalam)would turn into an atheist,” and ImamShafi’i,who held that “theologiansshouldbebeatenwithshoesandpalm-branches,andparadedthroughthecitysothatpeoplemayknowtheconsequenceofthestudyoftheology.”17The narrowing of knowledge is evident in the jurist Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi’s (d. 1388)

pronouncementthat“investigationintoanyquestionwhichisnotabasisforanactionisnotrecommendedbyanyprooffromtheShari’a.ByactImeanbothmentalandphysicalacts.”Al-Shatibi added: “And so is the casewith every branch of learning that claims a relationshipwith theShari’abutdoesnot (directly)benefitaction,norwas itknown to theArabs.”18 Inotherwords, theonly thingworthknowing iswhethera specific action is, according to theShari’a:obligatory,recommended,permitted,discouraged,orforbidden.Therestisirrelevant.In the seventeenthcentury,TurkishauthorKatibChelebi (d.1657) complainedof further

decay:“Butmanyunintelligentpeople...remainedasinertasrocks,frozeninblindimitationof the ancients.Without deliberation, they rejected and repudiated the new sciences. Theypassedforlearnedmen,whileallthetimetheywereignoramuses,fondofdisparagingwhattheycalled ‘thephilosophicalscience,’andknowingnothingofearthorsky.Theadmonition‘HavetheynotcontemplatedthekingdomofHeavenandEarth?’(Qur’an,VII,184)madenoimpressiononthem;theythought‘contemplatingtheworldandthefirmament’meantstaringatthemlikeacow.”19Morerecently,GeorgesTarabishi,aprominent liberalSyrian intellectual living inFrance,

spoke directly to Fazlur Rahman’s accusation of intellectual suicide, with which this bookbegan.InaJanuary2008interviewwiththeLondonArabicdailyAl-SharqAl-Awsat,hesaid:“Philosophyisaproductofthemind.[But]whatprevailstodayinArabcultureisthe[Arab]mentality[insteadofthecriticalmind].Thus,IcouldalmostsaythatitisimpossibletodayforArabphilosophytoexist.Perhapsthereissomedegreeofgeneralizationinthissentence—butnonetheless,givemeonesingleexampleofanArabphilosopherworthyofthename.AndIdonotexemptmyself from this judgment.This is saddening, sinceweknow thatwhat createdWesternmodernitywas firstand foremostphilosophy.Shouldwenotattribute the failureofArabmodernism,atleastinpart,totheabsenceofArabphilosophers?“20What, then, of the achievements of Muslim philosophy in Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn al-

Haytham, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Razi, al-Kindi, al-Khawarizmi, and al-Farabi? Reformistthinker IbrahimAl-Buleihi, a currentmemberof theSaudiShuraCouncil, responds, “These[achievements] are not of our ownmaking, and those exceptional individualswere not theproductofArabculture,butratherGreekculture.Theyareoutsideourculturalmainstreamandwe treated themas though theywere foreign elements. Thereforewedon’t deserve totakepride in themsincewerejected themand fought their ideas.Conversely,whenEuropelearnedfromthemitbenefitedfromabodyofknowledgewhichwasoriginallyitsownbecausethey were an extension of Greek culture, which is the source of the whole of Westerncivilization.”21Infact,therejectioncontinuestothisday.MuslimscholarBassamTibistatesthat“because

rationaldisciplineshadnotbeeninstitutionalizedinclassicalIslam,theadoptionoftheGreeklegacy had no lasting effect on Islamic civilization.”22 Indeed, “contemporary Islamicfundamentalists denounce not only cultural modernity, but even the Islamic rationalism ofAverroesandAvicenna,scholarswhohaddefinedtheheightsofIslamiccivilization.”23ThecontemporaryEgyptianreformistthinkerTarekHeggyneatlysummarizestheconflict

anditsoutcome:“TheworldofIslamwasthesceneofabattleofideasbetweenAbuHamidAl-Ghazzali(Algazel)[sic],astricttraditionalistwhodidnotbelievethehumanmindcapableofgrasping the Truth as ordained by God, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), who championed theprimacyofreason.Theexponentsofthesetwoschoolswagedabitterbattle....Butdespitehis [Averroes’s]spiriteddefense [ofrationality], theoutcomeof thebattlewasclearly inAl-Ghazzali’sfavour,andthegreatmajorityofIslamicjuristsadoptedhisideas,interpretingtheprecepts of Islamic law by appeal to the authority of tradition and spurning deductivereasoningaltogether.IslamicjurisprudencewasdominatedbytheMutakallimun,ordialecticaltheologians,whoasserted theprimacyof tradition (naql), asadvocatedbyAl-Ghazzali, overthatofreason(‘aql),asadvocatedbyIbnRushd.”24

Al-Ghazali’sinfluencewas,andis,soimportantthatamodernthinkerofFazlurRahman’sstaturecouldsaythat“withouthiswork...philosophicrationalismmightwellhavemadeacleansweepoftheIslamicethos.”25Onecanonlyimaginehowdifferenttheworldwouldhavebeenhadthathappened.

Chapter6DECLINEANDCONSEQUENCES

Wereitnotforal-Ghazali,AverroesandrationalismmighthavewonthebattlefortheMuslimmind. But it did not happen, and, as a result, the Sunni Muslim mind suffered theconsequences.Itclosed.

ReformistthinkerTarekHeggystates:“ExaltingamanwhodidnotbelievethehumanmindcapableofgraspingtheTruthasordainedbyGodsetintomotionaprocessthatcontinuestothisdaywithdevastatingeffectsontheArabmindset,whichhasbecomeinsular,regressiveand unreceptive to new ideas.”1 With the supremacy of fiqh (jurisprudence) assured, thismindset turned in upon itself and spunout evermore refined interpretations of the shari‘auntileveryapplicationtoeverysituationhadbeenruleduponandenumerated,andtheneventhat stopped. The gates to ijtihad (independent reasoning) shut. Taqlid (imitation) reigned.Philosophywasdead(removedfromthesyllabusatal-Azharuntilattemptstoreviveitinthelatenineteenthcentury).2

LikeFazlurRahman, theEgyptianculturalhistorianAhmadAmin (1886–1954)speculatedthat:“IftheMu‘tazilitraditionhadcontinueduntilthepresenttimethepositionoftheMuslimcommunity inhistorywouldhavebeen fardifferent fromwhat it is.Fatalismweakened theIslamiccommunityanddrained itsenergywhile tawakkul [trustonly inGod] led toastaticcondition.”3

Howdifferentis“fardifferent,”onewonders.Weshallexaminethepossibleanswerstothis

question in terms of aborted political development, dysfunctional behavior and thinking,descentintofantasyandconspiracytheories,andruineddevelopmentinalmosteverysphereoflife,asrecountedbyArabsthemselves.TheLogicofDespotismThe triumphant moral agnosticism of the Ash‘arite form of Islam has had and still hasenormous consequences for political development, and is responsible for its retardation.HassanHanafi,professorofphilosophyattheUniversityofCairo,suggestedthattheeffectof“al-Ghazali’s critique of rational sciences [was] giving the Ruler an ideology of power.”4

Speakingofhowoverwhelminglythebalanceofforceswasweightedinfavorofdeterminismin theMiddleAges,FazlurRahmansaid that“increasingdespotismbothsustainedandwassustained by this theoretical attitude.”5 A backhanded tribute to the power of al-Ghazali’sinfluenceisthefactthatKemalAtaturk,inhisattempttomodernizeanddemocratizeTurkey,forbadethetranslationofal-Ghazali’sworksintoTurkish.

Manywonderwhy democracy did not develop indigenously in theMuslimworld and askwhetheritcanstilldeveloptoday.Theansweristhat,solongastheAsh‘arite(orHanbalite)worldviewisregnant,democraticdevelopmentcannotsucceedforthesimplereasonthatthisviewpositstheprimacyofpowerovertheprimacyofreason.ThosewhomightcontendthatAsh‘arism is already irrelevant in the Middle East then need to provide some otherexplanationfor itsdysfunctionalcharacter. IdonotassertthatAsh‘arismisa livingforce inthesensethatpeopleconsciouslyseeksolutionstotheproblemsofIslaminthemodernworldthrough it, although “it is still taught at the Azhar in Cairo and other colleges of Islamictheology.”6 Rather, it functions as an embedded dead weight that inhibits the reasonablesearch for such solutions. Even worse, it is Hanbalism, which al-Ash‘ari originally rose todefend,thatisgainingtractiontodayintheformofWahhabism,whichisevenmoreinimicalto the primacy of reason than Ash‘arism. As for the growing Islamist movement, WilfredCantwellSmith’swordsapply:“ThenewIslamicupsurgeisaforcenottosolveproblemsbuttointoxicatethosewhocannotlongerabidethefailuretosolvethem.”7

Theprimacyofreason,theologicallyandphilosophicallyunderstood,istheprerequisitefor

democracy.Otherwise,whatcouldserveasits legitimatingsource?Alongwithitmustcomemetaphysical support for natural law, which provides the foundations not only for modernsciencebutalsoforthedevelopmentofconstitutionalgovernment.Thereinliesthesourcefor“the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” on which constitutional edifices are built. Theprimacy of power in Sunni Islamic thought undermines a similar prospect. If one does notallow for the existence of secondary causes, one cannot develop natural law. If one cannotdevelop natural law, one cannot conceive of a constitutional political order in which man,throughhisreason,createslawstogovernhimselfandbehavefreely.

Ifmanlivesinaworldofwhichhecanmakenosense,anirrationalworldwithoutcausality,hecanchooseonlytosurrendertofateortodespair.Reasonandfreedombecomeirrelevant.Ifmanisnotapoliticalcreatureendowedwithreasoninaworldaccessibletohismind,whyattempt to order political life based upon deliberation and representation? In suchcircumstances, man will not go about writing constitutions, for constitutions by their verynature imply a belief in a stable external order, inman’s reasonability, and in his ability toformulateandestablisharationalmodeofgovernment,groundedinarationalcreation.Lawisreason,asJohnCourtneyMurraysaid,whichiswhywediscussreasonsforlaws.Ultimately,lawisreasonbecauseGodisLogos.

However, if man cannot apprehend right and wrong through his reason, the moralfoundationforman-madelawisfatallysubverted.Onwhatwouldsuchlawsthenbebased?If“reason isnotaLegislator,”whyhave legislation?Man’s lawscanonlybe, andbe seenas,arbitrary expressions or impositions of human will, which is to say no foundation at all,especiallywhenstackedupagainstdivinewill.Ifthecapacitytoknowthegooddoesnotexist,thereisnojustificationfordemocracy.Democracycannotdevelopwithinthisepistemology.IfGod is not Logos, then man’s law is unreasonable. The only form of democracy we arelegitimatelyleftwithis:oneGod,onevote.And,asanAlgerianfundamentalistsaid,“onedoesnotvoteforGod.OneobeysHim.”8SinceinAsh‘arite(andHanbalite)IslamGodisnotLogos,itisnosurprisetoseealackofdemocracyatthepoliticallevel.Thisisreflectedinthe2010FreedomHouseSurveyoftheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica,inwhichnoArabcountryislistedas“free.”OnlyMorocco,Lebanon,andKuwaitarelabeledas“partlyfree”;therestoftheArabcountries,whichinclude88percentoftheregion’speople,aredesignatedas“notfree.”9Asinpastyears,Israelcontinuestobetheonlycountryintheregionlistedas“free.”

TheproblemisthatdemocracyistheanswertoaquestionthattheArabIslamicworldhasnotasked.AsMiddleEastanalystElieKedourieremarked,“There isnothinginthepoliticaltraditions of the Arab world which might make familiar, indeed intelligible, the organizingideasofconstitutionalandrepresentativegovernment.”10Thisiswhy,untilrecentneologisms,therewerenowordsinArabicfor“citizen,”“democracy,”“conscience,”or“secular.”Itisalsowhy,asBassimTibiexplains,“intheideologyofIslamicfundamentalism—orforthatmatter,inthe minds of Islamic peoples—democracy is not an important issue.”11 How could it beotherwise?This led to the frustrationofvariousreformerssuchasMuhammad ‘Abduh,whosaid,“TheOrientneedsadespotwhowouldforcethosewhocriticizeeachothertorecognizetheirmutualworth,”12andKemalAtaturk,who famouslydeclared,concerninghisefforts toimposedemocracyinTurkey,“Forthepeople,despitethepeople.”13

Further, there is no subsidiarity in voluntarism. There is no room for it. There is no

hierarchy of responsibilities and actions corresponding to it—i.e., leaving each actiondelegated to the smallest unit of society capable of undertaking it, beginning with theindividual.Goddoesitall—directly.Allahisinchargeofeverything.Therefore,theinclinationistosubmitanddoone’sdutyasoneistoldtodoit.Powerequalsauthority,humanordivine.Therefore, the one in power, ipso facto, has authority (so long as he is not an outrightapostate).*ThisiswhatItakeHassanHanafitohavemeantby“anideologyofpower.”Sincereason has no standing on its own, it simply becomes the servant to power, which in turnservestheruler’swill.IfGodisforce,thenforcebecomesone’sGod.Withinthisview,powerbecomesself-legitimating.

Tothinkthattheonlyobstaclestodemocracyinsuchculturesaretheautocraciesthatrulethemisdelusional.IfGodispurewill,howoughthisviceregentsonearthbehaveandrule?Itisnoaccidentthattheembracedviewofatyrannicalgodproducestyrannicalpoliticalorders.SyrianpoetAliAhmadSa’id,knownasAdonis,sarcasticallycharacterizedthisconnectionasfollows:“Ifweareslaves,wecanbecontentandnothavetodealwithanything.JustasAllah

solvesallourproblems, thedictatorwill solveallourproblems.”14Theruleofpower is thenatural, logicaloutcomeofavoluntaristic theology that investsGod’sshadowonearth—thecaliphorruler—withananalogousforcebasedonGod’swill.Withinthevoluntaristicoutlook,man’s only responsibility is to obey. Tunisian poet Basit bin Hasan describes the resultingmindset:“They[seethemselvesas]apeoplethatcanonlylive...inastateofsubmissiontoaredeemer [i.e., a leaderwhom theybelievewill lead them to redemption].”15 In the faceofthis,canArabMuslimscreateapoliticalculturethat iscapableofembracinghumanrights,freedom of conscience, rule of law, etc.? It would seem not without first addressing theproblemofthecultonwhichArabcultureisbased.

Withoutadifferenttheology,canonehavedemocracy?IranianphilosopherDr.AbdulkarimSoroushexplicitlyansweredthisquestion:“Youneedsomephilosophicalunderpinning,eventheological underpinning in order to have a real democratic system. YourGod cannot be adespoticGodanymore.AdespoticGodwouldnotbecompatiblewithademocraticrule,withthe ideaofrights.Soyouevenhave tochangeyour ideaofGod.”16Elsewhere,Dr.Soroushwrote, “some of the understandings that exist in our society today of the Imams or of theMahdaviyat(Shi‘abeliefinthetwelfthImam’sreturn)orevenoftheconceptofGodarenotparticularly compatible with an accountable state and do not allow society to grow anddevelopinthemodern-daysense.”17

Thereisanotherwaytostatetheproblem.WithintheIslamicunderstandingofrevelation,

isoneauthorizedatanypointtostatethefundamentalprincipleofdemocracy:thatallpeoplearecreatedequal?AlthoughthereareafewintimationsintheQur’anthatmanissomehowmadeinGod’simageorhassomethingofGod’sspiritinhim—andthereforethateachpersonisindividuallyinviolable—thisisquicklysetasidebyMuslimtheologiansastrespassingontheunbridgeablegulfoftanzih.Surah15:28–29quotesAllahspeakingtotheangels:“Iwillcreateahumanbeingoutofclayfromanalteredblackmud.AndwhenIhaveproportionedhimandbreathed intohimmy [created] soul, then fall down tohim inprostration.”The footnote to“soul” in the Saheeh International translation of the Qur’an from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,typicallyexplains,“TheelementoflifeandsoulwhichAllahcreatedforthatbody,notHisownspiritorpartofHimself(assomemistakenlybelieve).”18FurtherinquiriesintothismatterarerebukedwiththeQur’an’sadmonition,“ThespiritistheaffairofthyLord;notofthee.”

Certainly,allMuslimsarecreatedequal,aswasevidentfromthebeginningsofIslam,whenanyslavewhoconvertedwasimmediatelymanumitted.ThedeepsenseofMuslimequalityison display each year during theHajj when the Ka’ba is circumambulated by pilgrims, alldressedinawhitecloth(ihram)thatresemblestheIslamicfuneralshroud.Therich,thepoor,the young, the old, and people ofmany races are indistinguishable in the surging, circlingmasses.Infact,evencorpsesarebroughtalongonlitters,erasingthedistinctionbetweenthelivingandthedead.19WhyhaveMuslimsbeen largelyunable toexpanduponthisprofoundexperienceofMuslimequalitytoembraceallofhumanity?

Theansweristhatthereisneitherabasisinrevelationonwhichtodosonoranacceptanceof“thelawsofNatureandofNature’sGod,”whichwouldrequireit.TheequalityofMuslimsisnot“self-evident,”butonlytheproductoffaith.Inshort,thereisnoontologicalfoundationfor equal human rights in Islam, which formally divides men and women, believer andunbeliever, and freeman and slave. This is fatal for democratic development and,concomitantly,equalitybeforethelaw.Since,inIslam,manisnotmadeintheimageofGod,hecannotbesovereign.UnlessmanismadeinGod’simage,thesovereigntyofGodandthesovereigntyofthepeoplearemutuallyexclusive.Tosuggestthatsovereigntyresidesinmanisshirk,ablasphemousaffront.Withinthistheology,sovereigntyof thepeople,residing intheinviolable dignity of the individual, is inconceivable. As stated in 1997 by Professor Saeed,whenheadoftheJamaatDawa-wal-IshadinPakistan:“thenotionofsovereigntyofthepeopleisun-Islamic—onlyAllahissovereign.”20

Where, then, does this leave non-Muslims? These are the dhimmi; they are ruled in a

differentwayaccording to theShar‘ia.Andwhat of theMuslimwhochooses to changehisreligion?He isdeclaredanapostateandforfeitshisMuslimwife(whomustdivorcehim), ifnot also his life. Even the injunction from the Hadith to love one’s neighbor in Islamtraditionallymeanstoloveone’sfellowMuslim,notsomeoneofanotherreligion.Indeed,oneisenjoinedbytheQur’annottomakefriendswiththem(17:87).Also,theMuslimobligationforcharitablegiving,zakat,isonlyforotherMuslims,andmustnotbeusedfornon-Muslims.

Inlightofthis,itisnotsurprisingthatthe2003UnitedNationsArabHumanDevelopment

Reportfindsthat“themajorityoftheArabstateshavesignedtheinternationalhumanrightsconventions—all of them refer to respect for fundamental freedoms—yet those conventionshaveneitherenteredthe legalculturenorhavetheybeen incorporated intothesubstantivelegislationof thosestates.Theconventionshaveremainednominal,as isapparent fromthefactthattheyarerarelyraisedbeforethejudiciaryforimplementation.”21

Six years later, the 2009 UN Arab Human Development Report confirms that “state

constitutionsdonotadhereinseveralkeyrespectstotheinternationalnormsimplicitinthecharters towhich Arab countries have acceded. This gravely compromises levels of humansecurity in thecountriesconcerned.ManyArabcountries’constitutionsadopt ideologicalordoctrinalformulasthatemptystipulationsofgeneralrightsandfreedomsofanycontentandwhichallowindividualrightstobeviolatedinthenameoftheofficialideologyorfaith.”22

Nothingmakesclearerhowun-Islamicthenotionofequalityisthan“TheCairoDeclaration

onHumanRights in Islam,”signedby forty-five foreignministersof theOrganizationof theIslamicConferenceonAugust5,1990.TheCairoDeclarationwasissuedasanappendixtotheUNUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightstomakeexplicitMuslimdifferenceswiththeUNdeclaration, which espouses universal, equal rights. The last two articles in the CairoDeclarationstatethat“allrightsandfreedomsstipulatedinthisDeclarationaresubjecttotheIslamicShari‘a” (Article24)andthat“theIslamicShari‘a istheonlysourceofreferenceforthe explanation or clarification [of] any of the articles of this Declaration” (Article 25).Elsewhere it declares that “no one in principle has the right to suspend . . . or violate orignore its [Islam’s] commandments, in asmuch as they are binding divine commandments,which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of HisProphets. . . . Every person is individually responsible—and the Ummah collectivelyresponsible—fortheirsafeguard.”23

Thesourceofhumandignity,accordingtotheCairoDeclaration,isGod’sbestowalofavice

regencyuponman(Qur’an2:30).However,this isadelegatedauthority,notoneinherent inman’snature,anditisnotclearthatitobtainstoanyoneotherthantheviceregent(caliph).This understanding comportswith the only other use of theword in theQur’an,whenGodsays, “O David, We have made thee a vice regent in the earth” (Qur’an 38:26). The vastdistancebetweenthisMuslimviceregencyandtheJudeo-Christiannotionofman“createdinthe image and likeness of God” explains the gulf between the UN’s and the CairoDeclaration’sunderstandingofhumanrights.*

UnderthedispensationoftheShari‘a,whatdoesrespectforhumanrightslooklike?InJune2000, thegrandsheikhofal-Azhar, thehighest jurisprudentialauthorityof theSunniworld,MuhammadSayedTantawi,offeredSaudiArabiaasthemodel.Hesaid:“SaudiArabialeadstheworldintheprotectionofhumanrightsbecauseitprotectsthemaccordingtotheshari‘aofGod. . . .Everyone knows that Saudi Arabia is the leading country for the application ofhumanrightsinIslaminajustandobjectivefashion,withnoaggressionandnoprejudice.”24

This is a stunning statement, because as Dr. Muhammad al-Houni, a Libyan intellectual

livinginItaly,says,“Islamiclawwasnotfamiliarwithequalityorcivilrights,becauseitwasaproduct of its times.”25 How then is Shari‘a their protector? Shari‘a does not contain theconcept of citizenship, for which there was no word in Arabic. In its terms, the inequalitybetweenbelieversandunbelieversappearstobeunbridgeable.Thisisevidentfromtherigiddiscrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, a Shari‘a state, and in the vulgarlyexpressed opinions of Islamists like Abu Hamza, who wishes to impose Shari‘a in GreatBritain.Hedeclared,“Onlythemostignorantandanimalmindedindividualswouldinsistthatprophetkillers(Jews)andJesusworshipers(Christians)deservethesamerightsasus.”26Asmentionedbefore,Islamisconsideredthedinal-fitra,thereligionthatis“natural”toman.ItwasAdam’sreligionandwouldbeeveryone’sreligionweretheynotconvertedaschildrentoapostasy in their upbringing by Christians, Jews, Hindus, or others. Therefore, restoringeveryonetoIslamistheonlypathtotrue“equality.”

An article byDr. AhmadAl-Baghdadi, titled “Defending theReligion through Ignorance,”givesapracticalexampleoftheconsequencesoftheShari‘aunderstandingofhumanrights.Theauthornotedtheintentionof“theKuwaitiMinistryofEducationtoomitArticle18ofthe

InternationalDeclarationofHumanRightsfromthehumanrightscurriculumforhighschoolstudents,sinceitstipulatesthateveryindividualhasfreedomofthought,whichincludesthefreedom to change one’s religion and beliefs. The head of the technical council for thecurriculumandprofessor of law,Rashid al-‘Anzi, said that the reasonwhyArticle 18 of the[Declaration of]HumanRightswill no longer be taught is that it is contrary to the IslamicShari‘a,sayingthatwe[inKuwait]areaconservativeIslamicsociety,inwhichwemustinstillreligious,IslamicbeliefsinaccordancewiththeIslamicShari‘a,andthusthisarticleisnotinkeepingwithhowwewantthestudentstobe.”27

The general difficulty in dealing with the subject of human rights was addressed by

TunisianintellectualBasitbinHasan:“WhenevertheArabdiscoursecomesclosetoacceptingnewconcepts [ofhuman rights]heralding freedomandequality, it immediately runs into [abarrier of] suspicion and doubt regarding the practical benefit of these concepts and theextent of their rootedness in our ‘cultural identity.’ Itwas only for briefmoments in [Arab]history that the discourse on liberation was inspired by human rights concepts. [Thisdiscourse appeared briefly] as part of the discussions during the [Arab] revival, among theanti-colonialnationalliberationmovements,andduringtheperiodinwhich[theArab]humanrightsorganizationsformedanddeveloped.[However,inallotherperiods,]theissueofhumanrightscameundersevereattackbymanypoliticalcurrentsandindifferentwritings—notonlyconservativeonesbut‘progressive’onesaswell.Thiscreatedmuchconfusionregardingtheconcept,andmadeitevenhardertograspfortheArabs.”28

The reason for this resistance goes to the heart of Islam. In The Crisis of Islamic

Civilization,AliAllawi,adistinguishedformerministerofbothfinanceanddefenseinthenewIraq,givesanexplanation that isworthquotingat lengthbecause,withoutevermentioningAsh‘arism,itneverthelessrevealshowcompletelysaturatedIslamicthinkingisbythisschool,to include the Ash‘arite idea of man’s acquisition of his actions. In fact, without anunderstanding of Ash‘arite theology, one would be unable to explicate this statementaccuratelyortograspfullyitssignificance.

InclassicIslamicdoctrine,theproblemofthenatureoftheindividualasanautonomousentityendowedwithfreewillsimply does not arise outside of the context of the individual’s ultimate dependence on God. The Arabic word for“individual”—al-fard—doesnothavethecommonlyunderstoodimplicationofapurposefulbeing,imbuedwiththepowerofrationalchoice.Rather,thetermcarriestheconnotationofsingularity,aloofnessorsolitariness.ThepowerofchoiceandwillgrantedtotheindividualismoretodowiththefactofacquiringthesefromGod,atthepointofaspecificactionordecision—theso-callediktisab—ratherthanthepowersthemselveswhicharenotinnatetonaturalfreedomsorrights.Al-fardisusuallyappliedasoneoftheattributesofsupremebeing,inthesenseofaninimitableuniqueness.ItisusuallygroupedwithothersofGod’sattributes(suchasintheformulaal-Wahid,al-Ahad,al-Fard,al-Samad:TheOneinessence,state and being, and the everlasting), to establish the absolute transcendence of the divine essence. Man is simplyunabletoacquireanyoftheseessentialattributes.Therefore,toclaimtherightandthepossibilityofautonomousactionwithoutreferencetothesourceoftheseinGodisanaffront....Theentireedificeofindividualrightsderivedfromthenatural state of the individual or through a secular ethical or political theory is alien to the structure of Islamicreasoning.29

Notecarefullythat“thepowerofchoice”is“notinnate”toman—meaningthatitisnotpartofhisnature.Heacquiresitatthepointofhisaction—whichmakesnonsenseofanyideaoffreedom of choice. Allawi’s last sentence is a tribute to the thoroughness of al-Ghazali’sdestructionofmoralphilosophy,herereferredtoas“secularethicaltheory.”This,aswehaveseen in earlier chapters, is, indeed, “alien to the structure of Islamic reasoning,” as itwasshapedbytheAsh‘aritesandal-Ghazali.Theendresult,asAllawisays,isthatthequestionofhumanrightsdoesnotevenarisewithintheMuslimmind.Howcouldit?Howcouldmanhavea“right” toanythinghedoesnotpossessbynature?Unless rightsare“innate,”democracycannot form themoral basis of government. Advocates of democracy promotion in MuslimcountriesneedtoreadAllawi’sstatementtoappreciatefullywhattheyareupagainst.

IfwithintheMuslimworldthereisnoprincipleofequalitythatembracesallhumanbeings,there isnophilosophical foundation fordemocracy.According toRaphaelPatai, a revealingproverb from the Levant states: “Nothing humiliates aman like being subject to somebodyelse’sauthority.”31Thisissowhenthereisnorationalbasisuponwhichtogiveone’sassenttotheauthorityofanotherbecausethatauthorityitselfisnotbaseduponreason,butonlypower.

How,then,canoneacknowledgethatallpeoplearecreatedequalifthisisnotexpressedinone’srevelation?Anavenueisopentothisrealizationthroughphilosophyandtherecognitionthateveryperson’ssoulisorderedtothesametranscendentgoodorend—whichiswhatwemeanbyhumannatureinthefirstplace.Forthistohappen,however,thecultureinwhichit

takes place must be open to reason or, more exactly, to reason’s authority in its ability toapprehend reality. As we have seen, the effort to open Arab culture to reason had only atemporary success, while the expulsion of philosophy from it seems to have formed, ordeformed,itinapermanentway.

Those wishing to influence the Islamic world through public diplomacy and the mediashouldtakeheedofLawrenceFreedman’sadmonition:“Opinionsareshapednotsomuchbytheinformationreceivedbuttheconstructsthroughwhichthatinformationisinterpretedandunderstood.”30 Unless and until the Sunni world reembraces philosophy, it is difficult toimaginethroughwhat“constructs”itcouldreceivethepromotionofequalhumanrightsinafavorableway.

Unfortunately, there is no room in this kind of Islam (Ash‘arite or Hanbalite) for theindividual to assert a version of the good based upon the authority of reason—to whichstandardhecouldthencallothers.Thislackunderminestheprospectforcivilsocietyandforpeaceful change.Theonlyway left todispute the rulingorder is to claimamoreauthenticunderstandingofIslamicscripturethantheoneonwhichtherulingorderisbased.Religiousrevolutionaries, who have nothing but their religion through which to assert their claims,usually settle their contests through sectarian violence.What other recourse is there?Onlyreason is nonsectarian. Once, however, the primacy of power is asserted—which is whatprimacy of the will means—violence is the only path left open. (As we will see later, thisdispositionwasreinforcedintheworstwaybytheadoptionofWesterntotalitarianideologiesinthetwentiethcenturybyArabsecularstates.)

Moroccan intellectual Fatima Mernissi explains how this syndrome functions: “Asintellectualoppositionwasrepressedandsilenced,onlypoliticalrebellionandterrorismhadanysuccess,asweseesowelltoday.Onlytheviolenceofthesubversivecouldinteractwiththeviolenceofthecaliph.Thispattern,whichisfoundthroughoutMuslimhistory,explainsthemodernreality,inwhichonlyreligiouschallengepreachingviolenceasitspoliticallanguageiscapable of playing a credible role. . . . From then [the suppression of theMu‘tazilites] on,fanatical revoltwas the only formof challengewhich survivedwithin a truncated Islam.”32

Mernissi gets close to the source of this syndrome of violence with her mention of thesuppressionoftheMu‘tazilites,butshefailstomakeexplicitthattherationalizationforthisviolence ina“truncated Islam”comes froma“truncated” theology.Wewill see the forceofMernissi’spoint,however,whenweexaminetheideologyoftoday’sIslamists.

GeorgeHouranigivesasimilar,butevenricher,perspectiveonthedynamicsofviolenceintheIslamicworld,whichisworthquotingatlength.Heexplains:“Ethicalvoluntarismputthedeterminationofethicalquestionsfirmly inthehandsofexperts inthe interpretationof theShari‘a,whichwassupposedtogiveguidanceineverysphereofpracticallife.Theseexpertswerethe ‘ulama,’ theprofessional Islamicscholarswho includedthestaffsof themadrasas,mosquepreachers,qadis[judgesforadministeringIslamiclaw],muftis[Muslimscholarswhointerpret theShari‘a] and theoretical jurists. Private lay peoplewere discouraged by thesetendenciesaswell asbyautocratic sultans fromproposing reforms ina stateororganizingsecular groups such as our labour unions, charitable organizations and especially politicalparties.Thusallpeacefulchange insocietyhadtobe initiatedfromthetopbytheheadsofstatewhomosttimesweresatisfiedwiththewaythingswere.Theonlyotherpathtochangewas through revolutionary movements. But the only forces strong enough to gathersupporterswerereligiousleaders,claimingtobemahdisringinginagoldenage.”33

As formidable, or even overwhelming, as these obstacles to democratic development

appear,theyarenotinsuperable,ashasbeenshowninotherpartsoftheMuslimworld,suchas Turkey and Indonesia. There are also reformers like the Libyan scholar MuhammadAbdelmottalebal-Houn,whohasthecouragetosay,“IfwemustchoosebetweenhumanrightsandShari‘a, then we must prefer human rights.”34 However, one must at least have as astarting point the admission contained in the statement by Columbia University scholarRichardBullietthat“findingwaysofwedding[Islam’straditional]protectiverolewithmoderndemocraticandeconomicinstitutionsisachallengethathasnotyetbeenmet.”35

UnrealityintheLossofCausalityInattackingtheMu‘tazilites,theAsh‘arites,inthewordsofMuhammadKhair,wished“tofree

God’ssavingpowerfromtheshacklesofcausality.”36Thepriceforthisliberationwasthelossof rationality, which, in turn, promotes irrational behavior. In short, as mentioned before,Ash‘aritetheologycompelleditsfollowerstodenyreality.SaudiwriterandreformistTurkiAl-Hamaddescribes the symptoms thusly: “Unfortunately,weare regressing ina superstitiousand unreasonable manner. . . . Today’s world is ruled by logic. It operates according to acertainlogic,whichviewsthefutureaccordingtocertaincriteriaandconsiderations.We,ontheotherhand, have forsaken this future for the sake ofmyth.We live in theworld of thesupernatural, not in the real world, which we have completely neglected.”37 Modernmanifestations of the resulting confusion are many. As Albert H. Hourani observed, Arabs“tendtoseeactsinthemselves,asfittinganoccasionratherthanaslinksinachainofcauseandconsequence.”38 It isnotdifficult to see fromwhere thisdispositiondeveloped.Even ifonlyanecdotally,thefollowingexampleswillgivesomeflavorastohowtheeffectsofthelossofcausalityplaythemselvesoutevenindailylife.

Lessthanadecadeago,animaminPakistaninstructedphysiciststherethattheycouldnotconsider the principle of cause and effect in their work. Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a PakistaniphysicistandprofessoratQuaid-e-AzamUniversityinIslamabad,saidthat“itwasnotIslamicto say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ‘You were supposed to say thatwhenyoubringhydrogenandoxygentogetherthenbythewillofAllahwaterwascreated.’”39

TherearepeopleinSaudiArabiatodaywhostilldonotbelievemanhasbeenonthemoon.

This isnotbecause theyare ignorant; it isbecauseaccepting the fact thatmanwason themoonwouldmeanalsoacceptingthechainofcausalrelationshipsthatputhimthere,whichissimplytheologicallyunacceptabletothem.

Thedenialofreality,however,canbecomeexplicit.SyrianphilosopherSadikJalalal-‘Azmrecounts that“in IbnBaz’s [grandmuftiofSaudiArabia from1993untilhisdeath in1999]book,publishedin1985,he. . .completelyrejectedtheideathattheearthorbitsthesun.IownthebookandyoucanverifywhatIamsaying.Andso,theearthdoesnotorbitthesun,ratheritisthesunthatgoesaroundtheearth.Hebrought[us]backtoancientastronomy,tothepre-Copernicanperiod.Ofcourse,inthisbookIbnBazdeclaresthatallthosewhosaythattheearth isroundandorbitsthesunareapostates.Atanyrate,he is freetothinkwhathewants. But the great disaster is that not one of the religious scholars or institutions in theMuslimworld,fromtheEasttotheWest,fromAl-AzhartoAl-Zaytouna,fromAl-QaradhawitoAl-Turabiand[SheikhAhmad]Kaftaro,andthedepartmentsforShari‘astudy—noonedaredtotellIbnBazwhatnonsenseheclingstointhenameoftheIslamicreligion.Thefactthatyoutellmethatthisisasensitivematter—thismeansthatIcannotreplytothewordsofIbnBazwhenhesaysthattheEarthisflatanddoesnotgoaroundthesun,butrisesandsets,intheancient manner. This is a disaster. The greatest disaster is that we cannot even answerthem.”40

Theeffectsofthedenialofsecondarycausalitypermeateeventhemostpracticalaspectsof

dailylife.Forinstance,formerBritishIslamistEdHusainrelates,“Hizbut-Tahrirbelievedthatall natural eventswere acts of God (though in some actionsman could exercise freewill),hence insurance polices were haram. . . . Hizb members could not insure their cars.”41

Likewise,theuseofseatbeltsisconsideredpresumptuous.Ifone’sallottedtimehasarrived,theseatbelt issuperfluous. If ithasnot, it isunnecessary.Onemustrealize that thephrase“insha’Allah[Godwilling]”isnotsimplyapolitesocialconvention,butatheologicaldoctrine.

ThoseinvolvedintrainingMiddleEasternmilitaryforceshaveencounteredalackadaisicalattitudetoweaponmaintenanceandsharp-shooting.IfGodwantsthebullettohitthetarget,itwill,andifHedoesnot,itwillnot.Ithaslittletodowithhumanagencyorskillsobtainedbydisciplineandpractice.Likewise,theconductandoutcomeofthe2006conflictbetweenIsraelandHezbollah in Lebanonwas characterized as a “divine victory” byHezbollah because ofwhat its leader, Hasan Nasrallah, called “divinely guided missiles.” Though Hezbollah is aShi‘itegroup,itsharesthesamepointofviewofGod(orHisdirectagents)asthesolecause.“We believe that God’s angels and the Mahdi were there, protecting our boys,” said thebrotherofone fallenHezbollah fighter,MahmoudChalhoub. “Even the Israelis talkaboutamanallinwhite[theMahdi],ridingawhitehorse,whocutoffthehandofoneoftheirsoldiersashewasabouttolaunchamissile.TheIsraelispretendthatHezbollahpossessessatellitesandthisishowitsfighterswereabletoaimatmilitarytargets.Wedon’thavesatellites,wehave missiles guided by God.”42 Again, what may seem to Westerners as crude war

propaganda is grounded in a deeply theological perspective. It is the twenty-first centuryequivalentoftheQur’anicverse:“Whenyoushot,itwasnotyouwhoshotbutGod”(8:17).

The enormous influence of Saudi Arabia today in the Muslim world is often thought byWesternerstobealmostcompletelyduetoitsoilwealth—petro-Islam.However,thisdiscountsthefactthatmanyMuslims,includingincountrieslikeEgypt,whicharetraditionallyopposedtoSaudiArabia, see thiswealthasadirectgift fromAllah.Can itbeonlyanaccident thatthesetreasuresareunderthesandsof thisparticularcountry?No, theymustbethereasarewardtotheSaudisforfollowingthetruepath.Whyelsewouldtheoilbethere?—aquestionthathastobeanswerednotbygeologists,butwithintheunderstandingthatGodhasdirectlyplacedtheoilthereasHedirectlydoesallthings.ThepresenceofpetroleumgivescredencetotheSaudiclaimthatitsWahhabiformofIslamisthelegitimateone.Itisbecauseoftheoilthat otherMuslimsarewilling togive this claimconsideration.This iswhyWahhabismhasspreadsosignificantly,eveninpartsoftheworldlikeIndonesiathatwouldseem,fromtheircultural backgrounds, tohave little sympathywith its radical literalism.Therefore, it is notonlythroughSaudioillargessbutalsobecauseofwheretheoilisthatWahhabismenjoyssuchprominence.

AKurdishacquaintancetoldmethathewentontheHajjwithadevoutfriendwhowasverymuch takenby theAsh‘arite teachingofGodas theonlycause.At theKa’baunder thehotSaudisun,hisfriendtouchedtheblackstone,whichwascool.See,hesaid,thisisGod’sdirectmiraculousaction;howelsecouldthisstonebesocoolinthisheat?MyKurdishacquaintancelookedarounduntilhefoundstairsdescendingtoarefrigerationunit.Hethentookhisfrienddowntoseeit,andexplainedtohim,“Thisiswhythestoneiscool.”Hisfriend’sreactiontothis lesson was outrage. Rational knowledge was a threat to his religious certainty. Therefrigerationunit,aproductofrationalknowledge,wasanassaultonhistheology.

InTaliban-controlledportionsofPakistan,“Poliovaccinationshavebeendeclaredharambytheulema, and the government campaign has subsequently stalled.”43 Like car insurance,vaccinationsareaformofpresumption.OnlywiththeexpulsionoftheTalibanfromtheSwatValleyinthelatesummerof2009wasthePakistanigovernmentabletoresumevaccinations.*TheLogicofUnreality:ADiscourseofConspiraciesFreedfromcauseandeffect,theIslamicworldrevertstoapre-philosophical,magicalrealmwhere thingshappenunaccountablydue tomysterious, supernatural forces. In theplaceofreasonable explanations—or of explanations subject to reason—conspiracy theories reign,alongwithsuperstition.ThedailyIslamicpressisrifewiththem.Conspiracytheoriesaretheintellectualcurrencyofanirrationalworld.Muslimsaretransformedfromactorsintovictims—usually of some Jewish orWestern conspiracy. Otherwise, events are assigned directly toGodastheirsolecause,againremovingthemfromtherealminwhichman’sactionscanhaveanyeffect.AsTunisianpoetBasitbinHasan,describesit:“Theprevailingdiscourseamongusis accustomed toblaming thehegemonic and tyrannical ‘other’ for ourmisfortunes, for thehideousnessthatsurroundsus,forourculturalemptiness,andforourproblems.Itacquits[usof responsibility for] our tragedies through the dualism of the evil ‘other’ and ‘us,’ theinnocentvictims.”44

Natural disasters are, of course, explicable only in terms of God’s direct action. On

television,SheikhSalihFawzanal-Fawzan,ahighfunctionaryoftheSaudiregime,opinedthatthe2004tsunami“happenedatChristmas,whenfornicatorsandcorruptpeoplefromallovertheworldcome tocommit fornicationandsexualperversion.That’swhen this tragedy tookplace,strikingthemallanddestroyedeverything.”45OnaMuslimwebsite,theArabicscriptspelling“Allah”wassuperimposedon thesatellitephotoof the tsunamiwave insuchawaythatitmatchedit,graphicallysuggestingthemessageofdirectdivineintervention.Thewaveitselfspelled“Allah.”

WhenHurricaneKatrinahitthesouthernUnitedStates,atypicalarticleintheArabpressannounced that “Katrina is a wind of torment and evil from Allah sent to this Americanempire” and that “the terrorist Katrina is one the soldiers of Allah.”46 Further, “the onlyreasonforthisdisaster isthatAllah isangryatthem.”47MostAmericansseethisassimplepropaganda without realizing it stems from a theological perspective that requires anunderstandingoftheeventasthedirectresultoftheFirstCause.Itisthenecessaryviewof

people who must interpret it in this way because their theology does not allow for theexistenceofsecondarycauses.

PervezHoodbhoy reports, “When the2005earthquake struckPakistan, killingmore than90,000 people, no major scientist in the country publicly challenged the belief, freelypropagated through the mass media, that the quake was God’s punishment for sinfulbehavior.*Mullahsridiculedthenotionthatsciencecouldprovideanexplanation;theyincitedtheirfollowersintosmashingtelevisionsets,whichhadprovokedAllah’sangerandhencetheearthquake.Asseveralclassdiscussionsshowed,anoverwhelmingmajorityofmyuniversity’ssciencestudentsacceptedvariousdivine-wrathexplanations.”48

UnrealityinPerceptionandPressThelossofrationalityandthedivorcefromrealityarealsoamplyreflectedinthepress,whichisrifewithconspiracytheoriesandfantasticalaccountsofnaturalevents.The2003UNArabHumanDevelopmentReport’stakeonArabmediastated:“Newsreportsthemselvestendtobe narrative and descriptive, rather than investigative or analytic, with a concentration onimmediateandpartialeventsandfacts.This isgenerallytrueofnewspapers,radiobulletinsandtelevisednews.Thenewsisoftenpresentedasasuccessionofisolatedevents,withoutin-depthexplanatorycoverageoranyefforttoplaceeventsinthegeneral,social,economicandculturalcontext.”49Ifyourmetaphysicsisatomistic,mostlikelyyourreportagewillalsobeof“asuccessionofisolatedevents,”withoutthecontinuitythatcausalrelationshipswouldgiveit.ThisfitsexactlyGeorgeHourani’sobservation,quotedearlier,thatArabsfailtoseeacts“inachainofcauseandconsequence.”

TherealmostseemsnothingtooridiculoustoappearintheArabandMuslimpressortobepublished in the Arab world, including calculations for the speed of light according to aQur’anic formulaandaccountsofColumbusencounteringArabic-speakingnatives. InSaudiArabia, a bookpublishedby the state press,BrotokolatAyatQummHawla al-Haramayn al-muqadda-sayn (TheProtocolsof theAyatofQummConcerning theTwoHolyCities [MeccaandMedina]),byDr.‘AbdAllahal-Jafar,contendedthattheShi‘iteswerearesultofaplotbythe Jews tosubvert Islam.TheShi‘iteswere instrumental inall the invasionsof the IslamicworldandtheyalsocreatedtheFreemasons,whichwillbenewstomanyEuropeans.Thetitleis a takeoff fromTheProtocols of the Elders of Zion, a long-discredited nineteenth-centuryCzaristsecretpoliceforgerythatstillcirculatesintheIslamicworldasagenuinedocumentofJewishperfidy.Amorerecentexampleofthisperspective,thistimefromtheshi‘iteangle,wasofferedbyMahmoudMusleh,aprominentHamasmemberofthePalestinianlegislature,whosaid of the massive demonstrations in Iran protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s supposedreelection in June 2009, “Israel is standing behindwhat’s going on in Iran.”50 An examplefromfurtherafieldcomesfromIndonesia,wheretwobooksbyHerryNuri,publishedin2007,weretitledSignsofFreemasonsandZionistsinIndonesiaandResurgenceofFreemasonsandZionistsinIndonesia.51

Therealsodoesnotseemtobeanythingtooabsurdtobelieve.Theexplanations for9/11

areaprimeexample.Aroundthetimeoftheeighthanniversaryofthoseattacks,MshariAl-ZaydiofferedasatiricalrevueofsomeofthepopularconspiracytheoriesinAl-SharqAl-Awsat(September9,2009):

Thosewhocarriedoutthe11September2001attacks—weretheyextremistSerbiannationalists?NoitwastheIsraeliMossad—no,pardonme,itwasaU.S.groupofSeventhDayAdventists!Notatall,theonewhocarriedouttheterribleattackswastheU.S.CentralIntelligenceAgency[CIA]!Thesuggestionsandimaginaryillusionscontinuetopourinthedirectionofevadingtherealconsequencesofthereality—whichisthatthosewhocarriedouttheSeptember11attackswereMuslimyouthswhobelievedinahard-lineinterpretationofIslam,whoareledbyOsamabinLaden,andwhoareencouraged,andwerethenencouraged,bymillionsofMuslims.TheideathattheSerbsweretheoneswhocarriedoutthe September 11 attacks in revenge for U.S. interference in the Serbs’ war against Bosnia and the Croats waspronouncedbyHasanaynHaykal,thesymbolofArabpoliticaljournalistswhofollowthepan-Arabdirection.Hesaidthisdaysafter theexplosionstookplace(in theLebaneseAl-Safirnewspaper,October1,2001).The idea that theattackswere carried out by the IsraeliMossad (the source of all evils and ofmysterious events that some do not have thestamina to investigate and scrutinize)was suggested by Islamistwriter FahmiHuwaydi,who believed that Al-Qaedacouldnotcarryoutsuchanoperation,butthattheMossadcould(KuwaitiAl-Watannewspaper,September25,2001).AsfortheideathattheexplosionswerecarriedoutbyaU.S.groupcalledtheSeventhDayAdventists,thiswaspronouncedbyMustafaMahmud,hostofthe“ScienceandBelief”program(Al-Ahram,Egypt,September22,2001).52

As late as 2006, despite repeated claims of credit by al-Qaeda, a growing number of

MuslimsbelievedthatArabsdidnotcarryouttheSeptember11,2001,attacksontheUnitedStates. According to theWashington Post, “A report last year by the Pew Global AttitudesProject,however,foundthatthenumberofMuslimsworldwidewhodonotbelievethatArabscarriedouttheSept.11attacksissoaring—to59percentofTurksandEgyptians,65percentof Indonesians, 53 percent of Jordanians, 41 percent of Pakistanis and even 56 percent ofBritish Muslims.”53 A January 2006 study by L’Economiste revealed that 44 percent ofMoroccansagedsixteentotwenty-ninebelievethatal-Qaedaisnotaterroristorganization,38percent“don’tknow,”andonly18percentsayitisaterroristgroup.54Inotherwords,thereisnocorrelationbetweentheevidenceavailableandtheopinionsheld.

For those unacquainted with the level of unreality in the daily Muslim press, here aresamplestakenfromthemediamonitoringworkoftheMiddleEastMediaResearchInstitute(MEMRI).Whatisnotableisnotsomuchtheoutlandishnessoftheaccusationsorstoriesasthelackofanyconcernoverevidenceastowhethertheyaretrueorfalse,orofanyprocedureto reach such a conclusion,which a fundamental regard for realitywould seem to require.Despite the impression they create, the citations below are not from the equivalent ofAmerican tabloidsatgrocery storecheckouts.Numerouscitationsaregivennot inorder tocreate the impression that this is the whole of the Muslim press, but to show that it is asignificantpartofit.(ThisisnottosaythattherearenotsuperbArabandMuslimjournalists.)ThefulltextsandvideoexcerptscanbeobtainedattheMEMRIwebsite:www.memri.org.AlltitlescomefromMEMRI: • “EgyptianClericAhmadAbdAl-Salam: Jews ‘InfectFoodwithCancerandShip it toMuslimCountries,’”February24,

200955

Althoughaseeminglyoutlandishclaim,thisheadlineisnotsimplyaformofsensationalistjournalismdesigned todraw in readers.Thequote is froma videoaddressgivenbyal-Salam: “The Jews conspire day andnight to destroy theMuslims’worldly and religiousaffairs.The Jewsconspire todestroy theeconomyof theMuslims.The Jewsconspire toinfectthefoodoftheMuslimswithcancer.ItistheJewswhoinfectfoodwithcancerandshipittoMuslimcountries.”Al-SalamfurtheraccusestheJewsofsexuallyabusingMuslimwomenandconspiringtobringaboutthedownfallofIslam.

• “Iranian FilmmakerNader TalebzadehDenies theHolocaust and States: Al-Qaeda and theMossad CarriedOut 9/11

Together,”April3,200856

September 11 conspiracy theories are rampant in theMuslimworld. There is even onetheory that says George W. Bush himself executed and masterminded the attacks ofSeptember11.

•“IranianTV:SwineFlu—AZionist/AmericanConspiracy,”May12,200957

HereareexcerptsfromanotherIranianTVreportonswineflu,whichairedonIRINN,theIranian news channel, onMay 6, 2009: “In his speech, Barak [sic]Obamamentioned amedicine called Tamiflu—but what exactly is Tamiflu? Who are the compassionatemanufacturersof thismedicine?Thisgreatpharmacist isnoneotherthanRumsfeld, theformerAmericansecretaryofdefense.He isoneof theshareholders,andanactiveandinfluentialmemberontheboardofdirectorsofGileadScience,whichisthemainproviderofmedicine for thisdisease. . . . Itshouldbenotedthat theGileadSciences isa Jewishcompany.Itsname,inHebrew,means‘holyplace,’andallitsshareholdersareZionists.”

•“EgyptianClericSafwatHigaziCallstoShutDownStarbucksintheArabandIslamicWorld:JewishQueenEstherServes

asTheirLogo,”January25,200958

Higazi, in an address that aired on Egyptian television, stated frankly: “The girl in theStarbuckslogoisQueenEsther.DoyouknowwhoQueenEstherwasandwhatthecrownonherheadmeans?ThisisthecrownofthePersiankingdom.ThisqueenisthequeenoftheJews.SheismentionedintheTorah,intheBookofEsther.ThegirlyouseeisEsther,thequeenoftheJewsinPersia.”DespitethefactthatHigazimistakestheidentityofthe

“Starbucksgirl”—sheisactuallyasirenfrommedievalFrenchmythology—hecallsfortheeradication of all Starbucks in the Muslim world, because “it is inconceivable that inMeccaandAl-Madina,therewillbeapictureofQueenEsther,thequeenoftheJews.”

• “HamasTVScientistDr.AhmadAl-Muzain:BayerDerived ItsTreatment forAIDSFromProphetMuhammad’sHadith

AbouttheWingsofFlies,”November13,200859

•“ArabColumnists:TheEconomicCrisis—AConspiracybyU.S.Government,AmericanJews,”October22,200860

Dr.Mustafaal-FiqqiofEgyptwrites:“TheBushadministrationwastrainedandimpelled,bytheAmericanconservativerightandbyJewishcircles,tocarryoutthismission[intwostages]—atthebeginningof[Bush’s]firstterminoffice,andattheendofhissecondterminoffice.Theaim is toachieve twomajorgoals—aglobalpolitical [goal] in2001,andaglobaleconomic[goal]in2008.”Thefirstprongofthemissionwas,ofcourse,theattacksofSeptember11.Accordingtoal-Fiqqi,andmanyothers,the9/11attacksandtheglobaleconomiccrisisarepremeditatedmissionsbypowerfulAmericansandWesterners inanefforttoattainglobaldominance.

•“IranianTVDocumentarySeriesTracesZionistThemesinWesternMovies:SavingPrivateRyan,”June30,200861

Among the claims made by Iranian film critic Dr. Majid Shah-Hosseini that Americanmovies(SavingPrivateRyaninparticular)undeservedlyandperhapsheavy-handedlyexaltthe Jewish-American soldier is this claim: “Moreover, names may be selected for theirrhymingvalue.‘Zion’sometimesbecomes‘Ryan,’asinSavingPrivateRyan.Theyexploiteventhesimilarityofnames.”

•“NewConspiracyTheoryinEgypt:ItWasn’tSaddamButHisDoubleWhoWasExecuted,”January30,200762

• “InTVInterview,PakistaniSecurityExpertAccusesWesternZionists,HinduZionistsofPlanning11/26MumbaiTerror

Attacks,”December4,200863

•“CulturalAdvisortoIranianEducationMinistryandMemberofInterfaithOrganizationLecturesonIranianTV:Tomand

Jerry—AJewishConspiracytoImprovetheImageofMice,BecauseJewsWereTermedDirtyMice’inEurope,”February24,200664

This quote froma lectureDr.HasanBolkhari, amember of theFilmCouncil of IslamicRepublicofIranBroadcastingandanadvisortotheIranianEducationMinistry, isworthcitingextensivelytodemonstratethevastdepthandbreadthofunrealitysoprevalentinMuslimworld:

Thereisacartoonthatchildrenlike.Theylikeitverymuch,andsodoadults—TomandJerry.

[...]

Some say that this creationbyWaltDisney [sic:Tomand Jerry is aHannaBarbera production]will be rememberedforever.TheJewishWaltDisneyCompanygainedinternationalfamewiththiscartoon.It isstillshownthroughouttheworld.Thiscartoonmaintainsitsstatusbecauseofthecuteanticsofthecatandmouse—especiallythemouse.

SomesaythatthemainreasonformakingthisveryappealingcartoonwastoeraseacertainderogatorytermthatwasprevalentinEurope.

[...]

IfyoustudyEuropeanhistory,youwillseewhowasthemainpowerinhoardingmoneyandwealth,inthe19thcentury.Inmostcases,itistheJews.PerhapsthatwasoneofthereasonswhichcausedHitlertobegintheantisemitictrend,andthentheextensivepropagandaabout thecrematoriabegan. . . .Someof this is true.Wedonotdenyallof it.WatchSchindler’sList.EveryJewwasforcedtowearyellowstaronhisclothing.TheJewsweredegradedandtermed“dirtymice.”TomandJerrywasmade inorder tochange theEuropeans’perceptionofmice.Oneof termsusedwas“dirtymice.”

I’dliketotellyouthat....Itshouldbenotedthatmiceareverycunning...anddirty.

[...]

NoethnicgrouporpeopleoperatesinsuchaclandestinemannerastheJews.

[...]

ReadthehistoryoftheJewsinEurope.ThisultimatelyledtoHitler’shatredandresentment.Asitturnsout,Hitlerhadbehind-the-scenesconnectionswiththeProtocols[oftheEldersofZion].

TomandJerrywasmade inordertodisplaytheexactopposite image. Ifyouhappentowatchthiscartoontomorrow,bear inmind the points I have just raised, andwatch it from this perspective. Themouse is very clever and smart.Everythinghedoes issocute.Hekicksthepoorcat’sass.Yet thiscrueltydoesnotmakeyoudespisethemouse.Helookssonice,andheissoclever.. . .ThisisexactlywhysomesayitwasmeanttoerasethisimageofmicefromthemindsofEuropeanchildren,andtoshowthatthemouseisnotdirtyandhasthesetraits.Unfortunately,wehavemanysuchcasesinHollywoodshows.

•“SaudiClericMuhammadAl-Munajid:MickeyMouseMustDie!”August27,200865

Inthelatestofhiscontroversialstatementsandfatwas,well-knownSaudiIslamistlecturerandauthorSheikhMuhammadAl-Munajidstated,onAl-MajdTVonAugust27,2008,thatmicewereSatan’ssoldiersand that“according to Islamic law,MickeyMouseshouldbekilledinallcases.”

•“EgyptianClericandFormerIslamicLecturerintheU.S.HazemSallahAbuIsma‘ilonAl-RisalaTV:LecturesontheJews’

Conflictswith Islam’s ProphetMuhammad, StatingU.N.DocumentsAssert ‘82%of All Attempts toCorruptHumanityOriginatefromtheJews,’”May10,200666

Isma‘ilisanEgyptiancleric.HehasaweeklytelevisionshowcalledTheRaidsinwhichhediscusses Muhammad’s battles. In one segment, he spoke of how, according to a UNreport,Jewswereresponsiblefor82percentoftheworld’svideoclips,whichledhimtoconclude:“Eighty-twopercentofallattemptstocorrupthumanityoriginatefromtheJews.Youmustknowthissothatwecanknowwhatshouldbedone.”

•“SaudiAuthorDr.MuhammadAl-‘ArifionShowProducedbySaudiMinistryofReligiousEndowments:WomenintheWest

MarryDogsandDonkeys;54%ofDanishWomenDoNotKnowWhoFatheredTheirBabies,”April6,200667

• “SaudiUrologistOffersLizardKidneys (DriedandGround) toTreat ImpotenceandConcludes:BirthControl Increase

STDs,”May23,200568

Inadditiontothese,therearemanyothervideosandarticlesthatmakesimilarclaimsand

subscribe to similar conspiracy theories. The Middle East Media Research Institute (fromwhich the above stories and videos are taken) offers awealth of information on both theirvideopageandtheirSpecialDispatchsection.69

Whiletheamountofthiskindofdelusionalmaterialisnearlyoverwhelming,thereareTV

stationssuchasAlArabiya,headedbyAdbulRahmanal-Rashed,oneofthefinestjournalistsin theArabworld, andnewspapers suchasAsharqAl-Awsat, publishedout ofLondon, thatserveasmodelsforwhatArabjournalismcouldbecome.

*Thisisnotthecaseinmainstreamshi’ism,whichhasnotgranteddejurelegitimacytoanyruleraftertheoccultationof

thetwelfthimam.

*Itissymptomaticofthedifferenceinthetwoviewsofmanthat,inGenesis,itisAdamwhonamestheanimals,whileintheQur’anit isGodwhodoesso.Namingwasasignofpoweroverthethingorpersonnamed.Muslimmandidnothavethispower;onlyAllahdid.

*Curiously,theAfghanTalibanencouragevaccinations.

*Instarkcontrast,theNewTestamentmakesclearthatdisastersandphysicalafflictionsarenotGod’sdirectpunishmentforsin,significantlyleavingopenthepossibilityofotherexplanations,suchasnaturalcauses.InJohn9:2,forexample,theapostles ask Christ, “Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind.?” Christ answers,

“Neitherthismannorhisparentssinned.”Likewise,inthedeathofeighteenpeoplefromthecollapseofthetowerofSiloam,Christ refuted the explanation that they died as punishment for their sins (Luke:4-5). This difference in understandingbetweenChristianandMuslimrevelationwasextremelyimportantforthedevelopmentofWesterncivilization,asitwasforthelackofdevelopmentinIslamiccivilization.

Chapter7THEWRECKAGE:MUSLIMTESTIMONIALS

Today, according to Arabs themselves, the condition of the Arab Muslim world isdysfunctional. This is hardly news. In the late nineteenth century, Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani(1839–1897)stated:“It ispermissible . . . toaskoneselfwhyArabcivilization,afterhavingthrownsucha live lightontheworld,suddenlybecameextinguished;whythistorchhasnotbeenrelitsince;andwhytheArabworldstillremainsburiedinprofounddarkness.”1

ThequestionwasrepeatedbyShakibArslaninthetitletohis1960sbookWhyAreMuslimsBackwardWhileOthersHaveAdvanced?ContemporaryArabthinkerscontinuetospeakofthedarknesswhichal-Afghanidescribed.

SyrianpoetAliAhmadSa’id(b.1930),knownbyhispseudonym“Adonis,”a2005candidatefor theNobelPrize forLiterature, said: “If I lookat theArabs,withall their resourcesandgreat capacities, and I compare what they have achieved over the past century with whatothers have achieved in that period, I would have to say that we Arabs are in a phase ofextinction,inthesensethatwehavenocreativepresenceintheworld.”sa’idprofferedthatapeoplebecomesextinctwhenitlosesitscreativecapacitytochangeitsworld.HepointedtotheSumerians,theancientGreeks,andthePharaohs—allextinct.TheclearestsignofanArabextinction,hesaid,isthat“wearefacinganewworldwithideasthatnolongerexist,andinacontextthatisobsolete.”2

In his book Contre-Prêches (Counter-Preaching), Tunisian thinker Abdelwahab Meddeb

invites his audience to imagine a meeting of representatives of the various civilizations,European, American, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, African, Arab, and Muslim: “Each[representative] would be asked what his civilization could contribute to the humanity’spresentandfuture.WhatcouldtheArabMuslimoffer?Nothing,exceptforSufism,perhaps....Unless they take a new direction, one can reasonably assume that the Arab [civilization],constrainedbytheframeworkofIslamicfaith,willjointhegreatdeadcivilizations.”3

InaJanuary2008interviewwiththeQatariAl-Rayadaily,eminentSyrianphilosopherSadik

Jalalal-‘AzmsaidthatIslamicthinkersnolongerevenattemptto“dealwiththeproblemsandquestions of modern science.” Having abandoned rational judgment for a kind of moralinfantilization,Islamicreligiousthoughtisin“anevendeeperstateofimpoverishment”thanbefore.“Today,”hesaid,“wehavearrivedat issues likethe fatwaofbreast-feedingadults.”This isa reference to the infamousMay2007 fatwa saying that theonlywayanunmarriedmanandawomancouldworkaloneinthesameroomtogetherwouldbeiftheyestablishedafamilialrelationship.Thistheycoulddo if thewomanbreastfedtheman.Asal-‘Azmpointedout, this fatwa “was not issued by any ordinary sheikh, but by the head of the HadithDepartmentatAl-AzharUniversity,”themostprestigiousMusliminstitutionintheArabworld.(Afterapublicoutcry,thefatwawaswithdrawn.)

AnotherexamplecomesfromthebookReligionandLife—ModernEverydayFatwas,bythemufti of Egypt, Dr. Ali Gum‘a, who wrote that the companions of Muhammad would blessthemselvesbydrinkinghisurine,saliva,orsweat.(ApublicuproarcausedGum‘atowithdrawthebook.)AliGum‘ahasalsoofferedfatwasagainstsculptureandonesforbiddingwomentowearpantsandsoccerplayerstoshowtheirlegs.al-‘AzmalsopointsoutthattheArabworldisnowrifewithreiterationsof“theHadithofthefly.”(TheProphetsaid,“Ifahouseflyfallsinthedrinkofanyoneofyou,heshoulddipit[inthedrink],foroneofitswingshasadiseaseand theotherhas thecure for thedisease” [SahihAl-Bukhari:Volume4,Book54,Number537].) Thiswas thought to have someapplication to a cure forAIDS.According to al-‘Azm,“thespreadofthissuperstitiousmannerofthinking...representsanadditionaldeteriorationoverandabovetheimpoverishment”thathehadwrittenaboutinthelate1960s.4

A contemporary cry of desperation comes from IndianMuslim thinker Rashid Shaz: “WeMuslimslivewithaparadox.Ifwearereallythelastchosennationentrustedtoleadtheworldtillendtime,whyitissothatweareunabletoarrestourowndecline?Despitethefactthat

the Muslim nation today constitute [sic] almost two billion strong population and they arestrategicallylocatedinenergy-richlandsonwhichdependsthefutureoftheworld,theyarereducedtomereconsumers.Thenewtechnologyhasrevolutionisedthewayweliveanditisstillforcingustolivedifferently,butweasanationhavealmostnoshareinthisprocessandhencehavecompletelylostcontrolofthehappeningsaroundus.”5

Thesevoicessoundsoforlornbecausethingshavebeengettingworse,notbetter,overthe

pastfiftyyears.Thetrajectoryisawayfromreform,nottowardit.OnebarometeristheworkofKhalidMuhammadKhalid,anEgyptianthinker,whowroteaseminalwork,HereWeStart,in1950.Thebook,whichwasreprinted ten times in less than fifteenyears, spelledout therelationshipbetweenreligionandpolitics that isnecessary foreffectivereform:“Weshouldkeep inmind that the religion ought to be asGodwanted it to be: prophecy, not kingdom;guidance, not government; and preaching, not political rule. The best we can do to keepreligion clear and pure is to separate it from politics and to place it above [politics]. Theseparation between religion and the state contributes to keeping religion [free of] theshortcomingsof thestateand itsarbitrariness.”6 In1989, however,Khalid renouncedall ofthis,collapsedtheverydistinctionhehadinsistedupon,andcalledfordinwadawla,theunityof religion and state, and for Islamicworld government, which is precisely the goal of theIslamists.7TheWreckageinHumanDevelopment:MuslimTestimoniesTheArabworld’sunderdevelopmenthasbeenbluntlyreportedinaseriesofinvaluableUnitedNationsreportsthatbeganin2002.ItshouldbenotedthatonlyArabscholarswritetheUN’sArabHumanDevelopmentReports—awisechoicebytheUNthatmakesitdifficulttodismissthe conclusions as biased or as the product of Western intellectuals infamously known as“Orientalists.”

The second report, from 2003, states, “In being connected with and at the same timecontradictory to knowledge, Arab intellectual heritage nowadays raises basic knowledgeproblems.”8 The report is bold enough to refer to a lack of scientific perspective and“sometimesadisregardof reality” in theArabheritage. Itgetsclose tosuggesting that theoriginofthe“knowledgeproblems”isfundamentallytheologicalinnaturebysaying,“Finally,it [Arab consciousness] has been cloaked in the supernatural, which in reality signified anabsence of consciousness and an abandonment of the scientific and intellectual basis thatunderpinnedtheArabclassicalculturalexperience.”9

The UN report is right to identify “basic knowledge problems” in the Arab intellectual

heritage,which grew straight out of the developments chronicled in this book.But theUNpaperdoesnotgetthereasonforthemexactlycorrect.Thedifficultydoesnotreallyconsistinbeing “cloaked in the supernatural”; rather, it is the kind of supernatural in whichconsciousnessis“cloaked”thatisdecisiveforscienceandeverythingelse.Aswehaveseen,the denial of natural law, occasioned by a certain conception of God, removed the veryobjectiveofsciencefromtheMuslimmind.Sincetheeffortofscienceistodiscovernature’slaws, the teaching that these laws do not, in fact, exist (for theological reasons) obviouslydiscourages the scientific enterprise. The Ash‘arite school, by diminishing theworth of theworldashavingnostatusinandofitself,marginalizedtheattemptstocometoknowit.

Theextentofthediscouragementandthepaucityofscientificresearchthishasproducedis, if predictable, still astonishing. While the UN reports testify to this, Pakistani physicistPervezHoodbhoyisparticularlytrenchantonthesubject.IntheAugust2007issueofPhysicsToday,henotesthatafterthemajorscientificcontributionsofIslam’sGoldenAgeintheninthtothirteenthcenturies,“scienceintheIslamicworldessentiallycollapsed.Nomajorinventionor discovery has emerged from the Muslim world for well over seven centuries now. Thatarrestedscientificdevelopmentisoneimportantelement—althoughbynomeanstheonlyone—thatcontributestothepresentmarginalizationofMuslimsandagrowingsenseofinjusticeandvictimhood.”10

Hoodbhoy cites an array of statistics that lay bare the lack of scientific inquiry in the

Muslim world. According to a study conducted by the International Islamic UniversityMalaysia, Islamic countries have only 8.5 scientists, engineers, and technicians per 1,000population,barely20percentoftheworldaverage(40.7per1,000),andjust6percentofthe

averageforcountriesintheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(139.3).Meanwhile,IndiaandSpaineachproducealargerpercentageoftheworld’sscienceliteraturethanforty-sixMuslimcountriescombined.Hoodbhoyalsocitesofficialstatisticsshowingthat“Pakistanhasproducedonlyeightpatentsinthepast43years.”

The2003UNHumanDevelopmentReportexpandsonthesedistressingfigures.Scientificpapers,measured by papers permillion inhabitants, are “roughly 20 percent of that of anindustrialcountry.SouthKoreaproduces144permillion;Arabcountries26permillion.” Incomparingthenumberofpatentsregisteredinthetwenty-yearperiodfrom1980to2000,thereportshowsKoreawith16,328,andninecountriesintheMiddleEast,includingEgypt,Syria,andJordan,with370,withevenmanyofthesepatentsregisteredbyforeigners.11

This dire situationwasmade evenworsebyMuslim countries attempting to reinvigorate

science by making it “Islamic.” “In the 1980s,” Hoodbhoy writes, “an imagined ‘Islamicscience’wasposedasanalternativeto‘Westernscience.’Thenotionwaswidelypropagatedand received support from governments in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.”Supporters of this “new science,” says Hoodbhoy, announced that “revelation rather thanreasonwouldbetheultimateguidetovalidknowledge.”

The results of “Islamic science” were predictable. As Hoodbhoy recounts, so-calledscientists took verses from the Qur’an and tried to utilize them as “literal statements ofscientificfact.”So,forexample,“SomescholarscalculatedthetemperatureofHell,othersthechemical composition of heavenly djinnis. None produced a new machine or instrument,conductedanexperiment,orevenformulatedasingletestablehypothesis.”12

TosaythatthereisanIslamic(oraChristianorHindu)scienceis,ofcourse,todenythat

thereissuchathingasscience,aswhatstandsscientificallymustbethesameeverywhereforeveryone. Is hydrogen Islamic? Is there an Islamic lightbulb? The claim for a specificallyIslamic science comes from a point of view grounded in al-Ghazali’s statement that “thescience that the Qur’an brings is all science.”13 Applied literally, this teaching meanspracticallynoscienceforSunniMuslims.MoreUNReportsonArabUnderdevelopmentThe devastation extends far beyond science. Were it not for sub-Saharan Africa, the Arabworld would find itself at the bottom of the scale in almost every category of humandevelopment—health,education,per-capitaGDP,andproductivity.

Again,theUNArabHumanDevelopmentReportsrelatethegrimresults.Forinstance,the2002reportnotesthat“GDPinallArabcountriescombinedstoodat$531.2billionin1999—less than that of a single European country, Spain ($595.5 billion).”14 If oil exports arestrippedout,theMiddleEastexportslessthanFinland.ThereportalsostatesthattheArabworld,forallitsoilriches,hasexperienced“asituationofquasi-stagnation”since1975,withrealper-capita incomegrowingbyonlyabout0.5percentannuallywhentheglobalaverageincreasewasmorethan1.3percentayear.AstheUNreported,“onlysub-SaharanAfricadidworse than the Arab countries.” During the same time period, purchasing power paritydeclined considerably in the Arab world, from 21.3 percent to just 13.9 percent.Unemployment, too, remained stubbornlyhighacross theArabworld,hoveringat about15percent—”among thehighest rates in thedevelopingworld,”according to theUN.15This ishardly surprisinggiven thepaucityof investment in researchanddevelopment,whichdoesnot exceed 0.5 percent of gross national product, well below the world average.16 Forinstance,itisevenlowerthaninCubaat2.35percentin1995.17

Further, “Despite the popular perception that Arab countries are rich, the volume of

economicproductintheregionisrathersmall.OverallGDPattheendofthe20thcentury(US$604billion)waslittlemorethanthatofasingleEuropeancountrysuchasSpain(US$559billion)andmuchlessthanthatofanotherEuropeancountry,Italy(US$1,074billion)(UNDP2002).”24

According to the Arab Human Development Report, productivity in the Arab world is

woefully low. Including theArabworld’s oil production, theproductivity level in the richest

Muslimcountries is justoverhalfof thatofArgentinaorSouthKorea.Further, in theArabcountriesthatproducelittleoil,theproductivitylevelislessthanone-tenththatofArgentinaorSouthKorea.25

In2005,theU.S.treasuryundersecretaryforinternationalaffairs,JohnB.Taylor,citingthe

workofProfessorGuidoTabellini,notedthat“productivityactuallyfellintheMiddleEastinthelast20years,by0.7percentperyear.Incontrast,thisisaperiodwhenproductivitywasincreasingintheUnitedstates,EuropeandEastAsia....Regionalunemploymentlevelsare15percentandreach30percentamongyoungerworkers.”18

Outofacombinedpopulationofaround300million,some65millionArabsare illiterate,

two-thirds of themwomen. According to the 2009 Arab Knowledge Report, this figure hasimprovedslightlysince2002butitisstillabove60million.19

Intermsofwhatitenumeratesasthe“freedomdeficit,”thereportstatesthat“outofseven

worldregions,Arabcountrieshadthelowestfreedomscoreinthelate1990sfigures.”20Littlehaschangedsincethen.

Accordingto theUN, theproductionofscholarlyand literarybooks isseverely lacking inthe Muslim world. Muslims publish just over 1 percent of the world’s books despiteconstituting 5 percent of the world’s population. Further, their share of literary or artisticbooksstandsatjustunder1percent.EvenmoretellingisthatofbookspublishedintheArabmarket,17percentarereligiousinnature.That’s12percentmorethantheaverageinotherpartsoftheglobe.21“TurningtoUNESCOstatisticsonthevolumeofworldpublicationsshowsthat, in 1991, Arab countries produced 6,500 books compared to 102,000 books in NorthAmerica,and42,000inLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.”22

Finally,thenumberofbookstranslatedintheMuslimworldisfivetimeslessthanofthose

translatedinGreece.Infact,inthepastonethousandyears,sincethereignofal-Ma’mun,theArab community has translated only 10,000 books, or roughly the number that Spaintranslatesinoneyear.23

A sad epitaph to this grim litany of failure comes from Syrian philosopher Sadik Jalal

al-‘Azm:

WhenwesimplylookattheArabworld,weseethatitconsumeseverythingbutthatitproducesnothingapartfromrawmaterials.WhatcanweexpectfromtheArabs?LookattheArabworldfromoneendtotheother;thereisnotrueaddedvaluetoanything.Thereisastructurethatseemsnottoencourageproductionandtonotbeforit.Whatdoweproduce?What do we export? [This is true] whether you are talking about material, economic, scientific, or intellectualproduction,oranyotherkind.Lookatoilproduction,forexample.WhatistheArabs’relationtotheoilindustry?Theyown the oil, but they have nothing to do with its extraction, refinement, marketing, or transport. Look at the hugeinstallationsforprospectingoil,extractingit,andrefiningit.LookattheArabsatellite,whatinitisArab?Idoubttheabilityof theArabstoproduceatelephonewithout importingthepartsandthetechnologies itrequires,andperhapseventhetechnicians.26

In terms of education, things do not look much better. In aWall Street Journal article,SheikhMuhammadbinRashidalMaktoum,primeministeroftheUnitedArabEmiratesandrulerofDubai,notesthatmorethanhalfoftheArabpopulationof300millionisundertheageoftwenty-five.Hethenasksrhetorically,“Andhowmuchdowespendoneducation?Thepercapitaexpenditureofourregion’s22nations[membersoftheArabLeague]hasshrunkinthelast15yearsto10%from20%ofwhattheworld’s30wealthiestcountriesspend.”27

MakingSenseoftheWreckage:TheSeedsofIslamismItisalongwayfromtheresplendentBaghdadcourtofCaliphal-Ma’muntoconditionsintheArab world today. Ali Allawi laments, “The creative output of the twenty or thirty millionMuslimsoftheAbbasideradwarfstheoutputofthenearlyone-and-a-halfbillionMuslimsofthe modern era.”28 Poignantly, the 2003 UN report uses a quote from the first Arabphilosopher,al-Kindi,athinkersponsoredbyal-Ma’mun,toencourageacceptanceofthetruth,nomatterfromwhereitmightcome,asubtlesuggestionthattheArabworldneedstocatchupwith its past. To repeat al-Afghani’s question: “It is permissible, however, to ask oneselfwhyArab civilization, after having thrown such a live light on theworld, suddenly became

extinguished;why this torchhasnotbeen relit since; andwhy theArabworld still remainsburiedinprofounddarkness.”(Itwasnotas“sudden”asal-Afghanisuggested.)

Thequestionmustbeaddressedwithinthecontextofavery longperiodofdecline.As isusualinthedeclineofempires,Islam’slossofintellectualvitalityprecededitslossofpoliticalvitality. Islam as a global civilizationwith the Arabs at its center gradually collapsed in onitself(withthehelpoftheMongols,whodestroyedBaghdadin1258).Thereisnoreasonhereto recite the history of decline. It was not uninterrupted, as is known from the greatachievements of the Ottomans, who succeeded the Arabs in the Middle East. However,eventually the decline became so pronounced that it raised disturbing questions. Thishappened principally because of the incursions of advanced Western powers into thesacrosanctlandsofIslam.

As IbnKhaldunwrote inTheMuqaddimah (Introduction toHistory),Muslims “are underobligationtogainpoweroverothernations.”29HadnotAllahpromised,“Oursoldierswillbethosewhoovercome”(Qur’an37:173)?AnddidnottheastonishingsuccessofIslaminitsfirstcenturiesconfirmtheprophecyforitsbelievers?Failureisparticularlygallingwhenthereisatheological imperative to succeed. Loss of power is egregious because Islam is driven by atheologyofempire.“Butwhenyoudon’thaveanempireyouhavesomethingthathasgoneseriouslywrong.”30

Thingsbegantogoseriouslywrongin1798,whenNapoleondefeatedtheEgyptianarmies

at theBattleof thePyramids(orevenbefore,whentheOttomanEmpirewasforcedtosigntheTreatyofKüçükKaynarcain1774withRussia).AsAbdal-Rahmanal-Jabartiobservedatthe time, theproperorderof thingsasdivinelyordainedhadbeenoverturned.TheMuslimworldbegantoexperienceenormoustheological,philosophical,andpoliticalconfusion.HowcouldthisdefeatpossiblyhavehappenedinthehouseofIslam?

ThingsgotmuchworseafterWorldWar I,with thecollapseof thecaliphate in1924, thesecularizationofTurkey,andthealmostcompletecolonizationoftheLevantandtheMaghreb.Therewas the old enemy, theWest, ruling overMuslims. In strict Islamic teaching, a non-MuslimisnotallowedtoruleanIslamiccountry. It isascandal foran infidel toruleoverabeliever.31Suddenly,ahugepartoftheIslamicworldwasbeingruledbytheWest.Howcouldthisbeunderstoodwithinthetenetsofthefaithandwhatwastobedoneaboutit?

ThereweretwodistinctanswersfromMuslims.OnewasthatIslamicthinkinghadcalcified,andthiswasthecauseofitsdecline.Thus,itneededtomodernizeandtolearnfromtheWest.To allow for this, Islam could be reinterpreted to show that its fundamental teachings andprincipleswere,infact,notsimplycompatiblewithmodernscienceandotherachievements,butalreadyunderlaythoseachievements.IslamhadledthewayintheMiddleAges,onlytobestifled by its own clerical establishment. Meanwhile the West had built upon Islam’s ownachievementstosurpassit.NowIslamhadtoreclaimitslegacyfromtheWestanddevelopitfurther.ThisresponsewasgivenwellbeforetheendofthecaliphateundertheexperienceofWesternimperialdominationofMuslimlandsinEgyptandIndia.

Jamalal-Dinal-Afghani,apan-Islamist,insistedthattherewasnoconflictbetweenfaithandreasoninIslam,andsoughtIslam’smodernizationinordertostrengthenitagainsttheWest.TheWest’s superioritywasseenprincipally in itsvastlygreater scientific knowledgeand inthepowerthatissuedfromit.HewasscathinginhisaddresstotheulemaofIndia:“Theydonot ask: Who are we and what is right and proper for us? They never ask the causes ofelectricity, the steamboat, and railroads. . . .Ourulemaat this timeare likea verynarrowwalkontopofwhichisaverysmallflamethatneitherlightsitssurroundingsnorgiveslightto others.”32 In an exchange with French writer Ernest Renan, al-Afghani wrote, “A truebelievermust,infact,turnfromthepathofstudiesthathavefortheirobjectscientifictruth....Yoked,likeanoxtotheplow,tothedogmawhoseslaveheis,hemustwalketernallyinthefurrow that has been traced for him in advance by the interpreters of the law. Convinced,besides, thathis religion contains in itself allmorality andall sciences,heattacheshimselfresolutely to itandmakesnoeffort togobeyond. . . .Whereuponhedespisesscience.”“Intruth,”saidal-Afghani,“theMuslimreligionhastriedtostiflescienceandstopitsprogress.”33

As a result, he said, referring to Western colonization of Islamic lands, “ignorance had noalternativetoprostratingitselfhumblybeforescienceandacknowledgingitssubmission.”34

Inturn,al-AfghanitaughttheEgyptianMuhammad‘Abduh(1849–1905)intherationalismof early Islamic thought, including Avicenna. Although ‘Abduh had received a traditionaleducation, including four years at al-Azhar, he rebelledat the rote learningand the lackofphilosophyandtheologyintheal-Azharcurriculum.Aconservativeal-Azharprofessor,Sheikh‘Ulaysh, confronted him, asking “if he had given up Ash‘arite teaching to follow theMu‘taziilite.” ‘Abduhresponded:“If Igiveupblindacceptance (taqlid)ofAsh‘aritedoctrine,why should I takeupblindacceptanceof theMu‘taziilite? “35 Thiswas a clever answer, as“blind acceptance” is exactlywhat theMu‘taziilites taught against, and itwouldhavebeendangerousfor ‘AbduhtoadmitopenlytoMu‘taziilitesympathies.As itwas, ‘Abduhwassentintoexileforhisattemptsatreform.WhileinBeirut,hewroteRisalatal-tawhid(Treatiseon[Divine] Unity). In the first edition of the book, ‘Abduh went so far as to embrace theMu‘taziilite position that the Qur’an was created—Khalq al-Qur’an—and not coeternal withGod.However,becauseofthecontroversythiscaused,heremoveditinsubsequenteditions.36

Returning from Beirut, ‘Abduh still found formidable obstacles to reform at al-Azhar in

teachingevenIbnKhaldun’sundisputedclassicofArabicthoughtfromthefourteenthcentury.“Aftermyreturnfromexile,ItriedtoconvinceSheikhMuhammadal-Anbabi,thenSheikhal-Azhar, toacceptcertainproposals,butherefused.Once I said tohim, ‘Wouldyouagree,OSheikh,toorderthattheMuqaddimah(Introduction)of IbnKhaldunbe taughtatal-Azhar?’AndIdescribedtohimwhateverIcouldofthebenefitsofthiswork.Hereplied,‘Itwouldbeagainstthetraditionofteachingatal-Azhar.’”37

InadditiontoitsembraceofacreatedQur’an,Risalatcontainsotherpassagesthatarevery

redolent of Mu‘taziilite teaching and sound as if they could have been written by Abd al-Jabbar:“[How]thencanreasonbedenieditsright,being,asitis,thescrutineerofevidences(adilla)soastoreachthetruthwithinthemandknowthat it isDivinelygiven? . . .Yetthisobligation (of recognizing revelation) does not involve reason in accepting rationalimpossibilitiessuchastwoincompatiblesoroppositestogetheratthesametimeandpoint.... But if there appears somethingwhich appears contradictory reasonmust believe that theapparentisnottheintendedsense.Itisthenfreetoseekthetruesensebyreferencetotherestof theprophet’smessage inwhomtheambiguityoccurred.”38Revelationwasgiven“tohelp fallible reason by defining some of the good and bad acts on the basis of the utilityprinciple.”39

‘Abduh said he wished “to liberate thought from the shackles of taqlid [imitation or

emulation]...toreturn,intheacquisitionofreligiousknowledge,toitsfirstsources,andtoweightheminthescalesofhumanreason,whichGodhascreatedinordertopreventexcessoradulterationinreligion...andtoprovethat,seeninthislight,religionmustbeaccountedafriendtoscience,pushingmantoinvestigatethesecretsofexistence.”40

‘AbduhrosetobecomethemuftiofEgypt—thehighestauthorityonIslamicjurisprudence.

AsentrancedashewasbybothLeoTolstoyandHerbertSpencer,whomhewenttoLondontomeet,‘AbduhwasnotwillingtogoasfarastheMu‘taziilitesin“subjectingGod’spowertotheprincipleofjustice.”41Aswehaveseenearlier,hispositionwasthat“reasonquitelacksthecompetence topenetrate to theessenceof things.For theattempt todiscern thenatureofthings,whichnecessarilybelongswith their essential complexity,wouldhave to lead to thepureessenceandtothis,necessarily,thereisnorationalaccess.”

Itisinterestingtonotethereasonwhy‘AbduhdidnotapproveoftheTanzimatreformsintheOttomanEmpirethatgrantedequalitybeforethelawtoMuslimsandnon-Muslimsalike.Hedidnotopposethesubstanceofthesereformsbutobjectedthattheyhadbeen“institutednotbyandthroughreligion,astheyshouldhavebeen,butindefianceofit....AllchangessoattemptedmustfailinIslambecausetheyhaveinthemtheinevitableviceofillegality.”42Evenfor‘Abduh,then,“reasonisnotalegislator,”andIslamremainsthesolesourceoflegitimacy.

In India, Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817–1898) went further than ‘Abduh in insisting on theprimacyofreasonandthecreatednessoftheQur’an.“Ifpeopledonotshunblindadherence,iftheydonotseekthatlightwhichcanbefoundintheQur’anandtheindisputableHadith,and do not adjust religion and the sciences of today, Islamwill become extinct in India.”43

Founded by Khan, Aligarh University, modeled on Cambridge, became a major center forintellectual renewal. “Of the different religious books which exist today and are used forteaching, which of them discusses Western philosophy or modern scientific matters using

principlesofreligion?Fromwhereshould Iseekconfirmationorrejectionof themotionsoftheEarth, or about itsnearness to the sun?Thus it is a thousand timesbetter not to readthesebooksthantoreadthem.Yes,iftheMussulmanbeatruewarriorandthinkshisreligionright, then lethimcomefearlessly to thebattlegroundanddountoWesternknowledgeandmodernresearchwhathis forefathersdid toGreekphilosophy.Thenonlyshall thereligiousbooks be of any real use.Mere parrotingwill not do.”44He insisted that “todaywe are asbefore in need of a modern theology (‘ilm al-kalam) by which we should either refute thedoctrines of the modern world or undermine their foundation, or show that they are inconformitywiththearticlesofIslamicfaith.”45

AhmadKhanrejectedShari‘aandsaidthattheQur’anshouldbereinterpretedtoconform

toknownfactsofphysicalreality.HenotonlyechoedtheMu‘taziilitesbutalsoembracedtheIslamic philosophers, including their Aristotelian description of God as the “First Cause.”46

Hisdisciple,SayyidAmeerAli(1849–1924),blamedal-Ashari,IbnHanbal,al-Ghazali,andIbnTaymiyyaforthecollapseofIslamicscienceandculture.AhmadKhan’smessagewasdeeplyresented by the ulema and he was vilified among the orthodox, who boycotted AligarhUniversity,butwhowereeventuallyabletofoistuponittheirownreligiousinstruction.AsforKhan,“Themutawalli(keeper)oftheHolyKabbadeclaredhimtobeanenemyofIslamandwajib-i-qatl(deserverofdeath).”47Evenal-AfghaniconsideredKhanaheretic.48

The efforts of al-Afghani, Muhammad ‘Abduh, Ahmad Khan, and others like them were

ultimatelyunsuccessfulintermsofreorientingIslamicculturesoitcouldsuccessfullyabsorbmodernscienceandrationality,andstillretainitsreligiousorthodoxy.Thereasonforthismaybe that, as intimatedby ‘Abduh’s objection to theTanzimat reforms, theywerenot seen asemanatingfromIslamandthereforesufferedfromthe“inevitableviceofillegality.”Onemustremember that, by the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Ash‘arism had had athousandyearstoseepintoeverynookandcrannyofArabculture.Itsinfluencecouldhardlybeabrogatedinthespaceofamerefiftyyears,ormore.

Perhaps themost important reason for failure, according toBassamTibi, is that “Islamicmodernismneverwentbeyonddogmaandremainedbasicallyscripturalist,actingexclusivelywithin dogmatic confines. Because it did not engage in a reason-based response to thequestion Arslan asked (‘Why are Muslims backward?’), no cultural innovation wasaccomplished.”49DavidPryce-Jonesexplainsthat“Afghanibuiltintothedefinitionofprogressa contradictory regression to the Islamic past.”50 Ironically, these reformers laid thefoundationsfortheSalafistmovement.Ifonetracesthegenealogyoftheideologyoftoday’sIslamists back to al-Afghani, one can see the force of this insight in their insistent calls toreturn to thewaysof theCompanionsof theProphet.* (The lineagegoes fromal-Afghani toMuhammad‘AbduhtoRashidRidatoHassanal-BannatoSayyidQutbtoOsamabinLadenandAymanal-Zawahiri.)Theproblemwitha return to thepast is that thepast is impervious tochange. In these terms, reform in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries wasunfortunatelystillborn.In2008,SaudiauthorandreformistTurkial-Hamadgavethisepitaphforreform:“Fromtheearly20thcenturytothisday,weconstantlyhearpeoplesay:Weshouldadoptthegoodthings[fromtheWest]andignorethebad.Youcannotdosuchathing.Whenyouconsidertheproductsofmoderncivilization—thecar,thecomputer,andsoon—theseareallproductsofacertainphilosophy,acertainwayof thinking. Ifyouadopttheproduct,butignoretheproducer—youhaveaproblem.Youcannotdosuchathing.[Forus,]theproductisnew,butthethoughtisnot.Wemoveforwardwithoureyeslookingbackward.”

*TheforceofregressionissomewhatendemictoIslambasedupontheQur’an’sdescriptionofMedinaintheearlyseventh

century:“Youarethebestcommunityproduced[asanexample]formankind”(3:110).Ifthisisso,emulatingMedina,evenfourteenhundredyearslater,ineluctablybecomesthegoalofreform.

Chapter8THESOURCESOFISLAMISM

Theotheranswertoal-Afghani’squestionaboutthedeclineofIslamiccivilizationhadnothingtodowiththelossofscienceortheneedtocatchupwiththeWest.ItunderstoodthecrisisasarebukefromAllahbecauseMuslimshadnotfollowedHisway.Justassuccessisavalidationoffaith,failureisapersonalrebuke.DidnotAllahpromise,“Youshallbeuppermostifyouarebelievers”(3:139)?Thecorollarytothismustbethat,ifyouarenotuppermost,youmustnotbebelievers.Withinthistheologicalviewpoint,defeatbyasuperiorpowermustbeinterpretedasa judgmentfromAllahthatMuslimshavedeviatedfromHispath.This istheperspectivethatwasseizeduponbytheIslamists.A narrative of grievance and potential recovery exists throughout theMuslimworld, but

particularly among the Islamists,who are still in a state of shock over the abolition of thecaliphatebyKemalAtaturk in1924.With thecollapseof theOttomanEmpireat theendofWorldWarI,thecaliphatewasbutashellof itself.Nevertheless,itsabandonmentleftsomeMuslimscompletelyadrift.ItwasasiftheVaticanhadabjureditsauthoritytorepresentthechurch.Howcould theendof thecaliphatebeexplained? Itsabolitioncalled intoexistencethefirst IslamistorganizationssuchastheMuslimBrotherhood, theal-Ikhwanal-Muslimun,dedicated to its restoration. While most Muslims may not share in the Islamist mythologyregardingthecaliphate,whichdidnotexistcontinuously fromthetimeofMuhammad,theynonethelessdorequireanexplanationforthedeclineoftheircivilization.AsomewhatsimilarsituationexistedinGermanyafterWorldWarI,whichAdolfHitlerwas

able to exploit with the Nazi Party. In fact, there are striking parallels to this sense ofgrievancethatcanbefoundinMeinKampf.Thecomparisonisnotadventitious.TherewereassociationsbetweentheNazisandtheearlyIslamistsgoingbacktothe1930s,whenHassanal-Banna, the founderof the Ikhwan,modeled theMuslimBrotherhoodon theBrownshirts.TheGermansenseofgrievancecamefromdefeatinWorldWarIandthemetaphysicalshockof the collapse of the Second Reich. This loss was inconceivable to them. The world hadsomehow been turned upside down. To comprehend the loss, Hitler and his companionsexplained it in termsof first the internalenemyandthentheexternalenemy.Germanywasstabbedintheback.WherewastherotinGermansocietyfromwhichthisbetrayalcame?TheracistNazianswerwastheJew.GermanymustexpungetheJewandpurifyitselfforthebattleagainsttheexternalenemyinordertobringaboutthemillenarianvisionoftheThirdReichandthesupremacyoftheAryanrace.Similarly,Islamiststrytofocusthewidelysharedsenseofgrievanceandhumiliationinthe

Muslimworldonthelossofthecaliphatebecausetheywishtorestoreit.Theirexplanationforthe decline of their civilization is, as indicated above, a loss of faith. The solution to thisproblemisobviouslynotimitatingtheWest,butrestoringMuslimfaithtoapristinecondition,as defined by them. They, too, began looking for the internal enemy and then the externalenemy. Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, gives typical expression to thisformulation in describing “the apostate domestic enemy and the Jewish-crusader externalenemy.”1Itishere,attheheartoftheefforttorestorepastglory,thatthequestionsaskedintheintroductionreappear.AretheIslamistsoftodaysomethingneworaresurgenceofsomethingfromthepast?How

muchofthisisIslamandhowmuchisIslamism?*IsIslamismadeformationofIslam?Ifso,inwhat way and from where has it come? And why is Islam susceptible to this kind ofdeformation?Quitesometimeago,ananswertothefirstquestionwasprofferedbythefamousBritish

authorHilaireBelloc.InTheGreatHeresies,publishedin1938,hepredictedtheresurgenceof Islam in the followingway: “Since religion is at the root of all politicalmovements andchanges and since we have here a very great religion physically paralysed but morallyintensely alive, we are in the presence of an unstable equilibrium which cannot remain

permanentlyunstable.”2 A fewpages laterBellocwrote: “That [Islamic] culture happens tohavefallenbackinmaterialapplications;thereisnoreasonwhateverwhyitshouldnotlearnitsnewlessonandbecomeourequalinallthosetemporalthingswhichnowalonegivesusoursuperiorityoverit—whereasinFaithwehavefalleninferiortoit.”3Bellocsaw thecomingresurgenceof Islamwithin thecontextof Islamichistory fromthe

seventh to the seventeenth centuries, at the end of which the Turks were stopped for thesecondandfinaltimeoutsidethegatesofVienna.ArevivedIslam,heseemedtosay,wouldbemoreofthesame,yetnowequippedwithmoderntechnology.ItwouldbeanevenmorelethalfoeagainstaWestweakenedbyitslossoffaith.AsprescientasBellocmayseem,canoneadequatelyunderstandwhatishappeningtoday

inthetermshesuggested?Thecenturies-longexpansionofIslamcamefromthecenterofanextraordinarydynamicthatthrust out to the boundaries of its potential, but then slowly subsided into quiescence. Asalready stated, the Islamic world was jolted out of its several centuries of torpor only byintrusionsfromtheWest.Bytheearlynineteenthcentury,theWesthaddemonstratedsuchadecisive superiority over Islamic culture that Islam’sdefensive attempts to recover from itsinfluences have been indelibly marked by the very things against which Muslims werereacting.ToresisttheWest,theybecame,inaway,Western.AsRaphaelPataipointedoutinThe Arab Mind, the very standards by which Muslims measure their own progress areWestern.ThisisamplyevidentintheUNArabHumanDevelopmentReports,writtenbyArabsthemselves.Inafinalirony,themostrabidideologicalreactionsagainstthisstateofaffairsintheMuslimworldarealsoinfusedwithWesternideology.Islamistspracticeaperversekindofhomeopathywhichusestheverydiseasefromwhichtheyaresufferingtocombatit,butwithdosagesthatarelethal.Bellocdidnotforeseethis.Islamist authors cannot be accurately understood in the terms of Islam simply, but only

withintheperspectiveofthetwentieth-centuryWesternideologiesthattheyhaveassimilated,mostespeciallythosebasedonNietzscheandMarx.(Weshallshortlyseehowthoroughtheassimilationwas.)TheseminalthinkersinIslamism,likeSayyidQutbinEgypt,wereverywellversedinWesternphilosophyandliterature.QutbwenttotheUnitedStatesfortwoyearsofpostgraduatestudies(1949–50).Hewascompletelyrepelledbywhathesawasamaterialistculture.Forexample,hethoughtthatthewayAmericanscaredfortheirlawnswasasignofmaterialismandthattheparishdanceshewitnessedwereexamplesofsexualdegeneracy.HisexposuretotheWestintensifiedhishatredofit.ThesolutiontowhathediagnosedasWesternalienationwasIslam.Islamcouldovercometherelativismandthemoraldegeneracythathehadobserved.IslamwouldsavetheWestaswellastheEast.Inordertodothis,QutbsaidthatMuslimsmustemulatethebehavioroftheCompanionsof

the Prophet to prepare for the struggle ahead. But he used Leninist terms and means,espousinga“vanguard”ofthefaithfulwhichwouldleadtherestorationofthecaliphate.(Infact, Qutb, though he despised Marxism, was the Muslim Brotherhood’s liaison to theCommunistPartyinEgyptandtotheCommunistInternational.)BecauseofhisoppositiontotheEgyptiangovernment,QutbwashangedbyNasserin1966.Heissaidtohavegonetothegallowssmiling,leavingthaticonicimagetoinspirehisfollowerstoday.Thehighlyheterogeneousworldofcontemporary Islamstretches fromtheAtlantic to the

Pacific,fromMoroccotothesouthernPhilippines.Thereareveryfewthingsthatonecansayabout this world that are true in all these places. Of the forty-four predominantly Muslimcountries in theworld, twenty-four do not use Islamic law as their primary source of laws.WhileMuslimseverywhereobservethefivepillarsofIslam,theyareculturallyverydifferentin, say, Indonesia and the Arab world. However, this highly heterogeneous character is indangerofbeinghomogenized.TheengineforthehomogenizationisQutb’sIslamistideology,whichhasdemonstratedtremendouscross-culturalappeal.Qutb’swritingsareconsideredthenewwrit, alongwith those of PakistaniwriterMaulanaMaududi andHassan al-Banna, thefounderof theMuslimBrotherhood.Qutb’s teachingsareat the foundationof, for instance,the Justice and Prosperity Party (PKS), which is the fastest-growing and only dues-payingparty in Indonesia (although it has suffered some recent setbacks), as well as the moreexplicitlyviolentJemaahIslamiyah.TheHizbut-Tahrirorganization,whichisbannedinmostMuslimcountries,hashadquiteanimpactincentralAsiaandwesternEurope.Thefoundationof its ideology is also Sayyid Qutb. The people at whom Hizb ut-Tahrir aims are the

intelligentsia and the uppermiddle class across the Islamicworld. Hizb ut-Tahrir does notexplicitlyadvocateviolenceandterrorism,butpreparestheintellectualfoundationsforitbyusing Qutb’s teachings. On the other hand, al-Qaeda, also spawned by Qutb’s ideology,explicitly promotes violence in the fifty-some nations in which it has a presence. Qutb’sbrother, Muhammad, taught Osama bin Laden at Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, SaudiArabia. Islamic Jihad in Palestine, another Qutb clone, advocates violence. Iran’s SupremeLeader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, translated substantial parts of Qutb’s works into Farsi,demonstrating the impactofQutb’s thoughtacross theSunni-Shi‘itedivide. Inotherwords,this is not a local phenomenon. The cross-cultural appeal of this ideology reflects a deepercrisiswithin Islam itself. It is in itsmost exacerbated form in theArabworld, but it existseverywhereintheMuslimuniverseorumma.WhyisQutbsopopularandinfluential?Thereisatwo-foldanswer.Partoftheexplanation

comesfromtheabidingsenseofMuslimgrievanceandhumiliationtowhichQutb’sideologyplays.ThispartstemsfromIslamitself,whichtakesasitsmodelforsuccesstheCompanionsoftheProphet,whoblazedthewaytogloryandempire.So,saidQutb,Muslimsmustremovetheaccretionsoftheagesandgobacktothatoriginalcommunity,modelthemselvesontheCompanions and prepare to do what they did—to retake the world, and to reestablish thecaliphate. The instrument for doing this, depending on which Islamist you talk to, is acombinationofpersuasion(dawa)andjihad,bothofwhicharegroundedintraditionalIslam,orsimplyjihad.QutbblamedtheJewsinIstanbulforconspiringinthecollapseofthecaliphate(“TheJews

havealwaysbeentheprimemoversinthewardeclaredonallfrontsagainsttheadvocatesofIslamicrevivalthroughouttheworld”),4andlabeledimpiousMuslimsastheinternalenemy,whomust be vanquished so that the infidelWest could be confronted and overcome. Thismuch of the program can be understood from Islam alone, without any contamination byWesternideology.TherestoftheappealstemsfromtheresultsoftheancientstrugglewithinIslamoverthe

primacyofpowerversustheprimacyofreason,whichhasbeenthesubjectofthisbook.Aswehaveseen,theoutcomeofthiscontestdecisivelyaffectedthecharacteroftheIslamicworldinwhich Qutb could find such a ready audience for his ideology. The infection of WesternmillenarianideologicalthoughtfromNietzscheandMarxwouldnothavemadeIslamismtheattraction it is unless Islamism was not also able to claim legitimacy by drawing uponsomethingwithinthetraditionsofIslamitself.Forthis,Islamistthinkersselectivelychoseone,albeitaprimaryone,ofthemanytheologicalandphilosophicaltraditionswithinIslam’srichhistory.Thenexusbetweenthisschoolof thoughtandWesterntotalitarian ideologywastheprimacyofwill.TheTotalitarianConnectionTheAsh‘aritedemotionofreasonatthetheologicallevelisIslamism’sconnectionwithmodernsecular ideologyand itsdenigrationofreason,andthesubsequentcelebrationof theuseofforce.ModernWesternideologyalsoassertsthattheprimaryconstituentofrealityiswill.Thisis at the heart of Nietzsche, of course, and his analysis of Socrates and Greek philosophy.Philosophyissimplyarationalizationforanassertionofthewill,thewilltodominate,thewilltopower.Nietzschesetupametaphysicalproject tomakeeverythingtheobjectof thewill,whichwouldthentransformit.Theinstrumentofpurewillisforce.ThepoliticalvulgarizationofthisprojectwastheNaziParty.(AsHansFriedrichBlunk,presidentoftheReich’sChamberofLiterature,1933–35,putit:“Thisgovernment[was]bornoutofoppositiontorationalism.”)ThesamedemotionofreasontookplaceinMarxism-Leninism.InTheGermanIdeology,Marxsaidthatreasonisanexcrescenceofmaterialforces.5Ithasnolegitimacy.Onedoesnotarguewithman;onedoesnotpersuadepeople.Inordertochangehumanity,onemustgetholdofallthemeansofproduction,alterthem,andthenchangeman’sthinkingthroughforce.Ineluctably,ifwillandpoweraretheprimaryconstituentsofreality,onewill,inaseriesof

deductivesteps,concludetoatotalitarianregime.Thereisnootherwayoutofit.Thecuriousthing is that itdoesnotmatterwhetherone’sviewofrealityaspurewillhas itsorigin inadeformedtheologyorinatotallysecularideology,suchasHegel’sorHobbes’s;thepoliticalconsequencesarethesame.AsFatherJamesSchallhasshown,thenotionofpurewillasthebasis of reality results in tyrannical rule.Disorderedwill, unfetteredby right reason, is the

politicalproblem.Asmentionedearlier,when facing the challenge from theWest,manyMuslims sought to

imitateit.Why,ofallthings,didtheychooseastheirmodelstheworstofwhattheWesthadtooffer, fascism and communism? Why, with few exceptions, did they not try to imitate aconstitutionaldemocraticorder?InTheMiddleEast,BernardLewissuggestsitwasbecausethese ideologieswere anti-Western andanti-Christian, but alsobecause “the ideologies andsocial strategies thatwerebeingoffered corresponded inmanywaysmuchmore closely toboththerealitiesandthetraditionsoftheregion.”6However,Lewisdoesnotspelloutwhatthat correspondence is, beyond saying the West is “individualistic” in orientation and theMiddleEast “collective.” InThe Closed Circle, David Pryce-Jones gets closer by suggestingthat“NazismandArabpowerchallenginghadincommonthebeliefthat life isanunendingstruggleinwhichthevictorworkshiswillupontheloserbyvirtueofhisvictory.”7Thefulleransweristhattheywerenaturallydrawntofascismandcommunismasmorecompatiblewithwhattheyalreadybelievedbecausethesemodelsarebasedupontheprimacyofthewillandthe denigration of reason. A political order that presumes the primacy of reason did notappeal.ThisnaturalaffinityhelpsexplaintheeasypassagetoIslamismofleftistnationalistsandcommunistslikeprominentEgyptianwriterDr.MustafaMahmudandwell-knownIslamistShi‘itewriterSamihAtefEl-Zein.IslamismasIdeologyNeithercommunismnorfascismhasworkedfortheArabs—becausetheyhavenotworkedforanyone—buttheIslamistshaveingestedtheirtotalitarianprogramsandmixedthemwiththeirAsh‘ariteinterpretationofIslam.Thatiswhyonecancomparethefeaturesoftheseideologiesandevensomeofthelanguagetheyusealmostexactly.AsMaulanaMaududiwrote,“InrealityIslamisarevolutionaryideologyandprogrammewhichseekstoalterthesocialorderofthewholeworldandrebuilditinconformitywithitsowntenetsandideals.‘Muslim’isthetitleofthatInternationalRevolutionaryPartyorganizedbyIslamtocarryintoeffectitsrevolutionaryprogramme.And ‘Jihad’ refers to that revolutionarystruggleandutmostexertionwhich theIslamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective.”8 With changing only two words,“Islam”and“Muslim,”toeither“Nazism”or“communism,”andthenrereadingthesentenceabove, onewill immediately see thenearly complete ideological affinity among them,asnootherwordchangesarenecessarytorepresenttheNaziorcommunistrevolutionarypointsofview.ThiscanbedonewithanumberofMaududi’sstatements.Forinstance,“IslamwishestodestroyallStatesandGovernmentsanywhereonthefaceoftheearthwhichareopposedtotheideologyandprogrammeofIslamregardlessofthecountryortheNationwhichrulesit.Thepurposeof Islam is to setupaStateon thebasis of its own ideologyandprogramme,regardless ofwhichNationassumes the role of the standardbearer of Islamor the rule ofwhich nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological IslamicState.”9 Statements like these are inconceivable without the influence of Westerntotalitarianism.Thisisevident,aswell,inQutb’sdescriptionofIslamasan“emancipatorymovement”and

“an active revolutionary creed.”10 Islamism is inevitably on the march, proclaims Sudan’sHasan al-Turabi, because,much as communismused to be, “it’s awave of history.” This isfamiliarrhetoric,butnotfromIslam.Islamismdefinitelyhasanewelementinit.ModernradicalIslamismandtwentieth-century

Westerntotalitarianmovementsarenotsimplyakin,moving inparallel toeachother.Therewasagooddealofideologicalcross-pollination,andtheyhadrealworkingconnections.Thisisnot news in respect toNazism andHitler’smufti, Amin al-Husayni, but such relations alsoexistedwiththeSovietUnion,asoutlinedinLaurentMurawiec’sbookTheMindofJihad.11Infact,Qutbsaidallliberationmovementswerewelcometohisrevolution:“TheIslamicdoctrineadoptsallstrugglesofliberationintheworldandsupportsthemineveryplace.”12Like twentieth-centuryWestern ideologies, Islamism places the burden of salvation upon

politics,atotalpoliticsthat,onlythroughitscontroleveryaspectoflife,canbringabouttheirversionofGod’skingdomonearth. Islamism isnota religion in the traditional sense.Mostreligions,infactallmonotheisticones,putbeforemanarevelationfromGodthatissimilarincertainessentialrespects.Therevelationcontainsamoralcodebywhichmanisexpectedtoliveifhewishestoachieveeternallifeinparadise.Paradiseislocatedinthehereafter—never

onthisearth.Soisthehelltowhichmanwillbesentifheisdisobedient.Theterrestrialandthetranscendentaredistinct—thecityofmanandthecityofGod,asSt.Augustineputit.Lifehereisatest.Theultimateresolutionoftheproblemofjusticeisnotinthisveiloftears,butbeforethethroneofGodinthenextworld.Man’sultimatedestinyisinthetranscendent.ThisgeneralviewissharedbyJudaism,Christianity,andIslam,allofwhichseeperfectjusticeasbeingestablishedbyGod’sfinaljudgment.Islamism is an ideology in the classic sense in that it offers, or rather insists upon, an

alternative“reality”—onethatcollapsestheseparaterealmsofthedivineandthehuman,andarrogatestoitselfthemeanstoachieveperfectjusticehereinthisworldor,asQutbsaid,“toabolish all injustice from the earth.”13 This notion of the inner perfectibility of history—theachievementofperfectjusticehere—istheveryheartofideology,whethersacredorprofane.Itplacesalongsiderealityitsfalseversionandinsiststhatrealityconformtoitsdemands.Itsadherentsliveinthemagicalworldofthissecondrealityandobeyitslaws.Theymayseemtoliveandmoveintherealmoftherealworld,buttheyarealreadytransposedintothesecond,falsereality.Whentheybehaveaccordingtoitslaws—suchasinslaughteringinnocentpeoplewithoutremorse—othersaresurprisedanddisturbedbecausetheydonotknowthecontoursofthissecondreality,whichhasjustbeensoshockinglyimposedonthem.Jessica Stern, the author of Terror in the Name of God, reflected the puzzlement that

initially strikes almost everyone encountering Islamist terrorism until they come tounderstanditsideologyasapseudoreligionratherthanasapoliticalmovement.Shewrites:“Ihavecometoseethatapocalypticviolenceintendedto‘cleanse’theworldof‘impurities’cancreateatranscendentstate.Alltheterroristgroupsexaminedinthisbookbelieve—oratleaststarted out believing—that they are creating amore perfectworld. From their perspective,theyarepurifyingtheworldofinjustice,cruelty,andallthatisanti-human.WhenIbeganthisproject, I could not understandwhy the killers Imet seemed spiritually intoxicated.Now, Ithink Iunderstand.Theyseemthatwaybecause theyare.”14The jointcommissionerof theMumbaipolice,RakeshMaria,saidofthecapturedterroristMuhammadAjmalKasab,theonlysurvivingperpetratorofthe2008massmurderinMumbai,India,“Hewasledtobelievethathewasdoingsomethingholy.”15With scathing sarcasm, Abdelwahab Meddeb, the Tunisian reformist, said of Islamist

terrorists,“Nocriminalismoredespicablethanonewhonotonlyfailstofeelanyguiltafter[committing]hiscrime,butalsoharborstheillusionthatthis[crime]willbringhim...divinereward.Thisconversionofbadintogoodnotonlyspareshimguilt,butalsoturnsanunhappypersonintoahappysoul.”16Thus,terrorismisnotsimplyterror—somepeopledoingterriblethingsonthespurofthe

moment.Itismurderadvancedtothelevelofamoralprinciple,whichistheninstitutionalizedin an organization—a cell, a party, or a state—as its animating principle. It is therationalizationthatallows,asMeddebsaid,“theconversionofbadintogood,”onwhichtheorganizationisbased.Inordertoact,terroristsmustfirstfirmlybelievethattheirviolenceismoralor“holy,”thatitwillachievesomehighergood.Therefore,theveryfirstthingonemustunderstandistheideologyincarnatedintheterroristorganizationthatallowsterroriststodothis; it is the source of theirmoral legitimacy.Without it, they or their organization cannotexist. It is the “ism” in terrorism. In the case of radical Islamism, already mentioned, thetrinity of thinkers behind the ideology is Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and MaulanaMaududi.The means for the transformation of reality into the alternative reality is, as in all

ideologies, total control based upon absolute power, exercised to annihilate the old order.Qutb said that “only a radical transformationwith the complete destruction of old systemscouldguaranteetheflourishingoftheidealsocietyunderGod’ssuzerainty.”17Maududistatedthat Islam is a “comprehensive systemwhich envisages to annihilate all tyrannical and evilsystemsintheworldandenforcesitsownprogrammeofreformwhichitdeemsbestforthewell-beingofmankind.”18While most ideologies are secular attempts to displace religion as the main obstacle to

fulfillment, Islamism is based upon a deformed theology that nonetheless shares in theclassicalideologicalconflationofheavenandearthintoonerealm.Itisexactlyinthesetermsthatitschiefideologue,SayyidQutb,spoke:“Islamchosetouniteearthandheaveninasingle

system.”19 This means that “the patent purpose of establishing God’s law on earth is notmerelyanactionforthesakeofthenextworld.Forthisworldandthenextworldarebuttwocomplementary stages. . . . Harmonizing with the divine law does not mean that man’shappinessispostponedtothenextlife,ratheritmakesitrealandattainableinthefirstofthetwostages.”20Inotherwords,transcendentendswillbeachievedbyearthlymeans,asQutbsaid,“toreestablishtheKingdomofGoduponearth”21or“tocreateanewworld.”22This isobviouslynotapoliticalobjectivebutametaphysicalone.Itsachievementwillbringaboutacondition, predicted Qutb, which sounds eerily similar to that proclaimed by Marx for hisclassless society: “Universal adoption of the Divine law would automatically mean man’scomplete emancipation from all forms of enslavement.”23 To reach this goal, announcedMaududi,“Islamwantsthewholeearthanddoesnotcontentitselfwithonlyapartthereof.Itwantsandrequirestheentireinhabitedworld.”24Itshouldbenosurprisethat,initspoliticalmanifestation,Qutb’s“singlesystem”duplicates

the features of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century’s secular ideologies and ofSocrates’ proto-totalitarian city in Plato’s Republic. In The Republic, Socrates showed thelimitsofthepoliticalbytransposingtheorderofthesoulintothepoliticalorderandlettingussee, in the formofan imaginarystate,whatsucha transpositionwouldmean.Heasked, ineffect:Ifwetriedtorealizepoliticallyaperfectstateaccordingtotheorderofthesoul,whatwould we get? The answer was: the garrison state, the destruction of the family,regimentation,theabolitionoftheprivate,eugenics,stateeducation,etc.Inotherwords,thepoliticalordercannotsatisfy thehighestneedsofman.Politicscannotmeet thegoalof thehumansoul,foritcannotachieveperfectjustice;ifitismadethevehiclefordoingso,itwillend in a horrendous tyranny. This is the profound error into which both the WesterntotalitariansandtheIslamistsfell.Therefore, it isonly logical that“insuchastate,”asdescribedbyQutb’s ideologicalsoul

mate,MaulanaMaududi,“noonecanregardanyfieldofhisaffairsaspersonalandprivate.ConsideredfromthisaspecttheIslamicstatebearsakindofresemblancetotheFascistandCommuniststates.”25Itis,heremarked,“theveryantithesisofsecularWesterndemocracy.”In a line worthy of Robespierre, Sayyid Qutb said that a “just dictatorship” would “grantpolitical liberties to the virtuous alone.”26 Hassan al-Banna,whose bedside readingwas al-Ghazali, also regarded the Soviet Union under Stalin as amodel of a successful one-partysystem.SolongassomepartoftheworldeludesthecontroloftheIslamistrevolutionary,conflict

continues—with the dar al-harb (the abode of war)—just as perpetual revolution wasproclaimedbyMarxistsuntilthecompleteoverthrowofthebourgeoisorderorbytheNazisuntiltheeradicationorenslavementofinferiorraces.Sincetotalcontrolisneverachieved,anexcuseisalwaysavailableforwhythekingdomhasnotarrived,justasitwaswiththeever-recedingprospectsofaclasslesssocietyfortheMarxists.Theexcusefornothavingachievedthe utopia of God’s kingdom on earth, or of the Thousand-Year Reich, or of the classlesssociety, isalwaysthesame,androughlyanalogous:An infidelhasescapedourgrasp,a Jewhasescaped,oracapitalisthaseludedus.Thus,paradiseisforeverpostponed,andthewarcontinues as part of a permanent revolution. As Qutb proclaimed, “This struggle is not atemporaryphasebutaperpetualandpermanentwar.”27AndHassanal-Bannasaid,“WhatImeanwithjihadisthedutythatwilllastuntiltheDayofResurrection.”28TheFoundationofHatredThefuelforthepermanentwaristhesameforIslamismasitwasforMarxism-LeninismandNazism;itishatred.Onlytheobjectofhatredchanges—fromracehatredinNazismandclasshatredincommunismtohatredoftheinfidelinradicalIslamism,toincludeanyMuslimwhodoesnotconformtoitsversionofIslam.“Wemusthate,”Lenincounseled;“hatredisthebasisof communism.”29 Bin Laden’s parallel doctrine is equally explicit: “As to the relationshipbetweenMuslims and infidels, this is summarizedby theMostHigh’sWord: ‘We [Muslims]renounceyou[non-Muslims].Enmityandhateshallforeverreignbetweenus—tillyoubelieveinGodalone’[Qur’an60:4].Sothereisanenmity,evidencedbyfiercehostilityfromtheheart.. . . If the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! . . . Battle,animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of ourreligion.”30

The most successful megaphone for this message today is the Internet, which radical

IslamistsusetocreatewhatDr.JerroldM.Post,aprofessorofpsychiatry,politicalpsychology,and international affairs at George Washington University, calls “a virtual community ofhatred.”31TheEvilofDemocracyAs already intimated byMaududi, democracy is antithetical to the Islamist project, as theprimacyofreasonisantitheticaltotheprimacyofpower.Theantirationalviewnotonlymakesdemocratic,constitutionalordersuperfluous,italsorendersitinimicaltoIslamistsastheformofblasphemy they fear themost.Al-QaedaauthorYussufal-Ayyeri (killed inagunbattle inRiyadh,June2003)wroteinhislastbook,TheFutureofIraqandtheArabianPeninsulaaftertheFallofBaghdad:“ItisnottheAmericanwarmachinethatshouldbeoftheutmostconcernto Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is AmericanDemocracy.”32 Because democracies base their political order on reason and freewill, andleave inplayquestionsradical Islamistsbelievehavebeendefinitivelysettledbyrevelation,radical Islamists regarddemocraciesas theirnaturaland fatalenemies.Man-made law isaformof shirk in that its purported authority impinges upon that of the divine law that hasalreadybeenprescribedforeverysituation.Itplacesman’slawsonthelevelofGod’s.Thusitappears to divinize man and is seen not so much as a form of political order but as acompeting,falsereligion.ThisiswhySayyidQutbdeclaredinMilestones,“WhoeversaysthatlegislationistherightofthepeopleisnotaMuslim.”33InhisbookDemocracy:AReligion!,AbuMuhammadal-Maqdisi, thePalestinian-Jordanian

theologian,confirmsQutb’sviewthat“democracyisareligionbut it isnotAllah’sreligion.”Thus,asa religiousobligation,Muslimsmust“destroy thosewho followdemocracy,andwemusttaketheirfollowersasenemies—hatethemandwageagreatjihadagainstthem.”34TheIndonesianIslamistclericAbuBakarBashir,whowasreleasedfromprisoninJuly2006

after having been chargedwith complicity in the Bali terror attacks of 2002, echoesQutb:“ThereisnodemocracyinIslam,sodonottrytointerprettheQu’ranandturnIslamintoademocracytosuityourneeds.God’slawcomesfirst.It isnotuptothewillofthepeopletodecidewhatisrightandhowtolive.Ratherthewillofthepeoplehave[sic]tobebenttosuitthewill of God. It is not democracy thatwewant, but Allah-cracy! The principles of IslamcannotbealteredandthereisnodemocracyinIslamornonsenselike‘democraticIslam.’...Democracyisshirk[blasphemy]andharam[forbidden].”35Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith said, “America is the head of heresy in our

modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation ofreligionandstateandonrulingthepeoplebythepeoplevialegislatinglawsthatcontradictthewayofAllahandpermitwhatAllahhasprohibited.”36For radical Islamists,aswehaveseen,democracyitselfisablasphemousactofimpietyandmustbedestroyed.Therefore, as Islamic cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheikh”) exhorted,

“Muslimseverywhere[should]dismember[theAmerican]nation,tearthemapart,ruintheireconomy,provoketheircorporations,destroytheirembassies,attacktheirinterests,sinktheirships, . . . shootdowntheirplanes, [and]kill themon land,atsea,and in theair.Kill themwhereveryoufindthem.”37ItisimportanttounderstandthattheradicalIslamistdesiretodestroytheUnitedStates,as

the leader of the democratic West, is not simply a political goal but also a metaphysicalrequirement for the transformationof reality.TheUnitedStatesmustbedestroyedbecause“America is evil in its essence (Amreeka sharrun mutlaq),” as pronounced by SheikhMuhammadHusseinFadlallahofHezbollah.38 “Wearenot fighting so that youwill offerussomething,” warned Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah leader. “We are fighting toeliminateyou.”39 “Therealmatter,”announcedTaliban leaderMullahMuhammadOmar, “istheextinctionofAmerica.And,Godwilling,itwillfalltotheground.”40WithinIslamism,thisdestructionisasmetaphysicallynecessaryaswastheeliminationof

the bourgeoisie for the Marxists and inferior races for the Nazis for their respective

millenarian projects. Like these twentieth-century totalitarians, radical Islamists use theirviewofrealitytodehumanize largeportionsofmankind, justifyingtheirslaughter—albeit intheircaseas“infidels,”ratherthanasnon-Aryansorbourgeoisie.Inthisrespect,radicalIslamismisaformofneobarbarism.Civilizationisdefinedbytheact

ofrecognizinganotherpersonasahumanbeing.Thedefinitionofabarbarianissomeonewhocannot perform this act—often because he has either come from or chosen a universe ofmeaningthatdoesnotcontainthetermhumanbeing.Itishardtooverstatethecatastropheresulting from this incapacity or refusal. If one is unable to recognize another person as ahumanbeing,thenonedoesnotknowthedifferencebetweenthehumanandtheanimal,orthe human and the divine. Confusion over thesematters leads to slavery, human sacrifice,cannibalism, genocide, and other horrors. Through Islamism, as through communism orNazism, one loses one’s ability to recognize another person as a human being. Like itstotalitarianpredecessors, Islamism isanengineofdehumanization—of turningotherpeopleintoanimalsorless.Inthenameofthisdark,neotribalgod,onebecomesabarbarian.TheNecessityofForce:TerrorismasaMoralObligationLikeboth thecommunistsand theNazis, Islamistsalsosee forceasnecessary to effect thetransformationthattheydesire.Reasonisimpotent;therefore,forceistheonlyinstrumentforfundamental change. A God without reason sets the theological foundations for violence.Therearemultipleexamplesofthisdoctrineofforce.BinLaden’sspiritualmentor,Abdullah‘Azzam,saidthat“thosewhothinkthattheycanchangereality,orchangesocieties,withoutbloodsacrificesandwounds...donotunderstandtheessenceofourreligion.”Thepriceishigh:“Glorydoesnotbuilditsloftyedificeexceptwithskulls.Honourandrespectcannotbeestablishedexceptonafoundationofcripplesandcorpses.”41Hiscrywas“jihadandtheriflealone: no negotiation, no conferences, and no dialogue.”42 Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri,announced,“ReformcanonlytakeplacethroughJihadforthesakeofAllah,andanycallforreformthatisnotthroughJihadisdoomedtodeathandfailure.Wemustunderstandthenatureofthebattleandconflict.”43WhenachastenedformerleaderofEgyptianal-Jihad,Kamalel-SaidHabib,saysinwayof

criticismthat“violencereplacedpoliticsasameansofinteraction”inthebehaviorofEgyptianjihadists,hedoessowithoutseemingtorealizethatsuchviolenceisthelogicalworkingoutinactionofthepremisesonwhichjihadist“theology”isbased.44Ina1998interview,MuhammadKhan—theamirofLashkar-eTaiba,agroupnownotorious

for sponsoring the terrorist attack inMumbai, India—proclaimed this necessary connectionwithviolence:“WhenchangecomesitwillcomewhenthoseopposingIslamwillbecrushed.”“Byforce?”askedthe interviewer.“Yes,”respondedtheamir,“that isamust.”45 IndonesianIslamist Abu Bakar Bashir said, “The struggle for Islam can only come through crisis andconfrontation. . . . Remember that jihad is what brought Islam to power and built ourcommunity.TherecanbenoIslamwithoutjihad.”46On November 30, 2005, an al-Qaeda tape asked rhetorically, “How can we impose this

religion? Can we do that through peace? Can we do it through logic? Can we do it bysuggestions and ballots?” Then the voice answered: “The only way we can do it is by thesword.”Anotheral-Qaedasource,showingal-Qaeda’slineagetothemedievalantirationalists,announcesitscallforviolenceindirectoppositiontophilosophy:“TheconfrontationthatwearecallingforwiththeapostateregimesdoesnotknowSocraticdebates,Platonicideals,norAristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination,bombing,anddestruction,andthediplomacyofthecannonandmachine-gun.”47This view is not exclusive to Sunnis. Ayatollah Khomeini said: “Whatever good there is

existsthankstotheswordandintheshadowofthesword.Peoplecannotbemadeobedientexceptwiththesword.TheswordisthekeytoParadise.”InaspeechinDecember2004,hespokeofthebenefitsofkillinginfidelsasaservicetotheinfidelsthemselves.Hesaid,“Warisablessingfortheworldandforeverynation.ItisAllahhimselfwhocommandsmentowagewarandtokill.”48AndclericMortezaMuthharisaid,“Thefactorofviolenceisnecessary....Thereisnoinhibitionagainsttheuseofviolence.”49

Radical Islamists translate their versionofGod’somnipotence intoapoliticsofunlimitedpower.AsGod’sinstruments,theyarechannelsforthispower.*The“vanguard”ofGodtakestheplaceofGodsomewhatasthevanguardoftheproletariattooktheplaceoftheproletariatinMarxism-Leninism,andproduceswhatthen-CardinalJosephRatzingercalled,inreferencetoliberationtheology,“atotalitarianismthatpracticesanatheisticsortofadorationreadytosacrificeallhumannesstoitsfalsegod.”50 Inhis1998 fatwa,OsamabinLadengaveagoodexample of this transference of divine authority in his issuance of the ruling “to kill theAmericansandtheirallies—civiliansandmilitary”byclaimingitwas“Allah’sordertokilltheAmericans.”Oncetheprimacyofforceisposited,terrorismbecomesthenextlogicalsteptopower, as it did in Nazism and Marxism-Leninism. This is what led Osama bin Laden toembracetheastonishingstatementofhisspiritualgodfather,Abdullah‘Azzam,whichOsamaquotedintheNovember2001video,releasedafter9/11:“TerrorismisanobligationinAllah’sreligion.”51Thiscanbetrue—thatviolenceinspreadingfaithisanobligation—onlyifGodiswithoutreasonand,therefore,actingunreasonablyisnotagainstHisnature.‘Azzam’sannouncementisnewstomostMuslims,whofindterrorismmorallyrepugnantand

alien to Islam’s core teachings, especially in regard to suicidekillingsof civilians. Islamismwithin Islam may be roughly analogous to the development of liberation theology withinChristianity.Especially inLatinAmerica,Catholicismwas infectedwithMarxist ideologybywayofChristianity’spreferentialoptionforthepoor.Accordingtoliberationtheology,itisnotenoughtohelpthepoorthroughcharity.Onemustrootouttheinstitutionsthatpurportedlycausepoverty.Thisincludespropertyandotheraspectsofcapitalism.Withinthisteaching,theChristianpartwassoonsubsumedbytheMarxistpartand itspromotionof thenecessityofviolence.Priestsdroppedtheirrosaries,pickedupmachinegunsandgrenades,andjoinedtherevolution.Intheensuingstruggleagainstthistotalitarianinfestation,thepope,JohnPaulII,won.Inanexhortationthatcouldhavecomefromaliberationtheologian,MuhammadNavab-SafavicalledonhisfellowMuslims:“Throwawayyourworrybeadsandbuyagun.Forworrybeadskeepyousilent,whilegunssilencetheenemiesofIslam.”52IslamdoesnothaveafigureofauthoritycorrespondingtothepopewhocoulddefinitivelydelegitimizeIslamism,anditisuncertain, if therewere such a figure, that hewould do so, since Islamism has a claim tolegitimacydespiteitsadulterationbyWesternideology.The problem today is that the side of reason in Islam lost, and therefore its natural

antibodies to this totalitarian infection are weak. What we are witnessing today are theultimateconsequencesoftherejectionofhumanreasonandthelossofcausalityastheyareplayedoutacrosstheMuslimworldinthedysfunctionalcultureengenderedbythem.Itisnotthatthesideofreasonisnotstillthere.AsFatimaMernissisayssopoignantly,“Thefactthattherationalist,humanistictraditionwasrejectedbydespoticpoliticiansdoesnotmeanthatitdoesn’texist.Havinganarmamputatedisnotthesameasbeingbornwithanarmmissing.Studiesofamputeesshowthattheamputatedmemberremainspresentintheperson’smind.Themoreourrationalfacultyissuppressed,themoreobsessedwearebyit.”53TherearesomeextraordinarilyintelligentMuslimscholarswhowouldliketoseesomething

likeaneo-Mu‘tazilitemovementwithin Islam,arestorationof theprimacyofreasonsothatthey can reopen the doors to ijtihad and develop some kind of natural-law foundation forhumane,political,constitutionalrule.Infact,IndonesianscholarHarunNasution(1919–1998)waswillingtoweartheneo-Mu‘taziilitelabelopenly,despitetheimprecationofheresythatitcarried. He explicitly called for the recognition of natural law and opposed Ash‘ariteoccasionalism and determinism as inimical to social, economic, and political progress. Heinsistedonman’sfreewillandaccountability.54ReformistTunisian-bornthinkerLatifLakhdarcallsforarevivalof“Mu‘atazilaandphilosophicalthoughtthatsubjectedtheholywritingsonwhich the religion is based to interpretation by the human mind.”55 He recommends that“open religious rationalism—subjecting the religious text to rational investigation andresearch—ought to become the core of the aspired religious education in the Arab-Islamicregion,sinceitisabsurdtobelievethetextanddenyreality.”56IncertainifnotmostplacesintheIslamicworld,however,ifonedarestosuggestthatthe

Qur’anisnotcoeternalwithAllah,onehadbetterhaveprotection.InEgypt,Dr.NasrHamidAbuZayd,anassistantprofessorofArabicattheUniversityofCairo,provokedanuproarforsuggesting that the Qur’an was a partially human product because language is a humanconvention.AppealingtotheMu‘taziilites,hesaid,“TheMu‘taziilitesdrewfromtheQur’anictexton theassumption that itwasa createdactionandnot theeternal verbalutteranceof

God.Inotherwords,therelationbetweenthesignifierandthesignifiedexistsonlybyhumanconvention; there isnothingdivine in this relationship.Theyendeavoured tobuild abridgebetweenthedivinewordandhumanreason.Thatiswhytheymaintainedthatthedivinewordwasafactwhichadjusteditselftohumanlanguageinordertoensurewell-beingformankind.They insistedthat languagewastheproductofmanandthat thedivinewordrespectedtherulesandformsofhumanlanguage.”57Forthis,hewasbroughttotrialforapostasy.OnJune14,1995,theAppealsCourtofSecondDegreeinEgyptruledthatDr.AbuZaydwasakafir(unbeliever). The consequence of this would have been a forced divorce from his wife, asMuslimwomenarenotallowedtobemarriedtonon-Muslimmen.ButDr.AbuZaydandhiswifefledtoEurope.Fewvoiceswereraisedinhisdefense.58Safelyinexile,herecentlystatedthat“theIslamicreformationstartedasearlyasthe19thcenturyand,ofcourse,ithasevenearlier roots as well. One important school of Koranic scholarship, Mutazilism, held 1,000yearsagothattheKoranneednotbeinterpretedliterally,andeventodayIranianscholarsaresurprisinglyopentocriticalscholarshipandinterpretations.”59However, exilewas also the fate of an Iranian, AbdolkarimSoroush. Father Samir Khalil

Samir related that “a young IranianMuslim, with a degree in Islamic studies, toldme theotherday: ‘Wecanno longer thinkof theQur’anasdirectlydictatedbyGodtoMohammadthroughtheangelGabriel.Itmustbeinterpreted.Unfortunately,intoday’sIslamthereisnotmuchfreedom:afewdecadesago,oneofourintellectuals,AbdolkarimSoroushwasremovedfromuniversityteachingforhavingtaughtsuchthings.[Soroushwasphysicallyassaultedonseveraloccasions.] In theend, tobeable to liveandexpresshimself,hehadtoemigrate toEurope.’”60Manyoftheneo-Mu‘taziilites,theoneswhowanttoresuscitatethegreattraditionofMuslimrationaltheologyandphilosophy,areintheWestaswell.Unfortunately,asBassimTibihaswarned,“ThoseintellectuallysignificantMuslimswho...

stillhopetoapplyreasontoIslamicreform,hadbetterdosointheirWesternexile,beitParisor London orWashington. Their ideas are discussed in Scandinavia, but not in the Islamicworld.”61EveninEurope,suchMuslimshaveproblemsandhavetoconfrontthedangersofbeing labeled apostates. For several years in Germany, Tibi himself required armedbodyguards provided by theGerman state to protect him from assassination. TajHargey, aBritish imam, laments that “iconoclastic thinkers, liberals, and nonconformistswho dare tochallengethisself-assumedreligiousauthorityinIslambypresentingarationaloralternativeinterpretations of their faith are invariably branded as apostates, heretics, and non-believers.”62

*IslamismisusedhereasaformofshorthandforMuslimtotalitarianideology.Itisinsomewaysanunsatisfactoryterm,asthereareself-proclaimedIslamistswhowouldnotsubscribetothismeaningoftheterm.However,itisusefultodesignatethetransmogrificationofIslamintoanideology.

*ThereareobviousprecedentsinIslamtothisnotion.“IrulewiththeomnipotenceofGod,”announcedCaliphMu‘awiya‘sadoptedbrother,Ziyad,tothepeoplewhenhewasappointedgovernorinBasra.

Chapter9THECRISIS

The great crisis that has seized the Islamicworld poses the question toMuslims: “Canweenterthemodernworldandalsoretainourfaith?”Underlyingthisquestionisthewidelyheldperception,statedbyChanddraMuzaffar,consideredoneofMalaysia’smostrespectedIslamicphilosophers,that“Islamandthepost-EnlightenmentsecularWestarediametricallyopposedtooneanother.MuslimswillthenrealizethatunlesstheytransformthesecularworldoftheWest, that vision of justice embodied in the Qur’an will never become a reality.”1TransformationoftheWestistheobjective;onlythemeansoftransformationareindispute:peacefulorviolent?OneanswertothequestionabovehasbeenprovidedbytheIslamistsandOsama bin Laden. His answer is no; we cannot retain our faith in the modern world.Therefore,wemustdestroymodernityandreestablishthecaliphate.The answer of Islamism is grounded in a spiritual pathology based upon a theological

deformation that has produced a dysfunctional culture. Therefore, the problem must beaddressedatthelevelatwhichitexists.TosaythattheWestneedstoimprovetheeconomicconditionsintheMiddleEastinordertodraintheswampofterrorismis,byitself,profoundlymistaken. Terrorists are produced by a totalitarian ideology justifying terrorism. That is its“root cause.” If someone had suggested that in order to dealwithNazism one first had toovercometheproblemofpoverty inGermany, theywouldbe laughedoutofschool.Yet thiskindofthinkingistakenseriouslytoday.TheMiddleEastispoorbecauseofadysfunctionalculturebaseduponadeformedtheology,

and unless it can be reformed at that level, economic engineering or the development ofconstitutionalpoliticalorderwillnotsucceed.Ifonelivesinasocietythatascribeseverythingtofirstcauses,oneisnotgoingtolookaroundtheworldandtrytofigureouthowitworksorhowtoimproveit.“Inordertofunction,”writesPervezHoodbhoy,“organizedsocietiesneedmodern people—people who can relate cause to effect.”2 As Fouad Ajami observed, theinabilitytorelatecausetoeffectispandemicintheIslamicworld.IsthereaconstituencywithintheMuslimworldthatcanelaborateatheologythatallows

for the restoration of reason, a rehellenization of Islam with Allah as ratio? Can IslamundertakewhatSamirKhalilSamircalls“anEnlightenment, inotherwords,a revolution inthoughtthataffirmsthevalueofworldlyrealityinandofitself,detachedfromreligion,thoughnotinoppositiontoit”?3Itisidletopretendthatitwouldtakelessthanaseachangeforthistohappen.Ifitdoesnot,itishardtoenvisageuponwhatbasisMuslimscouldmodernizeorupon what grounds a dialogue with Islam could take place. There are many Muslims (inTurkeyand in thedevelopingdemocraciesof IndonesiaandMalaysia, to saynothingof thedemocratic life followed by the huge Muslim population in India) who want to enter themodernworld—withitsmodernscienceandmodernpoliticalinstitutions—andalsokeeptheirfaith. The past glories of Islamic civilization show that it was once able to progress. Thatprogresswasbaseduponadifferentsetof ideas,antithetical to thoseof the Islamists,whowouldhavebeenconsideredhereticalthen.Fazlur Rahman contended that “the Qur’an itself not only has a great deal of definitive

philosophic teaching, but also can be a powerful catalyst for the building up of acomprehensiveworldviewconsistentwiththatteaching.Thathasneverbeensystematicallyattempted in Islamic history; it can andmust be done.”4 It seems that FazlurRahmanwascallingforaneffortinIslamsomewhatanalogoustowhatThomasAquinasundertookwithinChristianity. Aquinas developedwhat latent philosophic ideas existed in Christian scriptureand reconciled them with reason. He showed that Greek Logos was really a preview ofChristianLogos. Revelation and reason were ultimately grounded in the same source. TheThomist endeavor took place some thirteen centuries after Christ. Today, Islam stands atnearly the same chronological distance from its founding. Will those who follow FazlurRahman’s thinking perceive the same need and undertake the task he outlined? There arenotableMuslimthinkerswhowish todosoandwhoarestruggling to find thepublicspace

withinwhichtomaketheeffort.Unfortunately,theideasgainingtractiontodayarenottheirs.Thatisthecrisis.Theanswer

thatissweepingtheIslamicworldtodaydoesnotcomefrompeoplelikethem.Itisfromtheal-Qaedists,neo-Kharijites,andHanbalites.AsdescribedbyanalystTonyCorn,“Inthepast30years,oneparticularbrand—pan-IslamicSalafism—hasbeenallowedtofillthevacuumleftbythe failure of pan-Arab Socialism and, in the process, tomarginalize themore enlightenedformsof Islam to thepointwhereSalafismnowoccupiesaquasi-hegemonicposition in theMuslim world.”5 Hoodbhoy confirms this view: “Fundamentalist movements have come todominateintellectualdiscourseinkeyMuslimcountriesandtheMuslimmodernistmovement,whichemphasizedIslam’scompatibilitywithscienceandrationalism,haslostitsculturalandideological hegemony. The modernist has been effectively banished from the political andcultural scene and the modern educational system, which was nascent 50 years ago, hasvisiblycollapsedinkeyIslamiccountries.OrthodoxyhasarrogatedtoitselfthetaskofguidingthedestinyofMuslims.But theirprescription forsociety isan invitationtocatastropheandpossiblytoanewDarkAgeforMuslims.”6In a powerful description of the coming catastrophe, the contemporary TunisianMuslim

thinkerAbdelwahabMeddeb, resident inParis, says: “In this insane,absolute theocentrism,neverbeforeinthetraditionofIslamsoradicallydeveloped,theworldistransformedintoacemetery.IfMaududireproachedtheWestwiththedeathofGod,wecanaccusehimofhavinginauguratedthedeathofhumanity.Hisoutrageoussysteminventsanunrealtotalitarianism,whichexcitesdisciplesandincitesthemtospreaddeathanddestructionoverallcontinents.Thatisthekindofnegationoflife,thenihilismtowhichtheoreticalreasoningleadswhenitisnot subject to the control of practical reasoning. . . . This radical and terrifying visionestablishesatabularasaandtransformstheworldintoapostnuclearplaceinwhichwefinddesolate landscapes wherever we look, on pages blackened by Sayyid Qutb.”7 MeddebpredictsthatthefulfillmentofQutb’svisionof“liberation”would“transformmanintooneofthelivingdead,onascorchedland.”8Butalas,Qutbiseverywhere.Andlittleisbeingdonetocounterthistrend.ThetransmogrificationofIslamintoIslamismisbadnewsnotonlyfortheWestbutalsofor

themajorityofMuslimswhohavenodesiretoliveintotalitariantheocracies.“FortheWestitisbutaphysicalthreatintheformofterrorism,”saidPakistanijournalistAyazAmir.“FortheworldofIslam...tobetrappedinbinLadenismistotravelbackintimetothedarkagesofMuslim obscurantism. It means to be stuck in the mire which has held the Islamic worldback.”9InthecaseofmostMuslims,theirnumbersmaynotmatter,anymorethantheydidforthe hapless peoples of theRussian empirewho suddenly found themselves ruled by a tiny,violent clique of Leninists in 1917. Theproblem for the side of reason, as expressedby anIndonesian Islamist, is that “liberal Islamhas no cadres.”10 There are ample cadres on theotherside.Thesmall,tightlyorganized,highlydisciplinedandwell-fundedgroupsofIslamistsseek to emulate the Leninist success with similar tactics of propaganda and violence. Theworse things get, especially in the Arab world, the more appealing the Islamist messagebecomesasanexplanationforthepredicamentandaprogramofactiontoovercomeit.Forthisreason,it is intheIslamists’self-interestthatthesituationgetsworse.Infact,theycanhelpensurethatitdoes.ItisnotinevitablethattheIslamistsshouldsucceed,exceptintheabsenceofanystrategy

tocounterthem.MuslimleadersliketheformerpresidentofIndonesia,thelateAbdurrahmanWahid,whowasthespiritualheadofthelargestMuslimorganizationintheworld,NahdlatulUlama,havecalledforacounterstrategythatwouldincludeoffering“acompellingalternativevisionofIslam,onethatbanishesthefanaticalideologyofhatredtothedarknessfromwhichitemerged.”11UpuntilhisdeathinDecember2009,Wahidtirelesslyadvocatedapartnershipwiththenon-Muslimworldinamassivelyresourcedefforttoupholdhumandignity,freedomof conscience, religious freedom, and the benefits of modernity before the juggernaut ofIslamistideologyswampedtheMuslimworld.Itwasacompellingsummons,butonethathasyettobeanswered.InMay2008,IhadtheopportunitytotalkwithPresidentWahid.WhenIaskedhimabout

thesignificanceofthesuppressionoftheMu‘tazilitesintheninthcentury,hewassomewhatelusive and would not directly respond, which is not surprising considering the regard inwhichMu‘tazilism is publicly held.However, he found anotherway to answerwhich said a

great deal. PresidentWahid toldme the story of his going into amosque in Fez,Morocco.There,underaglasscase,hesawacopyofAristotle’sNicomacheanEthics.Atthesightofit,hesaid,heburst intotears.Thenheremarked:“Iftherehadnotbeensuchabook,Iwouldhavebeenafundamentalist.”IaskedWahidhowitwasthatheknewAristotle’sNicomacheanEthicsinthefirstplace.Hetoldmethathehadfirstreaditathisfather’sboardingschoolinIndonesia.NodoubtthiswasonlyoneofanumberofformativeinfluencesonWahid,butanimportant—evendecisive—onethatcouldalsobeemployedinthisnew“warofideas”thatistakingplacewithinIslam.There is, in fact, tremendous irony in this story when its lesson is applied to the U.S.

response to radical Islamism, which can be encapsulated in the following vignette—a truestoryrelatedtomebytheAmericanparticipant.AU.S.interrogatoratGuantanamo,whohasextensive knowledge of Islamic history and the Arabic language, told me about discussingAristotlewithafairlyhigh-profileArabdetaineeduringaconversationabouttheimportanceof critical thinkingand its role in theworksof someMuslim theologians.Thedetaineewaskeenlyinterestedinthis,andsaidthathehadheardmentionofAristotleduringhisschoolingbutthat,inhiscountry,studentsdonothaveaccesstothetextsofAristotle.HeaskediftheinterrogatorwouldpleaseprovidehimwithsomeoftheworksofAristotleinArabic.However,whentheinterrogatortriedtogetthedetaineelibrarytoordertheseworks,thelibrarians—whoweremore focused on theQur’an and light reading such as nature bookswith lots ofpictures—could not see the relevance of Aristotle or believe that a detainee would beinterested in him. (This interrogator pointed out to me that “the detainee was far moreintellectually engaged than the library staff—no one should make the mistake of thinkingthese detainees are just violent thugs.”) The library did not order any Aristotle, and yetanotheropportunitytoaddresstheproblematthelevelatwhichitexistswaslost.Thisisaperfect illustration of how to lose awar of ideas because you do not even knowwhat it isabout.TheChoiceIn conversation with a student in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI made a statement that neatlysummarizesthecoreofwhatisatstakeforbothIslamandtheWest.Iwillomitonlyonewordfrom it, indicated by empty brackets. He said: “There are only two options. Either onerecognizesthepriorityofreason,ofcreativeReasonthatisatthebeginningofallthingsandis the principle of all things—the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom—or oneholdsthepriorityoftheirrational,inasmuchaseverythingthatfunctionsonourearthandinourliveswouldbeonlyaccidental,marginal,anirrationalresult—reasonwouldbeaproductofirrationality.Onecannotultimately‘prove’eitherproject,butthegreatoptionof[_________]istheoptionforrationalityandforthepriorityofreason.Thisseemstometobeanexcellentoption,whichshowsusthatbehindeverythingisagreatIntelligencetowhichwecanentrustour-selves.”12Ofcourse,themissingwordinthebracketisChristianity.Thequestioniswhethertheword

Islam couldbe inserted in its steadand still have the statement read correctly.DoesSunniIslamstillhavetheoptionopenforthepriorityofreason?Aswehaveseen,itmostcertainlyattemptedtoexercisethatoptionundertheMu‘tazilitesatatimegenerallyacknowledgedasbeingtheapogeeofArabIslamicculture.OnecouldhavesubstitutedthewordIslamatthattime, and the statement above would otherwise have stood unaltered as an expression ofMu‘tazilite beliefs. We have also seen that there are Muslim thinkers today who areattemptingsomethingsimilar.Of course, non-Muslims cannot make the choice for Muslims, but the advice of George

Hourani comes close to what manyMuslims, like Fazlur Rahman, have themselves said isneeded:“IfIhadachoiceofwhatintellectualpathMuslimsshouldfollow—achoicewhichIdonothave,lookingatIslamfromoutside—IwouldstartoveragainatthepointswheretheearlyjuristsandtheMu‘tazilitesleftoff,andworktodevelopasystemofIslamiclawwhichwouldopenlymakeuseofjudgementsofequityandpublicinterest,andasystemofethicaltheologywhichwouldencouragejudgementsofrightandwrongbythehumanmind,withouthavingtolook to scripture at every step. TheMu‘taziliteswere correct in their doctrine thatwe canmake objective value judgements, even if their particular theory of ethics hadweaknesses,whichwouldhave tobe revisedbymodernethicalphilosophersand theologians.So I thinkthis is the best way forMuslims to revive Islam, and I wish them success in a formidable

task.”13IfIslamistofinditswayoutofitscurrentdilemmawiththechoiceHouranirecommends,it

mustsomehowreconciletheunityofGod(tawhid)withtheunityofreason—reasoninGod,inHis creation, and in man. If reason is absent from any one of the three, the relationshipcollapsesintoirrationality,andtherewouldbenowaytomake“objectivevaluejudgements.”IfGodiswithoutreason,thensowillbeHiscreation—forfromwhereelsecoulditsrationalitycome? If creation is bereft of reason’s imprint,man’s reasonwould be impotent because itwouldhavenothingitcouldcorrespondtoandwithwhichitcouldinteract.Itwouldnotevenhaveanythingtoreflectuponthroughwhichtobecomeawareofitself.Allwouldbewill,butitwouldbeblindwill,andanyfaithbaseduponitwouldbeblindfaith.Makingeitherreasonorrevelationautonomous leads toadistortionofwhateach is.Reasonraisesquestions that itcannot answer, and revelation’s answers cannot be understood without reason. Divorcingreasonfromfaith(thecurrentcrisisoftheWest)orfaithfromreason(thecrisisofIslam)leadstocatastrophe;theyshouldbeinpartnership.14As intimated above, what Thomas Aquinas did for Christianity, someone needs to do for

Islam—if it can be done. This will depend on whether or not Ash‘arite voluntarism andoccasionalism are seen as integral to the Qur’an or as later accretions that can bedisregarded. If fordoctrinalorother reasons it cannotbedone, ifSunni Islamcontinues toembracethemoralagnosticismofAsh‘arismandtheextremefideismtowhichitleads,itwillnotbeabletoadaptitselftomodernity,modernscience,ordemocraticconstitutionalrule,andits futurewillbeverybleak.The tempestuousnessofour times,whichmanythinkaugursaresurgence of Islam, may in fact signal its further decline, which could be even moretempestuous. Dr. Muhammad al-Houni, a Libyan reformist living in Italy, comes to thefollowingconclusion: “Arabsocietieshaveonlyoneof twooptions:either tosever their tieswithWesterncivilizationanditsculturalinstitutionsandtocontinueto[do]themselvesharm...ortoirrevocablysevertheirtieswiththereligiouslegacyoftheMiddleAges,inorderfortheirphilosophytobeaphilosophyoflifeandfreedom,andnotoneofdeathandhatred.”15Or there is anotherway to put this choicewith respect to a very different aspect of the

Islamic legacy, expressed by Bassam Tibi: “If that Islamic medieval rationalism thatrecognizedtheuniversalityofknowledgecontinuestobedeclaredaheresy,andifauthenticityisnarroweddowntoapolarizationoftheselfandotherness,thenMuslimsofthetwenty-firstcenturywillcontinuetobeunsuccessfulinembarkingonmodernity.”16Theproblemisthattheirprospectivefailure,astragicasitwillbeforthem,mayenfoldus

all. As was seen in the blood-soaked history of the twentieth century, the “priority of theirrational”—even if embraced only by the radical few—can inexorably lead to limitlessviolence, because the primacy of the will, whether in God or man, knows no bounds. Therecoveryofreason,groundedinLogos,istheonlysentinelofsanity.ThisisimperativefortheEastaswellastheWest.“Comenow,letusreasontogether”(Isaiah1:18).

Notes

Introduction:IntellectualSuicide1.DimitriGutas,GreekThought,ArabicCulture(NewYork:Routledge,1998),160.

2.Saidtotheauthorin2005.

3.FazlurRahman,IslamandModernity(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1982),157–58.

4.RashidShaz,“ReinventingtheMuslimMind,”atrashidshaz.com/articles/Reinventing_the_Muslim_Mind.htm.

Chapter1:TheOpening1.SamirKhalilSamir,111QuestionsonIslam(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2008),65–66.

2.PervezHoodbhoy,IslamandScience(London:ZedBooks,1991),104;IbnKhaldun,TheMuqaddimah:AnIntroductiontoHistory(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1978),32–33.

3.UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme,ArabHumanDevelopmentReport2003(NewYork:UnitedNations,2003),117.

4.DuncanB.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology, JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory (BeirutKhayats;1stedition January 1, 1965: paperback, Macdonald Press, March 15, 2007), ch. 3, athttp://www.questia.com/library/book/development-of-muslim-theology-jurisprudence-and-constitutional-theory-by-duncan-b-macdonald.jsp.

5.MajidFakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1970and1983),47.

6.FazlurRahman,Islam(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1979,2002),89.

7.AlfredGuillaume,Islam(London:Penguin,1956),131.

8.Muslim,Kitabal-QadarHadith1848.

9. W. H. T. Gairdner,God as Triune, Creator Incarnate, Atoner: A Reply to Muhammadan Objections and an Essay inPhilosophicApology (Madras,AllahabadCalcutta,Rangoon,Colombo:TheChristianLiteratureSociety for India,1916),58footnote, atwww.muhammadanism.org, July 15, 2007. (Muslim, Imam,SahihMuslim:BeingTraditions of theSayings andDoingsoftheProphetMuhammadasNarratedbyHisCompanionsandcompiledundertheTitleAl-Jami’-Us-Sahih,Translatedby‘AbdulH.Siddiqi,Vol.IV,ch.MCVI,No.6421,1397–98.)

10.FazlurRahman,RevivalandReforminIslam(Oxford:OneworldPublications,2000),153.

11.IgnazGoldziher,IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981),84–85.

12.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory,ch.3,5.

13.RichardC.MartinandMarkR.Woodward,DefendersofReasoninIslam(Oxford:OneworldPublications,2003),91.

14.Ibid.,91.

15.Ibid.,189.

16.GeorgeHourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985),104.

17.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,189.

18.I.M.N.al-Jubouri,HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy(Hertford,England:AuthorsOnLineLtd.,2004),387.

19.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,103.

20.Ibid.,108.

21.Goldziher,IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw,94.

22.Fakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,xvii.

23.Averroes,Tahafutal-Tahafut(TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence),325,trans.SimonVanDenBergh(London:E.J.W.GibbMemorialSeries,2008),325.

24.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,11.

25.Goldziher,IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw,101.

26. James Schall, “Why the Bewilderment? Benedict XVI on Natural Law,” Ignatius Insight, october 27, 2007,www.ignatiusinsight.com.

27.A.J.Wensinek,TheMuslimCreed(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1932),62–63.

28.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,97.

29.“CausationinIslamicThought,”PhilipP.Wiener,ed.,DictionaryoftheHistoryofIdeas (NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1973–74),Volume1,288,athttp://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1–39.

30.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,186.

31.Ibid.,96.

32.Ibid.,100.

33.Ibid.,97.

34.Ibid.,97.

35.Ibid.,93.

36.Fakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,47.

37.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,92.

38.Ibid.,93.

39.DeLacyO’Leary,IslamicThoughtanditsPlaceinHistory(NewDelhi:GoodwordBooks,2001),124.AlsoavailableasArabicThoughtanditsPlaceinHistory,atwww.sacred-texts.com.

40.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory,136.

41.M.AbdulHye,“Ash‘arism,”inAHistoryofMuslimPhilosophy,M.M.Sharif,ed.(PakistanPhilosophicalCongress),ch.11,athttp://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/index.html.

42.ImadN.Shehadeh,“ThePredicamentofIslamicMonotheism,”BiblothecaSacra161(April–June2004),156.

43.Goldziher,IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw,101.

44.JosephKenny,TheologicalThemesCommonto IslamandChristianity (Lagos,Nigeria:DominicanPublications,1997),ch.5,1.

45.Ibid.,ch.4,2.

46.“Ash‘ariyyaandMu‘tazila,”atwww.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H052.htm),4.

47. Thomas Aquinas, Reasons for the Faith against Muslim Objections, ch. 3, athttp://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/islam/rationes.htm.

48.Ibid.

49.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,98.

50.Fakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,14.

51.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,96.

52.FrancesLuttikhuizen,“EarlyEasternChristianityandItsContributiontoScience,”ChristianityandSociety,Vol.XV,No.1(April2005):7.

53.Fakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,71.

54.Gutas,GreekThought,ArabicCulture,158–59.

55. JosephKenny,Philosophyof theMuslimWorld (Washington,DC:TheCouncil forResearch inValues andPhilosophy,2003),154.

56.Averroes,TheBookoftheDecisiveTreatise,trans.CharlesE.Butterworth(Provo,UT:BrighamYoungUniversity,2001),section10.AlsocitedbyTerenceJ.Kleven,“‘ForTruthDoesNotOpposeTruth’:TheArgumentofDivineLawandPhilosophyinAverroes’TheBookoftheDecisiveTreatise(KitabFaslal-Maqal),”unpublishedpaper,9.

57.Averroes,Faith andReason in Islam:Averroes’Exposition ofReligiousArguments, trans. by IbrahimNajjar (Oxford:Oneworld Publications, 2001), 16–17. See also, Averroes, On the Harmony of Religions and Philosophy: “Now, it beingestablished that the Lawmakes the observation and consideration of creation by reason obligatory—and consideration isnothingbut tomakeexplicit the implicit—thiscanonlybedone throughreason.Thuswemust look intocreationwith thereason.”Postedathttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1190averroes.html.

58.W.MontgomeryWatt,MuslimIntellectual:AStudyofAl-Ghazali(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1963),21.

Chapter2:TheOverthrowoftheMu‘tazilites1. Abuz-Zubair, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Life & Madhab, at http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?

articleID=1193&.

2.Kenny,TheologicalThemesCommontoIslamandChristianity,ch.5,1.

3.JosephKenny,PhilosophyoftheMuslimWorldathttp://www.diafrica.org/kenny/phil/default.htm,6.

4.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,111.

5.Gutas,GreekThought,ArabicCulture,161–162.

6.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,101.

7.Gutas,GreekThought,ArabicCulture,163.

8.G.W.Kayani,“ThePoliticalFactorsThatBroughttheAshariteSchooltoaMajority,”May2005,atwww.hawza.org.uk.

9.AlbertHourani,AHistoryoftheArabPeoples(NewYork:WarnerBooks,1992),182.

10.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,57.

11.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,100.

12.Ibid.

13.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,42.

14.RaphaelPatai,TheArabMind(NewYork:HatherleighPress,2002),395.

15.StanleyL.Jaki,“ThePhysicsofImpetusandtheImpetusoftheQur’an,”ModernAge(Spring,1985),159.

16. Floy E. Doull, “Peace with Islam,” Animus (December 2004), 10, athttp://www2.swgc.mun.ca/animus/Articles/Volume%209/doull.pdf

17.W.MontgomeryWatt,IslamicPhilosophyandTheology(Edinburgh:UniversityPressEdinburgh,1962),76.

18.Rahman,Islam,123.

19.EdwardMortimer,FaithandPower:ThePoliticsofIslam(NewYork:RandomHouse/VintageBooks,1982):74.

20.Hye,“Ash‘arism,”AHistoryofMuslimPhilosophy,ch.11.

21.Hadithquotedathttp://www.muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Bida’ah.

22.IbnHanbal.

23.A.Zumarlee,ed.,TheFoundationsof theSunna (April 1991), 169.QuotedbyStephenUlph, “TheFabric ofQur’anicScripture,”unpublishedpaper,3.

24.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,99.

25.RaymondIbrahim,TheAl-QaedaReader(NewYork:BroadwayBooks,2007),8.

26.Kenny,TheologicalThemesCommontoIslamandChristianity,ch.4,8.

27.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,99.

28.Postedatallaahuakbar.net,2008.

29.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory,14.

30.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,10.

31.MuhammadArkoun,Islam:ToReformorToSubvert?(London:SaqiBooks,2006),161.

32. W. H. T. Gairdner, The Rebuke of Islam (London: United Council for Missionary Education,1920), also posted atwww.muhammadanism.org,March6,2003.

33.Hye,“Ash‘arism,”4.

34.Watt,IslamicPhilosophyandTheology,65.

35.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory,Chapter3,9.

36.Ibid.

37.Averroes,Tahafutal-Tahufat(TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence),522.

38.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory,7.

39.T.J.DeBoer,TheHistoryofPhilosophyinIslam(NewYork:DoverPublications,1967),163.

40.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,119.

41.Hye,“Ash‘arism,”20.

42.FadlouShehadi,Ghazali’sUniqueUnknowableGod(Leiden,Netherlands:E.J.Brill,1964),83.

43.Rahman,Islam,62.

44.Ibid.,107.

45.Shehadeh,“ThePredicamentofIslamicMonotheism,”155.

46.Ibid.,149.

47.FromSimonVanDenBergh’sintroductiontoAverroes’sTheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence,“ImayremarkherethatitseemstomeprobablethatNicholasofAutrecourt,‘themedievalHume,’wasinfluencedbyGhazali’sAsh‘aritetheories.HedeniesinthesamewayasGhazalithelogicalconnexionbetweencauseandeffect:exeoquodaliquaresestcognitaesse,nonpotestevidenterevidentiareductainprimumprincipiumvelincertitudinemprimiprincipiiinferri,quodaliaressit(cf.Lappe,NicolausvonAutrecourt,Beitr.z.Gesch.d.Phil.d.M.B.vi,H.2,11);hegivesthesameexampleofignisandstupa,heseemstoholdalsotheAsh‘aritethesisofGodasthesolecauseofallaction(cf.op.cit.,24),andhequotesinoneplaceGhazali’sMetaphysics(cf.N.ofAutrecourt,Exigitordoexecutionis,inMediaevalStudies,vol.i,ed.byJ.ReginaldO’Donnell,Toronto,1931,208).”Postedat:http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Incoherence/Introduction.

48.BenedictXVI,:“CreationIsaRevelationofGod’sPresence,”NationalCatholicRegister(November20,2005).

49. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “The Permanent Significance of the Christian Faith,” Subiaco, Italy, April 1, 2005, athttp://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2424.

50.seeJaki’sextraordinarymonograph,Jesus,Islam,Science(Pickney,MI:RealViewBooks,2001).

Chapter3:TheMetaphysicsoftheWill1.Lucretius,DeRerumNatura,v.76–81.

2.MaliseRuthven,IslamintheWorld(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1984),195.

3.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,120.

4.Doull,“PeacewithIslam,”11.

5.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory.

6.MajidFakhry,ClassicalArgumentsfortheExistenceofGod,athttp://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/pg1.htm.

7.LouisGardet,Ilmal-Kalam,10,atwww.muslimphilosophy.com/ei/kalam.htm.

8.R.J.McCarthy,“AbuBakral-Baqillani,”athttp://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei2/baqillani.htm.

9.Al-Ghazali,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,trans.MichaelE.Marmura(Provo,UT:BrighamUniversityPress,1997),170.

10.Ibid.

11. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, ch. 97, at http://www. op-stjoseph.org/Students/study/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#97.

12.Al-Ghazali,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,174.

13.Ibid.

14.Ibid.

15.DuncanMacdonald,AspectsofIslam(NewYork:MacmillanCompany,1911),142.Postedatwww.muhammadanism.org,July26,2003.

16.Averroes,FaithandReasoninIslam,87.

17.AhmadibnNaqibal-Misri,RelianceoftheTraveller:AClassicManualofSacredIslamicLaw(Umdatal-Salik),editedandtranslatedbyNuhHaMimKeller,revisededition(Beltsville,MD:AmanaPublications,1997).

18.Guillaume,Islam,141.SeealsoJosephKenny,PhilosophyoftheMuslimWorld,61.

19.AsstatedtotheauthorinWashington,DC,2005.

20.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,54.

21.Ibid.,55.

22.Ibid.,47.

23.Averroes,Tahafutal-Tahufat(TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence),522.

24.MajidFakhry,RationalityinIslamicPhilosophy,508.

25.Averroes,TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence,317.

26.Ibid.,325.

27.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,17.

28.Rahman,Islam,61.

29.Ibid.,106.

30.Ibid.

31.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,133.

32.Rahman,Islam,106.

33.RemiBrague,TheLawofGod(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2007),166.

34.Plato,TheEuthyphro

35.Kitābal-Ibāna‘anUsulal-Diyāna,trans.W.Klein(NewHaven,1940),47–49.www.sacred-texts.com.

36.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,125.

37.JohnA.Williams,ed.,Islam:AnAnthologyofSomeKeyTextsAcrosstheEntireSpectrumofIslamicTradition(ForgottenBooks,1962),193.

38.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,17.

39.Doull,“PeacewithIslam,”15.

40.AlgisValiunas,“EncounteringIslam,”ClaremontReviewofBooks,Spring2007,32.

41.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,133.

42.LaurentMurawiec,TheMindofJihad(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008),155.

43.Regensburg:UniversityAddresscitedathttp://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16bavaria11.htm.

44.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,170.

45.Al-Misri,RelianceoftheTraveller.

46.JosephKenny,IslamicMonotheism:PrinciplesandConsequence,8.

47.EdHusain,TheIslamist(London:PenguinBooks,2007),42.

48.Murawiec,TheMindofJihad,156.

49.LawrenceWright,“TheRebellionWithin,”NewYorker,June2,2008.

50.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,61.

51.Brague,TheLawofGod,160.

52.BassamTibi,Islam’sPredicamentwithModernity(NewYork:Routledge:2009),244.

53.Ibid.,254.

54. Samir Khalil Samir, “Imams’ Ignorance Holds Back Cultural Development of ThoseWhoWant to Live According toIslam,”AsiaNews(September6,2006),at:http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=7143&dos=73&size=A.

55.RémiBrague,“AreNon-TheocraticRegimesPossible?”IntercollegiateReview(Spring,2006),11.

56.Goldziher,IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw,16.

57.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,33.

58.Ibid.,140and156.

59.Ibid.,156.

60.Al-Ghazali,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers.

61.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,144.

62.Gairdner,TheRebukeofIslam,58.

63.Ibid.QuotationfromAlHadis,Mishkat-ul-Masabih,trans.al-HajMaulanaFazlulKarim(NewDelhi,India,IslamicBookService,1998),Vol.3,ch.xxxii,454w,117–18.

64. Sir William Muir, Corân (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1854), 55–56, atwww.muhammadanism.org,September,2006.

65.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,173(Fisal,3:98and105).

66.Ibid.,174(Fisal,3:92).

67.Shehadeh,“ThePredicamentofIslamicMonotheism,”149.

68.Jaki,ScienceandCreation,214;Maimonides,GuideforthePerplexed,Part1,ch.73,128.

69.Doull,“PeacewithIslam,”11.

70.Ibid.(Hegel,“ArabicPhilosophy”inLecturesontheHistoryofPhilosophy(ed.Brown),38–39.)

71.OswaldSpengler,TheDeclineoftheWest,trans.ArthurHelps(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1991).

72.Shehadeh,“ThePredicamentofIslamicMonotheism,”149.

73.Fakhry,RationalityinIslamicPhilosophy,207–8.

74.DuncanMacdonald,AspectsofIslam,136–138.

75.DuncanMacdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalTheory.

76.Al-Shahrastani.

77.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,59.

78.Williams,Islam,192.

79.Averroes,FaithandReasoninIslam,107.

80.EricL.Ormsby,ed.,TheodicyinIslamicThought(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984),40–41.

81.LenGoodman,“HumanismandIslamicEthics,”Logos,1.2(Spring,2002),16.

82.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,12.

83.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,59.

84.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,122.

85.Al-Ghazali,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,177.

86.Plato,Cratylus.

87.Rahman,Islam,97.

88.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstituionalTheory,203.

Chapter4:TheTriumphofAsh‘arism1.Watt,IslamicPhilosophyandTheology,49.

2.Ibid.

3. Sheikh Abu-Uthman Faisal bin Qazar al-Jassim, The ‘Ash‘aris: In the Scales of Ahl us-Sunnah, 11, athttp://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_AshariCreed.pdf.

4.M.SaeedSheikh,IslamicPhilosophy,104.

5.Al-Ghazali,Deliverance fromError,3,athttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1100ghazali-truth.html, fromTheSacredBooksandEarlyLiteratureoftheEast,CharlesF.Horne,ed.(NewYork:Parke,Austin,&Lipscomb,1917),Vol.VI:MedievalArabia,99–133.ThiswasareprintofTheConfessionsofal-Ghazali,trans.ClaudField(London:J.Murray,1909).

6.Ibid.,9.

7.Ibid.,11.

8.Al-Ghazali,TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence.(Paginationintheprintedversiononly.)

9.Ibid.

10.Al-Ghazali,DeliverancefromError,3.

11.Ibid.

12.Ibid.,4.

13.Ibid.

14.Ibid.

15.Ibid.,4,5.

16.Ibid.,5.

17.Ibid.

18.Ibid.

19.Ibid.

20.Ibid.,7.

21.Al-Ghazali,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers.

22.Kenny,TheologicalThemesCommontoIslamandChristianity,chap.11,4.

23.Al-Ghazali,DeliverancefromError,14.

24.Ibid.,15.

25.Ibid.,16.

26.Ibid.,21.

27.Ibid.

28.Macdonald,AspectsofIslam,201.

29.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,112.

30.Fakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,243.

31.M.SaeedSheikh,“Al-Ghazali,”AHistoryofMuslimPhilosophy,athttp://ghazali.org/articles/hmp-4–30.htm#INF.

32.Rahman,Islam,137.

33.Ibid.,142.

34.Goldziher,IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw,151.

35.Ibid.,153.

36.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,88.

37. Eric L. Ormsby, “The Taste of Truth,” inGod and Creation: An Ecumenical Symposium, eds., David B. Burrell andBernardMcGinn(SouthBend,IN:UniversityofNotreDame,1990),151,athttp://www.ghazali.org/articles/e01.pdf.

38.Al-Ghazali,DeliverancefromError,61,athttp://ghazali.org/articles/hmp-4–30.htm#_ftnref107.

39.Ibid.,18,athttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1100ghazali-truth.html.

40.Ibid.

41.Samir,111QuestionsonIslam,210.

42.O’Leary,IslamicThoughtanditsPlaceinHistory,221–22.

43.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,ch.3,8.

44.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,118–19.

45.Fakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,249.

46.PaulValery,MauvaisesPenséesetAutres(1942),EncartaBookofQuotations(2000),951.

47.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,ch.3,8.

48.W.H.T.Gairdner,TheMuslimIdeaofGod (MadrasAllahabadRangoonColombo,1925),13,atmuhammadanism.org,August11,2003.

49.W.H.T.Gairdner,GodasTriune,Creator,Incarnate,Atoner,34–35.Postedat:muhammadanism.org,July16,2007.

50.HansJonas,GnosticReligion:TheMessageoftheAlienGodandtheBeginningsofChristianity(Boston:BeaconPress,1963),34–35.

51.Al-Ghazali,TheNicheforLights, trans.W.H.T.Gairdner (firstpublishedasMonographVol.XIXby theRoyalAsiaticSociety,London,1924)—scannedatsacred-texts.com,October2001.

52.Ibid.,52.

53.Ibid.

54.Rahman,Islam,144.

55.Goldziher,IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw,153.

56.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,118.

57.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,165–66.

58.Samir,111QuestionsonIslam,180.

59. “IbnMiskawayh,’” in ch. 8,Historyof IslamicPhilosophy, SeyyedHosseinNasr andLeamanOliver, eds. (NewYork:Routledge,2001),1211.

60. Kaufmann Kohler and Isaac Broyde, “Arabic Philosophy—Its Influence on Judaism,” athttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/viewjsp?artid=1688&letter=A.

61.Brague,TheLawofGod,166.

62.TawfikHamid,“TheDevelopmentofaJihadist’sMind,”CurrentTrends(April6,2007),atwww.CurrentTrends.org.

63.GeorgeWeigel,Faith,Reason,andtheWaragainstJihadism(NewYork:Doubleday,2007),50.

Chapter5:TheUnfortunateVictoryofal-GhazaliandtheDehellenizationofIslam1.Hye,“Ash‘arism,”ch.11,athttp://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/index.html.

2.SeyyedHosseinNasr,IslamicLifeandThought(Albany,NY:StateUniversityPress,1981),72.

3.Rahman,Islam,117.

4.Citedathttp://www.ghazali.org/articles/hmp-4–30.htm,footnote21.

5.Macdonald,DevelopmentofMuslimTheology,JurisprudenceandConstitutionalThought,7.

6.Macdonald,AspectsofIslam,148–149.

7.Averroes,TheBookoftheDecisiveTreatise,section10.AlsocitedbyKleven,“ForTruthDoesNotOpposeTruth,”9.

8.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,275.

9.Kenny,PhilosophyoftheMuslimWorld,145.

10.JoelKraemer,“HumanismintheRenaissanceofIslam,”JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety,104.1(1984):143.

11.Ibid.,seefootnote37.

12.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,120.

13.Rahman,RevivalandReforminIslam,60.

14.G.F.Haddad,“AlFakhral-Razi,”athttp://www.sunnah.org/history/scholars/al_fakhr_al_razi.htm.

15.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,103.

16.Fakhry,AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,323.

17. Serajul Haque, “Ibn Taimiyah,” in Sharif, A History of Muslim Philosophy, ch. 41, 799, athttp://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/index.html.

18.Rahman,Islam,108.

19.Ibid.,187.

20.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP206708.

21.Ibrahimal-Buleihi,Ukkaz,April23,2009,athttp://www.elaph.com/Web/NewsPapers/2009/4/433121.htm.

22.BassamTibi,TheChallengeofFundamentalism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1998),71.

23.Ibid.

24.TarekHeggy,at,www.alwaref.org/en/islamic-culture/157-rise-militant-islam,May6,2009.

25.Rahman,Islam,110.

Chapter6:DeclineandConsequences1.TarekHeggy, “ThePrisonsof theArabMind,”postedathttp://www.jamaliya.com/new/show.php?sub=5483, August 14,

2009.

2.Rahman,Islam,123.

3.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,192.

4.HassanHanafi,“TheMiddleEast,inWhoseWorld?”uneditedpaperasgivenattheOsloconference“TheMiddleEastinaGlobalizedWorld,”August13–16,1998,athttp://www.hf.uib.no/smi/pao/hanafi.html.

5.Rahman,Islam,99.

6.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,123.

7.Patai,TheArabMind,172.

8. Martin Kramer, “Politics and the Prophet,” The New Republic, athttp://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/PoliticsandProphet.htm.

9.2010FreedomHouseSurveyat:http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiwlO/FIW_2010_Overview_Essay.pdf

10.QuotedbyMartinKramer, “DemocracyPromotion in theMiddleEast:Time foraPlanB,”December5,2006, at theWashingtonInstituteforNearEastPolicy,at,www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=315.

11.Tibi,TheChallengeofFundamentalism,138.

12.DavidPryce-Jones,TheClosedCircle(NewYork:HarperPerennial,1991),18.

13.MichaelHirsh,“MisreadingIslam,”WashingtonMonthly,November19,2004.

14.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi.?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP112106.

15.MEMRI,athttp://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi.?Page=countries&Area=northafrica&ID=SP181008.

16. Abdolkarim Soroush, on receipt of the Erasmus Prize in 2004, posted at http://www.drsoroush.com/PDF/E-CMB-20041113-%20Rationalist_Traditions_in_Islam-Soroush_in_Heidelberg.pdf.

17. Transcript of TV interview with Dr. Soroush by Dariush Sajjadi, broadcast on Homa TV on March 9, 2006, athttp://www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-HomaTV.html.

18.Qur’an(Riyadh:AbulqasimPublishingHouse,1997),346.

19.Ruthven,IslamintheWorld,13.

20.ArunShourie,“ToParadise—ViatheJehadinKashmir!”athttp://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/print/19980820.htm.

21.UNDP,ArabHumanDevelopmentReport2003(NewYork:UnitedNations,2003),152.

22.UNDP,ArabHumanDevelopmentReport2009(NewYork:UnitedNations,2009),5.

23.TheCairoDeclarationonHumanRightsinIslam,athttp://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm.

24.LaurentMurawiec,PrincesofDarkness(Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield,2005),56.

25.“LibyanIntellectualDr.Muhammadal-Houni:TheArabsMustChooseBetweenWesternCivilizationandtheLegacyofthe Middle Ages,” Middle East Media Research Institute Inquiry and Analysis No. 240, September 12, 2005, athttp://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=ia&ID=IA24005&Page=archives.

26. Abu Hamza, “Are They the People of the Book? Questions and Answers,” Al-Jihaad, no. 2, athttp://www.shareeah.com/Eng/aj/aj2.html.

27.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP146007#_ednref2.

28.MEMRI,athttp://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=northafrica&ID=SP181008.

29.AliAllawi,TheCrisisofIslamicCivilization(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2009),11.

30.LawrenceFreedman,TheTransformationofStrategicAffairs (NewYork:Routledge for the International Institute forstrategicstudies,2006),23.

31.Patai,TheArabMind,22.

32.FatimaMernissi,IslamandDemocracy(Cambridge,MA:PerseusBooks,1992),34–37.

33.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,275.

34.SamirKhalilSamir,“IslamNeedsRenewalfromWithin,NotWithdrawalintoItself,toOvercomeitsCrisis,”AsiaNews,March8,2007,5,athttp://www.asianews.it/index.php?!=en&art=7164&dos&size=A.

35.Hirsh,“MisreadingIslam.”

36. Muhammad Khair, “Hegel and Islam,” The Philosopher Vol. LXXXX, No. 2, at http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/hegel&islam.htm.

37.MEMRI,athttp://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1700.htm.

38.Patai,TheArabMind,51.

39. Dennis Overbye, “How Islam Won, and Lost, the Lead in Science,” New York Times, October 10, 2001, athttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/science/social/30IsLA.html?pagewanted=4.

40.“AComprehensiveInterviewwithSyrianPhilosopherSadikJalalal-‘Azm,”MiddleEastMediaResearchInstituteSpecialDispatchNo.1913,May1,2008,athttp://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP191308.

41.Husain,TheIslamist,101.

42.AliaIbrahim,“ADivineSealofApproval,”WashingtonPost,November19,2006.

43.PervezHoodbhoy,“BetweenImperialismandIslamism,”HimalSouthasian(October-November2007).

44.MEMRI,athttp://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=northafrica&ID=SP181008.

45. Stephen Schwartz, “Allah and the Tsunami,” Front Page Magazine, January 13, 2005, athttp://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9941.

46.“SeniorKuwaitiOfficial:‘KatrinaIsaWindofTormentandEvilfromAllahSenttoThisAmericanEmpire,’”MiddleEastMedia Research Institute Special Dispatch No. 977, September 2, 2005, at http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP97705.

47.PervezHoodbhoy,“ScienceandtheIslamicWorld:TheQuestforRapprochement”inPhysicsToday(August,2007).

48.Ibid.

49.UNDP,ArabHumanDevelopmentReport2003,op.cit.,61.

50.YaroslavTrofimov,“CrisisRocksMideastPowerBalance,”WallStreetJournal,June24,2009,A8.

51.SadanandDhume,MyFriendtheFanatic(NewYork:SkyhorsePublishing,2009),270.

52.MEMRI,athttp://www.memri.org/bin/latestnewscgi?ID=SD252909.

53.ShankarVedantam,“PersistenceofMythsCouldAlterPublicPolicyApproach,”WashingtonPost,September3,2007athttp://www.washington-post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR200709000933-pf.html

54.OlivierGuitta,“TheIslamizationofMorocco,”inTheWeeklyStandard,Volume12,Issue3,October2,2006.

55.Videoandtextavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3168.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

56. For a list of videos and news stories proclaiming various September 11 conspiracy theories, please visithttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1491.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

57.Videoandtextavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3291.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

58.Textavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3184.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

59.Fulltextavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2953.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

60.Textavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2888.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

61.Textavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2723.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

62.Fulltextavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2030.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

63.http://memri.netstrategies.com/report/en/2974.htm.

64.Textavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1620.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

65.http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1850.htmandhttp://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1850.htm.

66.Textavailableathttp://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1685.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

67.Videoisavailableathttp://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1104.htm.AccessedDecember15,2009.

68.http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=695.

69.Therearemanyvideoclipsavailableathttp://memritv.org.Youwillberequiredtosignupfortheservice,butyoudonothave to pay a fee. You can also find hundreds of special dispatches or news stories here:http://www.memri.org/more_reports/en/latest/6.htm.

Chapter7:TheWreckage:MuslimTestimonials1.MansoorMoaddel and Kamran Talattof, eds.,Modernist and Fundamentalist Debates in Islam: A Reader (New York:

PalgraveMacmillan,2002),27.

2.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP139306.

3.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA31507.

4.SadikJalalal-‘Azm,MEMRI,athttp://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP191308..

5.RashidShaz,“TensionintheMuslimMind,”postedatrashidshaz.com/articles/Reinventing_the_Muslim_Mind.htm.

6.Tibi,TheChallengeofFundamentalism,105.

7.Ibid.,106.

8. UNDP Arab Human Development Report 2003, 114, athttp://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/regionalreports/arabstates/arab_states_2003_en.pdf

9.Ibid.,118.

10.Hoodbhoy,“ScienceandtheIslamicWorld,”49.

11.Ibid.,71.

12.Ibid.,49.

13.Kenny,PhilosophyoftheMuslimWorld,6.

14.UNDPArabHumanDevelopmentReport2002,85.

15.Ibid.,4.

16.Ibid.,3.

17.Ibid.,65.

18.JohnB.Taylor,“ThePrivateSector’sRoleinPromotingEconomicGrowthintheBroaderMiddleEastandNorthAfrica”(USTreasuryDepartmentPressRelease:Davos),January28,2005,JS-2216.

19.ArabHumanKnowledgeReport2009,(UNDPandtheMuhammadbinRashidAlMaktoumFoundation:Dubai,2009),99.

20.Ibid.,27.

21.UNDP,ArabHumanDevelopmentReport2003,77.

22.Ibid.

23.Ibid.,67.

24.Ibid.,138.

25.Ibid.,138.

26.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP191308.

27.SheikhMuhammadbinRashidalMaktoum,“Educationvs.Extremism,”WallStreetJournal,June3,2009,A15.

28.Allawi,TheCrisisofIslamicCivilization,233.

29.BatYeor,TheDeclineofEasternChristianityunderIslam(Madison,NJ:FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress,1996),296.

30.AhmadKazmi,quotedinHeidiKingstone,“ForeignBodies,”JerusalemReport,October30,2006,24.

31.“Backin1975,thedirectorofDaralIfta’inBeirut,thehighestSunniauthorityinthecountry,wroteinthedailyasSafirthat‘MuslimsshouldonlyberuledbyMuslims.’”FromWalidPhares,TheWarofIdeas(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2007),78.

32.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,60.

33.Ibid.,61.

34.Pryce-Jones,TheClosedCircle,88.

35.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,130.

36.Ibid.,131.

37.Rahman,IslamandModernity,64.

38.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,132.

39.Ruthven,IslamintheWorld,303.

40.AlbertHourani,ArabicThoughtintheLiberalAge1798–1939(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1962),140–41.

41.Ibid.

42.Mortimer,FaithandPower:ThePoliticsofIslam,239.

43.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,136.

44.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,56.

45.Ibid.

46.Rahman,Islam,218.

47.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,59.

48.Seeal-Afghani’sscathing“CommentaryontheCommentator,”adenunciationofAhmedKhanforweakeningthefaithofMuslims, fromAn Islamic Response to Imperialism; Political and Religious Writings of Sayyid Jamal ad-Din “al-Afghani,”editedandtranslatedbyNikkiR.Keddie(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1968),123–29.

49.Tibi,Islam’sPredicamentwithModernity,261.

50.Pryce-Jones,TheClosedCircle,87.

Chapter8:TheSourcesofIslamism1.FawazA.Gerges,JourneyoftheJihadist(NewYork:HarcourtBooks,2007),169.

2.HilaireBelloc,TheGreatHeresies(Rockford,IL:TanBooksandPublishers,1991),73.

3.Ibid.,77.

4.PaulBerman,TerrorandLiberalism(NewYork:Norton,2004),86.

5.PaulEidelberg,BeyondDétente(LaSalle,IL:SherwoodSugden,1977),65.

6.BernardLewis,TheMiddleEast(NewYork:Touchstone,1995),371.

7.Pryce-Jones,TheClosedCircle,194.

8.SayeedAbdulA’laMaududi,JihadinIslam(Lahore,Pakistan:7thEdition,December2001),8.

9.Ibid.,9.

10.JohnC.Zimmerman,“SayyidQutb’sInfluenceonthe11SeptemberAttacks,”TerrorismandPoliticalViolence,Vol.16,No.2(Summer2004)233.

11.Murawiec,TheMindofJihad.

12.Zimmerman,“SayyidQutb’sInfluenceonthe11SeptemberAttacks,”223.

13.SayyidQutb,Milestones(CedarRapids,IA:TheMotherofMosqueFoundation),56.

14.JessicaStern,TerrorintheNameofGod:WhyReligiousMilitantsKill(NewYork:HarperPerennial,2004),281.

15.PeterWonacottandGeetaAnand,“SoleCapturedSuspectOffersGrimInsightsintoMassacre,”TheWallStreetJournal,December4,2008,athttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB122834446748477265.html.

16.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA31507.

17.Zimmerman,“SayyidQutb’sInfluenceonthe11SeptemberAttacks,”223.

18.MawlanaMaududi,JihadinIslam,athttp://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/maududi/maududi.html.

19.SayyidQutb,Social Justice in Islam, revisededition, translatedby JohnB.Hardie, revised and introducedbyHamidAlgar(Oneonta,NY:IslamicPublicationsInternational,2000),26.

20.Qutb,Milestones,91.(AslightlydifferenttranslationfromanunpublishedpaperbyStephenUlphisusedhereratherthantheonecitedbecauseofitsaddedclarity.)

21.Ibid.

22.Qutb,Milestones,131.

23.SayyidQutb,IslamandUniversalPeace(Plainfield,IN:AmericanTrustPublications,1993),27.

24.MaliseRuthven,AFuryforGod(London:GranataBooks,2002),71.

25.SheikhAbulAlaMaududi,IslamicLawandConstitution(Chicago:KaziPublications,Inc.,1955),262.

26.EmmanuelSivan,RadicalIslam:MedievalTheologyandModernPolitics(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1990),73.

27.SayyidQutb,Milestones,trans.S.BadrulHasan(Karachi,Pakistan:InternationalIslamicPublishers,1981),112.

28.Murawiec,TheMindofJihad,36.

29. V. I. Lenin, “Defeat of One’s Own Government in Imperialist War,” 1915, SelectedWorks (New York: InternationalPublishers,1945),vol.5,147.

30. Raymond Ibrahim, “Osama bin Laden as Robin Hood?” American Thinker, September 11, 2008, athttp://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/osama_bin_laden_as_robin_hood.html.

31.SarahKershaw,“TheTerroristMind:AnUpdate,”NewYorkTimes,January10,2010,WK1.

32.Yussufal-Ayyeri,TheFutureofIraqandtheArabianPeninsulaAftertheFallofBaghdad(NewYorkandLondon:CentreforIslamicResearchandStudies,2003).SeealsoAmirTaheri,“Al-Qaeda’sAgendainIraq,”NewYorkPost,onlineedition,September4,2003,athttp://www.magitsurplus.com/PDF%20Files/Soapbox/AQ_agenda.pdf.

33.Qutb,Milestones.

34.StevenBrooke,“ThePreacherandtheJihadi,”CurrentTrendsinIslamistIdeology,Vol.3,(CenterforIslam,Democracy,andtheFutureoftheMuslimWorld),2.

35.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP128506.

36. “‘Why We Fight America’: Al-Qa’ida Spokesman Explains September 11 and Declares Intentions to Kill 4 MillionAmericanswithWeapons ofMassDestruction,”MiddleEastMediaResearch InstituteSpecialDispatchNo. 388, June 12,2002,athttp://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=sp38802.

37.AndrewC.McCarthy,“FreeSpeechforTerrorists?”Commentary,March2005,1.

38.SheikhMuhammadHusseinFadlallahathttp://phaed02000.com/Terrorism.html.SeealsoWalidPhares,FutureJihad.

39. Mark Steyn, “Jihad Goes Mainstream,” National Review, August 30, 2009, athttp://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2389/111/.

40.BBCNews,“InterviewwithMullahOmar,”November15,2001,athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1657368.stm.

41.Ruthven,AFuryforGod,104.

42.AbdullahAzzam,JointheCaravan(AzzamPublications,2001)9.

43. “Al-Qaeda Deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri Claims Responsibility for the London Bombings, Discusses Elections inAfghanistan, and Declares: ‘Reform Can Only Take Place Through Jihad,’” Middle East Media Research Institute SpecialDispatchno.989,September20,2005,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP98905.

44.Gerges,JourneyoftheJihadist,112.

45.InterviewwithMuhammadKhan,Pakistan,January1998.

46.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP128506.

47.Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants/The Al-Qaeda Training Manual, Jerrold M. Post, ed., preface byAmbassadorPaulBremer(MaxwellAirForceBase,AL:USAFCounterproliferationCenter,2004),13.

48.RogerScruton,TheWestandtheRest(Wilmington,DE:ISIBooks,2002),119.

49.Murawiec,TheMindofJihad,46.

50.JosephRatzinger,Milestones:Memoirs1927–1977(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,1998),137.

51.Ruthven,AFuryforGod,209.

52.Murawiec,TheMindofJihad,42.

53.Mernissi,IslamandDemocracy,27.

54.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,158.

55.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA22205.

56.LatifLakhdar,“MovingfromSalafitoRationalistEducation,”MiddleEastReviewofInternationalAffairs,Vol.9,No.1(March2005),30.

57.Ruthven,IslamintheWorld,380.

58.Martin,DefendersofReasoninIslam,216.

59.NicholasD.Kristof,“Islam,VirginsandGrapes,”NewYorkTimes,April22,2009,A27.

60.SamirKhalilSamir,“Church-IslamDialogue,”AsiaNews,January17,2007,3,athttp://www.asianews.it/view4print.php?1=en&art+8242.

61.Tibi,TheChallengeofFundamentalism,31.

62.DavidJ.Rusin,“WhyIslamistsAccuseModerateMuslimsofApostasy,”IslamistWatch,September30,2009.

Chapter9:TheCrisis1.MehranKamrava,ed.,TheNewVoicesofIslam(LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2006),224.

2.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,136.

3.SamirKhalilSamir,“IslamicTerrorism:AResultofWhatIsBeingTaughtatMadrassas,”AsiaNews,March8,2007,4,at

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?=en&aart=4071.

4.Rahman,Islam,256.

5.TonyCorn,“WorldWarIVasFourth-GenerationWarfare,”PolicyReview,January2006,II.

6.Hoodbhoy,IslamandScience,135.

7.AbdelwahabMeddeb,TheMaladyofIslam(NewYork:BasicBooks,2003),104.

8.Ibid.,105.

9.ThomasK.Grosse,“TheWarWithinIslam,”U.S.NewsandWorldReport,March12,2009.

10.Dhume,MyFriendtheFanatic,124.

11. Abdurrahman Wahid, “Right Islam vs. Wrong Islam,” Wall Street Journal, December 30, 2005, A16, athttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007743.

12. SandroMagister, “Faith byNumbers:WhenRatzingerPuts onGalileo’sRobes,”ExpressOnline, January 9, 2009, atwww.chiesa.expressonline.it.

13.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics,276.

14.IamindebtedtoFatherJamesSchallforthisformulation.

15.MEMRI,athttp://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA24005.

16.Tibi,Islam’sPredicamentwithModernity,262.

FurtherReading

Averroes.TheBook of theDecisive Treatise, translated byCharles E. Butterworth (Provo,UT: BrighamYoungUniversity,2001).

Averroes.Faith and Reason in Islam: Averroes’ Exposition of Religious Arguments, translated by IbrahimNajjar (Oxford:OneworldPublications,2001.

Averroes.TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence,translatedbySimonVanDenBergh,(London,E.J.W.GibbMemorialSeries,2008).

Cox,CarolineandJohnMarks.TheWest,IslamandIslamism,(Civitas,London:Civitas,2006).Fakhry,Majid.AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1970and1983).Al-Ghazali.TheIncoherenceof thePhilosophers, translatedbyMichaelE.Marmura (Provo,UT:BrighamUniversityPress,

1997).Goldziher,Ignaz.IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1981).Hoodbhoy,Pervez.IslamandScience(London:ZedBooks,1991).Hourani,Albert.AHistoryoftheArabPeoples(NewYork:WarnerBooks,1992).Hourani,George.ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985).Ibrahim,Raymond.TheAl-QaedaReader(NewYork:BroadwayBooks,2007).Jaki,Stanley.Jesus,Islam,Science(Pickney,MI:RealViewBooks,2001).Jaki,Stanley.ScienceandCreation,(Edinburgh:ScottishAcademicPress,1986).Kenny,Joseph.TheologicalThemesCommontoIslamandChristianity(Lagos,Nigeria:DominicanPublications,1997).Macdonald,DuncanB.AspectsofIslam(NewYork:MacmillanCompany,1911).Macdonald, Duncan B. Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (Beirut Khayats; 1st

edition,January,1,1965:paperback,MacdonaldPress,March15,2007).Meddeb,Abdelwahab.TheMaladyofIslam(NewYork:BasicBooks,2003).MiddleEastMediaResearchInstitute(MEMRI).athttp://memri.orgMernissi,Fatima.IslamandDemocracy(Cambridge,MA:PerseusBooks,1992).Murawiec,Laurent.TheMindofJihad(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).Patai,Raphael.TheArabMind(NewYork:HatherleighPress,2002).Martin,RichardC.andMarkR.Woodward.DefendersofReasoninIslam(Oxford:OneworldPublications,1997).Rahman,Fazlur.Islam(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1979,2002).Rahman,Fazlur.IslamandModernity(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1982).Rahman,Fazlur.RevivalandReforminIslam(Oxford:OneworldPublications,2000).Ruthven,Malise.AFuryforGod(London:GrantaBooks,2002).Ruthven,Malise.IslamintheWorld(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1984).SamirKhalilSamir.111QuestionsonIslam(SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress,2008).Schall,James.TheRegensburgLecture(SouthBend,IN:St.Augustine’sPress,2007).Scruton,Roger.TheWestandtheRest(Wilmington,DE:ISIBooks,2002).Shehadeh,ImadN.“ThePredicamentofIslamicMonotheism,”BiblothecaSacra161(April-June2004).Sivan,Emmanuel.RadicalIslam:MedievalTheologyandModernPolitics,(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1990).Sookhdeo,Patrick.GlobalJihad(McLean,VA:IsaacPublishing,2007).Tibi,Bassam.TheChallengeofFundamentalism(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1998).Tibi,Bassam.Islam’sPredicamentwithModernity(NewYork:Routledge,2009).

Acknowledgments

IfirstembarkedonthesubjectofthisbookinalectureinSloveniaandthenabriefingpaperfor the Centre for Research into Post-Communist Economies (London). I am particularlyindebtedto itspresident,LjuboSirc,and itsexecutivedirector,LislBiggs-Davison, for theirencouragementandsupport.

IamespeciallygratefulforthegeneroussupportoftheEarhartFoundation;itspresident,IngridA.Gregg;anditsboardofdirectorsingrantingmearesearchfellowshipforthisbook.

Manyyearsago,myinterestinthesubjectofIslamwassparkedbythewritingsof,andmydiscussionswith,thelateFatherStanleyJaki,physicistandtheologian,especiallybyhisbookScienceandCreation, inwhichhegaveconvincinganswersas towhy,aftermakingcertainadvances,sciencewasstillbornintheIslamicworld.

I have particularly benefited from interchanges with my colleagues when working in theNearEast/SouthAsiasectionofInternationalSecurityAffairsintheOfficeoftheSecretaryofDefense. The same is true of my teaching time at the National Defense University, whereconversations with Dr. Thomas Blau, Dr. Joe DeSutter, David Belt, and others were veryfruitful, asmostparticularlywere theexchangeswithmyMuslimstudents from theMiddleEastandSouthAsia.

Regardingissuesofgeneralphilosophicalandtheologicalimport,aswellasmattersdirectlyrelatedtoIslam,Ihavebenefitedformanyyearsfromthewisdom,inbothconversationandreading,ofFatherJamesSchallatGeorgetownUniversity.

IamalsoindebtedtomyfriendAngeloCodevilla(forthisandmanyotherthings),RichardBastien, Stephen Ulph, and Roger Scruton for having read the manuscript and given theirsage advice, and to Patrick Poole and Jennifer Bryson for guiding me to some invaluablematerials.For theirhelp, Iowespecial thanks toYigalCarmon,StevenStalinksy,MenahemMilson, and Daniel Lav from the Middle East Media Research Institute, and to PatrickSookhdeofromtheWestminsterInstitute.

IowespecialthankstoJedDonahue,ChristianTappe,ChrisMichalski,andJenniferFoxatISIBooksfortheirinvaluablehelpinbringingthisworktofruition.

My wife, Blanca, is my best editor. I alone, of course, am responsible for any errorscontainedinthiswork.Ialsothankmychildren,Michael,Catherine,Matthew,andTeresa,fortheirpatience.Theyarewell-informedonthefrustrationsofattemptingtowriteabookaboutninth-centuryMuslimtheology.

Index

Abbasidcaliphate,14,18,43,166‘Abduh,Muhammad,45,55,130–31,168,170–72AbdulAzizUniversity,178AbuGheith,Suleiman,188AbuHanifa,44AbuHuraira,16AbuQurrah,Theodore,35AbuSa’idibn-Dust,1AbuZayd,NasrHamid,194Adam,16–17,80,135n,136AdonisseeSa’id,AliAhmadAfghani,SayyidJamalal-Dinal-,157,166–68,171–73Afghanistan,44,116Africa,12agnosticism,112–13Ahmadinejad,Mahmoud,148Ajami,Fouad,1,5,66,198Al-Ahram(newspaper),149al-Azhar(University),45,158,168–69Al-Ibanah‘anUsulal-DiyanahseeClearStatementontheFundamentalElementsoftheFaithal-Qaeda,149,150,178,187,199Al-Raya(newspaper),158al-Razi,AlFakhr,32Al-Safir(newspaper),149Al-ShariqAl-Awsat(newspaper),124,148,156Al-Watan(newspaper),149AlgazelseeGhazali,al-

Ali,SayyidAmeer,171AligarhUniversity,170AlkindusseeKindi,al-Allawi,Ali,137–39,165–66Alp-Arslan(sultan),91Amin,Ahmad,127Amir,Ayaz,200Anbabi,Muhammadal-seeAzhar,al-Ansari,‘Abdal-AliMuhammadal-,75‘Anzi,Rashidal-,136ApologyofAlKindi,35–36Aquinas,Thomas,5,25,34–35,56,58,63–65,199,204ArabKnowledgeReport(2009),163ArabMind(Patai),176Arabphilosophy,124–27Arabi,ibnal-,113Argentina,164Arifi,Muhammadal-,155Aristotle,x,20,27,35,38,45,62,75,87–89,94–95,102,112,119,121,171,191,201–2Arkoun,Muhammad,48Arslan,Shakib,157,172as-SanusiseeSanusi,MuhammadAlias-Ashari,Abual-HasanAliibnIsmailal-,5,33,43,45,49–50,52,59,61–62,65,71,83–87,91–92,171Ash‘arism, x, xii, 2, 4, 8, 20, 25, 27, 30, 32, 43, 45, 48–51, 53–58, 62, 67–75, 77–79, 81, 83, 87–90, 93, 95, 104, 113–14,

119–20,122,128–30,138–39,141,144,161,171,179,181,193,204Ataturk,Kemal,128,131,173Augustine,5,77,182Averroes,x,25–26,37,42,52,64–65,67,86,120–21,125–27Avicenna,42,94–95,122,125,168Ayyeri,Yussufal-,187Azm,SadikJalalal-,142,158–59,164–65Azzam,Abdullah,190,192Baghdadi,Ahmadal-,136Baital-HikmahSeeHouseofWisdom

Banna,Hassanal-,172,174,177,184,186Baqilani,AbuBakral-,61–62,90Bashir,AbuBakar,188,190Basri,Hasanal-,18BattleofthePyramids,167BayerCorporation,152Belloc,Hilaire,175–76BenedictXVI(Pope),2,26,57,73,191,202binAmir,Uqbah,75binAsid,Hudhayfa,16binAta,Wasil,18binAyyub,SalahuddeenYsufSeeSaladinbinHasan,Basit,131–32,137,145binLaden,Osama,75,148,172,174,178,186,190,192,197,200binMa’ruf,Harun,75binMas’ood,QutbuddeenAbu‘l-Ma‘ali,92binSafwan,Jahm,85binShafi,AbuAliTamamah,15,75binTumart,Abu‘AbdullahMuhammad,93binZinki,NuruddeenMahmood,92Bistami,AbuYazidal-,106Blunk,HansFriedrich,179Bolkhari,Hasan,153BookofFiveFundamentals(Abdal-Jabbar),20–21BookofRaids(kitahal-meghazi),12BookoftheDecisiveTreatise(Averroes),37,120–21Bosnia,148Brague,Rémi,116BrotokolatAyatQummHawlaal-Haramaynal-muqaddasayn

SeeProtocolsoftheAyatofQummBukhari,MuhammadibnIsmailal-,16,33Buleihi,Ibrahimal-,125Bulliet,Richard,141Bush,GeorgeW.,150,152Buwayhid,42

“CairoDeclarationonHumanRightsinIslam”(1990),134–36CambridgeUniversity,170CentralIntelligenceAgency(CIA),148Chalhoub,Mahmoud,143Chateaubriand,FrançoisRenéde,72Chelebi,Katib,124China,12Christianity,5,22,36,52,56–58,105–7,109,116,136,146n,162,180,182,192,199,203–4ChristianityandScience(Luttikhuizen),37ClearStatementontheFundamentalElementsoftheFaith(al-Ashari),83–84ClosedCircle(Pryce-Jones),180ColumbiaUniversity,141Columbus,Christopher,147communism,186,190,192CommunistInternational,177Contre-Prêches(Meddeb),158Copernicus,142Corn,Tony,199Cratylus,89CrisisofIslamicCivilization(Allawi),137–38Cuba,163Daral-Hadithal-Ashrafiya,122DeclineoftheWest(Spengler),82DefendersofReasoninIslam(Martin),26“DefendingReligionthroughIgnorance”(al-Baghdadi),136DeliverancefromError(al-Ghazali),52,94,98,103,109,114Democracy:AReligion(al-Maqdisi),188DevelopmentofaJihadist’sMind(Hamid),116Dimashqi,Ghailanal-,18DinRumi,Jalalal-,113Doull,FloyE.,60DunsScotus,John,56Egypt,12,82,144,149,150–52,158,162,167,170,176–77,194ElKhutatElMaqrizia(al-Maqrizi)

SeeMaqrizianPlansEl-Zein,SamihAtef,181

EncyclopaediaofIslam(MacDonald),120Esther(queen),151Euthyphro(Plato),70ExpositionofReligiousArguments(Averroes),38Fadlallah,MuhammadHussein,189Fakhry,Majid,30,61,123Farabi,al-,42,94–95,125Faruqi,Isma‘ilal-,55fascism,181,186Faust(Goethe),53Fawzan,SheikhSalih,145–46FilmCouncilofIslamicRepublicofIranBroadcasting,153Fiqqi,Mustafaal-,152France,124Freedman,Lawrence,139FreedomHouseSurvey(2010),130Freemasonry,147FutureofIraqandtheArabianPeninsula(al-Ayyeri),187Gairdner,W.H.T.,49,111–12GemoftheQu’ran(al-Ghazali),110Genesis,109,135nGeorgeWashingtonUniversity,187GermanIdeology(Marx),179Germany,174,195,198Ghazali,AbuHamidMuhammadibnMuhammadal-,x–xi,5,8,20,52,53,62–65,67,69,78–79,86,88,92,93–112,114–16,

119–28,138,162,171,186GileadSciences,151gnosticism,112–13Goethe,Johannvon,53Goldziher,Ignaz,26,74Goodman,Len,87GospelofLuke,146nGreatHeresies(Belloc),175Greece,164Guillaume,Alfred,16Gum‘a,Ali,158

ha-Levi,Judah,115Habib,Kamalel-Said,190Hadith,16–17,30n,33,39,46–48,74–75,80,109,134,158,170Hallaj,Mansural-,106,112Hamad,Turkial-,141,172Hamas,148Hamid,Tawfik,116Hamza,Abu,136Hanafi,Hassan,128,131Hanbalism,43,49,54,91,123,128–30,139,199Hargey,Taj,195Haykal,Hasanayn,148Haytham,al-,125Hegel,G.W.F.,7,44,82,180Heggy,Tarek,125,127Heraclitus,89HereWeStart(Khalid),159Hezbollah,143,144,189Higazi,Safwat,151Hinduism,136,162HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,A(Fakhry),30,115Hitler,Adolf,153,154,174,182Hizbut-Tahrir,74,143,177–78Hobbes,Thomas,180Hoodbhoy,Pervez,43,60,66–67,122,142,146,161,162,198,199Houni,Muhammadal-,135–36,205Hourani,Albert,42Hourani,George,42–43,67,71–72,140,142,147,203–4HouseofWisdom,35,37,41–42Hudhayl,Abual-,20,31Hume,David,7,107,120HurricaneKatrina,6,146Husain,Ed,74,143Husayni,Aminal-,182HusseinofJordan(king),3Hussein,Saddam,152Huwaydi,Fahmi,149

Hye,M.Abdul,48,53,119ibnAbiWaqqas,Sa’d,13ibnAnas,Malik

SeeShafi‘i,al-ibn-as-Salah,122ibn‘Ata,Wasil,31ibnBaz,Abdal-Aziz,142ibnHanbal,Ahmad,39,41,43–44,46–47,50,171ibnHazm,Ahmad,73,81ibnHunayn,Ishaq,35IbnKhaldun,13,43–44,166,169IbnMiskawayh,115IbnRushdSeeAverroesIbnSa’id,44IbnTaymiyya,62,103,123IncoherenceoftheIncoherence(Averroes),52,67IncoherenceofthePhilosophers,The(al-Ghazali),x,62–63,94,96–98,101,119–20India,12,161,167–68,170,190,198Indonesia,141,148,177,198,201InstituteofPolicyStudies,66InternationalIslamicUniversityMalaysia,161InternationalRevolutionaryParty,181IntroductiontoIslamicTheologyandLaw(Goldziher),26Iran,103Iraq,12,13,20IRINN(IranTV),151IslamChristianityand,56–58collapseofthecaliphate,173–74,177–78democracyand,188–89developmentof,12–15divinemercyand,32divineprovidenceand,50,87“essence”and,31freewilland,17,33–35,51–53,72,96Gabriel(angel)in,195

Godascausasuiand,96“goldenage”of,37,161Greekphilosophyand,1,2,11–39,42,56,59,119–26,171,179indivisibilityofGodand,21,30Internetand,187jurisprudenceand,x,19,44–45,71,73–77,91,123–24,127libraryofCordoba,43–44metaphysicsand,48mysticismand,106–7naturalorderand,4polytheismand,111–13radicalismand,6reasonand,14,19–22,26,42–43,48–51,67,108,114,129,190rightsofnon-Muslimsand,133–39,167riseoftraditionalismand,44–48scholarship,164scienceand,14,60,66,142–45,161–62spreadof,12–14stateand,185viewofmiraculous,52–53violenceand,140,143,183–84Westerncivilizationand,176IslamandScience(Hoodbhoy),60,66IslamintheWorld(Ruthven),59Islamist(paper),74Isma‘il,HazemSallahAbu,155Israel,143Istihsanal-Khaud

SeeVindicationoftheScienceofKalamItaly,136ItinérairedeParisàJérusalem(Chateaubriand),72Jabariyya,15–16,18Jabarti,Abdal-Rahmanal-,167Jabbar,‘Abdal-,20–25,27–30,42,82,169Jabrism,122Jafar,‘AbdAllahal-,147

Jahiz,‘Uthmanal-,22Jaki,Stanley,58JamaatDawa-wal-Ishad,133Jamaat-e-Islami,66JemaahIslamiyah,116,177JesusChrist,ix,34,146njihad,116,178,181,186,190JohnofDamascus,7,35JohnPaulII(Pope),192Jonas,Hans,112Jordan,162Jubba’i,AbuAliMuhammadal-,50Judaism,5,11,32,109,136,147,150–55,174,178,182Juhani,Ma‘badal-,18JusticeandProsperityParty,177Juwayni,Abu‘lel-Ma‘alial-,69,71,72Ka’ba,11,18,133Kaftaro,Ahmad,143Kasab,MuhammadAjmal,183Kayani,Wadi,42Kedourie,Elie,130Kenny,Joseph,34,121Khair,Muhammad,141Khalid,KhalidMuhammad,159–60Khameini,Ali,178Khan,Muhammad,190Khan,SayyidAhmad,170–71Khawarizmi,al-,125Khomeini,Ruhollah,178,191Kindi,AbuYa‘qubal-,35,36,38,41,120,125,166Kitabal-Fisal(IbnHazm),81Kitabal-Megahazi

SeeBookofRaidsKraemer,Joel,121Kundri,al-,91Kuwait,130,136

Kuzari(ha-Levi),115Lakhdar,Latif,193LawofGod(Brague),116Lebanon,12,130,143L’Economiste,149LecturesontheHistoryofPhilosophy(Hegel),82Leibniz,Gottfried,61Lenin,V.I.,179,186,191–92,200Lewis,Bernard,180Luttikhuizen,Frances,37Macdonald,Duncan,15,52–54,61,84,90,110,120MacDonald,G.B.,111,120Mahmud,Mustafa,149,181Maimonides,7,64,82Makdisi,George,91nMaktoum,MuhammadbinRashidal-,165Malaysia,197,198Malik,‘Abdal-,18Ma’mun,AbuJafarAbdullahal-,19,35–39,41,119,164–66Maqdisi,AbuMuhammadal-,188Maqrizi,Taqial-DinAhmadibnAlial-,92Marani,Sadruddeen‘AbdulMalikal-,92Maria,Rakesh,183MaqrizianPlan,(al-Maqrizi),92Martin,Richard,26,43Marx,Karl,69,176–77,179,185–86,189,191–92Massawi,Hussein,189Maturidism,5Maududi,Maulana,177,181,184–87,200Meddeb,Abdelwahab,158,183–84,200MeinKampf(Hitler),174Mernissi,Fatima,140,193MickeyMouse,154–55MiddleEast(Lewis),180MiddleEastMediaResearchInstitute(MEMRI),149–50,155

MiddlePathinTheology(al-Ghazali),80Milestones(Qutb),188MindofJihad(Murawiec),182Misri,AhmadibnNaqibal-,65,73ModerationinBelief(al-Ghazali),68Mongols,166Morocco,130,177,201Moses,16–17Mossad,148,149,150Mu’awiya,Ziyad,191nMuchtar,Muchtar,116Muhammad,xi,3,5,12,16,30n,46,47,49,51,74,80,92n,93,152,155,158,174,195Muir,William,80–81Mulk,Nizamal-,43,91Munajid,Muhammadal-,154–155Muqaddimah(ibnKhaldun),43,166,169Murawiec,Laurent,182Murray,JohnCourtney,129–30Musleh,Mahmoud,148MuslimBrotherhood,174,177Mu‘tazisim,al-,37,39Mutawakkil,Ja’afaral-,41Mu‘tazizalism,x,xi,8,15,18–19,21,23–38,41,42,44–45,48,49,51,56,68,72,79,80,81,83,85,91,114,120,127,140,

141,168,171,193–95,201,203–4,Muthhari,Morteza,191Muzaffar,Chandra,197Muzain,Ahmadal-,152Nabhani,Sheikh,74Nadim,ibnal-,35NahdlatulUlama,201NapoleonBonaparte,167Nasr,SeyyedHossein,119Nasrallah,Hasan,143Nasser,Gamal,177Nasution,Harun,29,193Navab-Safavi,Muhammad,192

Nazism,116n,174,179,181–82,186,189–90,192,198Nazzam,al-,28NewTestament,146nNicheoftheLight(al-Ghazali),110,112NicholasofAutrecourt,56NicomacheanEthics(Aristotle),27,35,75,201–2Nietzsche,Friedrich,71,116n,176,179Nizamiyya,the,91–92,103NobelPrize,157nominalism,72Nuri,Herry,148Obama,Barack,151O’Leary,DeLacy,110Omar(caliph),13,44,81Omar,Muhammad,189OnFirstPhilosophy(al-Kindi),37OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,161OrganizationoftheIslamicConference,134OttomanEmpire,167,170,173Pakistan,133,142,145–46,161–62Paleologus,ManuelII(emperor),26Palestine,12,103Parmenides,89Patai,Raphael,139,176“PeacewithIslam”(Doull),60Persia,42petroleum,144,164–65PewGlobalAttitudesProject,149Philippines,177PhilosophyofHistory(Hegel),44Plato,x,38,62,71,94,185,191Post,JerroldM.,187pre-Socratics,89Protagoras,121ProtocolsoftheAyatofQummconcerningtheTwoHolyCities,147ProtocolsoftheEldersofZion,148,154

Pryce-Jones,David,172Qadarism,15,17–18,28,122Qaradhawi,al-,143Quaid-e-AzamUniversity,142Qur’an,x–xi,1,3–4,12,14–19,21,24,30,30n,33,34,38–41,44–49,54,73,75,77–78,80,82,84,95,105,110,122,124,

134,144,147,162,166,169–71,172n,187–88,194–95,197,199,202,204“Bee,”23“Cow,”23fifteenthSurah,132–33fifthSurah,32Mustering,12secondSurah,99Spoils,12Surah102,107as“uncreated,”35–36Qutb,Muhammad,178Qutb,Sayyid,83,172,176–78,181–88,200Rahman,Fazlur,2,3,16,53,54,68,75,87,89,107,113,119,122,124,126–28,188,199,203Rashed,AdbulRahmanal-,156Ratzinger,CardinalJoseph

seeBenedictXVIRazi,AlFakhral-,81,122,125Regensburgaddress(BenedictXVI),2,73“ReinventingtheMuslimMind”(Shaz),7RelianceoftheTraveller(al-Misri),65ReligionandLife(Gum’a),158Renan,Ernest,168Republic(Plato),71,185ReasonsfortheFaithagainstMuslimObjections(Aquinas),34ResurgenceofFreemasonsandZionistsinIndonesia(Nuri),148RevivaloftheReligiousSciences(al-Ghazali),115Rida,Rashid,172Robespierre,Maximilien,186Robinson,Neal,34Russia,167,186,200Ruthven,Malise,59

SahihAl-Bukhari,159Sa‘id,AliAhmad,131,157Saladin,92salafism,172Salam,AhmadAbdal-,150Samir,SamirKhalil,76,109,194,198Sanusi,MuhammadAlias,45,65,74Sassanids,13SaudiArabia,6,12,48,123,132–33,135–36,142,144,147,162,178SavingPrivateRyan,152Schall,JamesV.,26–27,180Schindler’sList,154scholasticism,101September11(2001),6,148–50,152Seventh-DayAdventism,148–49ShadowoftheQu’ran(Qutb),83Shafi‘i,AbuAbdullahMuhammadibnIdrisal-,25,44,78,123Shah-Hosseini,Majid,152Shahrastani,al-,27,85,123shari‘a,22,68–70,74–75,124,127,134–36,140,171Sharif,M.M.,31Shatibi,AbuIshaqal-,123–24Shaz,Rashid,7,159Shi’ism,19,42,121,131n,132,143,147–48,178,181SignsofFreemasonsandZionistsinIndonesia(Nuri),148Smith,WilfredCantwell,129Socrates,20,70,94,179,185,191sophism,121Soroush,Abdulkarim,72,132,194–95SouthKorea,162,164SovietUnionSeeRussiaSpain,12,43,73,161,163–64Spencer,Herbert,170Spengler,Oswald,82Spinoza,Baruch,53

Stalin,Joseph,186Stern,Jessica,183StudyofAl-Ghazali,(Montgomery),38Subiacoaddress(Ratzinger),57subsidiarity,131Sudan,182Sufism,x,93–94,98,102–8,110,112–14SummaContraGentiles(Aquinas),63–64SunniIslam,x–xi,3–5,7–8,24,44,46–47,51,75,77–78,91–93,103–6,109,112–13,119,127,135,162,178,191,203–4Syria,12,13,103,162Tabari,AbuJafarMuhammadibnJariral-,41–42Tabellini,Guido,163Talebzadeh,Nader,150Taliban,44,116,145,145nTantawi,MuhammadSayed,135Tarabishi,Georges,124Taylor,JohnB.,163TerrorintheNameofGod(Stern),183Tertullian,56Testament(al-Razi),122TheologicalThemesCommontoIslamandChristianity(Kenny),34Thrasymachus,71Tibi,Bassam,76,125,130,172,195,205Tolstoy,Leo,170TomandJerry,153–54Toynbee,Arnold,43TreatiseonDivineUnity(Abduh),169TreatyofKüçükKaynarca,167Turabi,Hasanal-,143,182Turkey,128,131,141,198Tustari,Sahlal-,106–7Ulaysh,Sheikh,168UmayyadDynasty,13,18UNArabHumanDevelopmentReport(2002),163UNArabHumanDevelopmentReport(2003),134,147,160–61,166,176

UNArabHumanDevelopmentReport(2009),134UNESCO,164UnitedArabEmirates,165UnitedNations,134–35,155,160–61,163,176UnitedStatesofAmerica,163,189UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UN),134,136UniversityofCairo,xi,128,194UniversityofChicago,121Valéry,Paul,110VindicationoftheScienceofKalam,(al-Ash’ari),45vonGrunebaum,G.E.,121Wahhabism,43,123,129,144Wahhab,ibnAbdal-,123Wahid,Abdurrahman,201–2WallStreetJournal,165WaltDisneyCompany,153WashingtonPost,149Wathiq,Harunal-,39Watt,W.Montgomery,38,45,49,91–92WhyAreMuslimsBackwardWhileOthersHaveAdvanced(Arslan),157WorldWarI,167,173,174Yemen,43Yusuf,Abu,123Zahirism,73Zawahiri,Aymanal-,75,172,174,190Zaydi,Msharial-,148Zaytouna,al-,143