& ANALYSIS
A TRANSLATION OF tABD AL-JABBAR'S
CRITIQUE
OF TRINITARIAN
AND CHRISTOLOGICAL DOCTRINES BY ABDUL
RASHID
e
Presented
Ph. D. Thesis in the Department of Islamic Middle Eastern Studies Faculty of Art, University of Edinburgh September
1986
and
i
Table of Contents Page No:
Declaration Abstract Acknowledgements Textual Transliteration, Abbreviations.
Introduction Part one Part two
11 111 iv
Notes
V
and
An Annotated
1 18 95
Translation
Chapter
I
Commentary on the Christian 'Abd Doctrines al-Jabbär alluded%y in the translation of al-Mughni.
96
Chapter
II
14 Muslim and Christian views of, Meaning of Jawhar and A.. ganim.
110
Chapter
III
The Sift Theology.
and Christian
115
Chapter
IV
'Abd A Comparative Analysis of Critique al-Jabb r of Trinitarian Doctrines.
128
Chapter
V
The Theology
141
Chapter
VI
A Comparative al-Jabbär'Critique Doctrines.
Conclusion Appendix
Recent
in Islamic
Studies
of Incarnation. fAbd Analysis of of Christological
on
'Abd
al-Jabbär
164
and his
18Z 184
work.
Bibliography
188
11
DECLARATION
thesis is the result that the following and was composed entirely by myself.
I declare
-0
&j
.
ASHID
of my own research
work
iii
Abstract "Abd
doctrine
of
'Abd It starts with an introduction account of a biographical containing 'Abd by Christian Jabbär and his works, a survey of sects mentioned 'Abd before literature Christian Jabbär in his al-Mughni and Muslim Jabbar which is available.
alalal-
The study is based on God with special reference
Part Christianity
understanding al-Jabbär's Vol. V. to his al-Mughni,
I of the thesis is an annotated in al-Mughni, Vol. V, PP. 80-151.
Part II is concerned with and Christological of Trinitarian
an exposition doctrine.
Christian of
translation
of
the
ýAbd al-Jabbär's of
on
treatment
described doctrine from Christian and
Christian Chapter I presents a commentary the on by 'Abd al-Jabbar together about them with evidence Muslim sources. Chapter U is devoted to Muslim-Christian views (hypostasis) (substance) two terms jawhar and aaanim essence of God.
section
about the meaning of the when describing
(attributes God) it In Chapter III, there is a comparative of study of sif in the light of Christian and Muslim theology and how the use of the term the whole debate. sifdt affected Chapter N discusses and analyses '(Abd al-Jabbär's of Trinitacriticism them in the light toward and his approach of Christian rian doctrines literature in Arabic and Muslim sources. written Chapter V provides on as it was presented by Christian heresies in the finally and an expression Muslim environment.
a description and explanation of union of incarnati early Church Fathers, the nature of that union and eastern church, such as Nestorians and Jacobites presented by Christian scholars who lived within a
Critique Chapter VI discusses 'Abd al-Jabbär's Doctrof Christological literature ine and their analysis in the light of Christian in Arabic and other Muslim sources. The study.
thesis
finishes
with
a conclusion,
summarising
the
result
of the
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express first
introduced
I am
possible.
also
for their
department
who helped
I am indebted
the embassy
facilities
best wishes and moral
assistance
in continuing
support,
secretary
education
attachi, in
officer
this research.
University
Bahouralpur
authorities
Dr. Qibla
Ayäz
(Peshawar)
for their who was
down in Edinburgh.
of University
in particular.
to Mr Akhtar
thesis and Mrs J. Porteous
time
education
library
I owe a special
in general
and inter
debt to the departmental
Miss I. Crawford.
I am also grateful
Finally,
for
of Pakistan
here in UK and in Pakistan
especially
are also due to all staff
loan section
library
this
my studies.
kind enough to help me in settling
My thanks
former
and Mr Syed M. Salim,
debt to all my friends
I also owe great
of
staff
Egypt.
in London
to pursue
thesis
also to Dz M. F. al-
Government
Nizämäni,
to Islamia
this
abroad.
education
Khan
my thanks
also extend
for providing
'All
time
teaching
of
who
precious
make
work
My thanks
of Education,
for higher
to Mr Muräd
members
some books from
me to provide
for their
all
in this
and assistance.
guidance
of Pakistan
embassy
to
his
devoted
and
and keen interest
grateful
me a scholarship
granting
al-Jabbär
to the Ministry
I am also grateful
I would
to
His knowledge
generously.
Shayyäl
me
my gratitude 'Abd
Dz L K. A. Howard,
to my supervisor
I must
thank
who is waiting
'Ali
for typing
my wife
patiently
who made arrangements
of typing
the
the manuscript.
and children
back home.
who stayed
with
me for
a long
V
Transliteration The system of transliteration Service, Congress, Cataloguing Textual
used Bulletin
in
this thesis is that 1958. 49, November
of
U. S. Library
of
Notes
All Biblical quotations London 1952.
are
All QuAnic are quotations from, The Koran interpreted"
from
the
standard
revised
version
from Egyptian version, standard (OUP) 1964. by A. J. Arberry
Abbreviations E. I1
E. I1
E. I(S) E. R. E N. D. C. T J. A. O. S M. W B. J. R. L
First
-
Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden, 1913-1938.
-
Encyclopedia of Islam, New edition Leiden and London, 1960 continuing.
-
Supplement
-
Encyclopedia
-A
of Encyclopedia of Religion
New Dictionary
-
Journal
of American
-
Muslim
World.
-
Bulletin
edition
of Islam.
and Ethics.
of Christian Oriental
of John Ryland
Library.
Theology. Society.
of
the
Bible,
and translation
INTRODUCTION
The purpose
of this
understand
and methodology
structure
of a non-Islamic Christian
This
the
means
Christianity,
on
literature
polemical time
This thesis
of
a summary discussions
will
4Abd
vol. V which
will
1.
2.
up to
later
a comparison
with
as generally
to
up
of his
presented
dealt
with,
is devoted
life
Muslim-Christian
earlier
and there
be
will
fi Abwäb
in al-Mughni
and work and
an
annotated
al-'Adl
wa al-
faiths.
for non Islamic
'Abd al-Jabbär of
of his life
Mu'tazilite
born.
writers But
b. 4Abd al-Jabbär
b. Ahmad
usually
most
traces
and
refer
to him
consider
by honorific
preceded
it
as Qädi. as the
Mustaf ä al-Sädiq
this name back to Hamdän,
Z
b. Ahmad
introduction
a Yemeni
tribe.
the details 'Abd
where
b. Khalil
b.
Qädi al-Qudät.
title
As regards
region
in the
of al-
al-Jabbär
to part
XIV
was of
al-
3
iallifin, Kahhäla, Mu jam Vol. V, P. 78, Ibn al-Amid, Shadhrät, al-Mu Vol. III, PP. 202-3, Ibn Murtadä, Ta_bagät al-Mu'tazila, PP. 112 Encyclopedia (New Islam, I, 59 Vol. PP. edition). of _60 4iyya, Subki, Ta bagat al-Shafi Vol. III, PP. 219-220, Zarkaly, al-A'läm,
-6 Vol. III, P. M.
3.
century
sects,
on Christianity
Abü al-Hasan al-Jabkiar 1 'Abd-Alläh frequently al-Hamadäni,
Mughni,
and Muslims even
and
al-Jabbir's and
{Abd al-Jabbär's discuss also
al-Jabbär
ýAbd
probably
Christians
the doctrine
with
doctrines
of the section
summary
Hamadän,
by both
Christian
apologetic
general
be concerned also
Background
The
the
of
eleventh
doctrine
which
Christian
which
translation
Brief
to
of
scholars.
this introduction
Tawhid,
is made to understand
ýAbd
Arabic
framework
i. e.,
of the Christian
by Christian
present
was produced
al-Jabbär,
century.
understanding
After
an attempt within
which
'Abd
of
thirteenth
that
the reference
through
study
their
in
writing
especially
his general
the refutation
towards
approach
It is a comparative
religion.
scholars,
doctrine. section
intellectual his and
to
was able
determine to and
doctrines
and Christological
Trinitarian
how
is to demonstrate
study
ýAbd al-Jabbär
Peters,
God's Created
Speech, P. 8.
1
have
biographers
Some
of
name;
this may be his birth
the
His biographers
place,
of birth.
his date
It is stated
and 4166/1023-5.
The year
to his
death his of
is
a long life
of
he had lived
that
320
between back to goes
his birth
that
so one can conclude
years,
about ninety
Abädi4 al-Asad 5 are a number of variations.
but there
are not sure about
as 414,415
given
added
(lagab)
title
the
and 330/932-941.
After
studies
elementary
studies
Qazwin
the circles
to join
he went
with
famous
Mu'tazilite
to Baghdad
369/969),
another
According
to Ibn Murtadä,
something
about
and he himself
Abü Häshim
master
he became pupils
Muýtazilites.
There
in southern
he started
360/970
Persia,
to dictate
(d. 10
him
to teach
he must stay as Shäfi'i
that
suggested
al-Basri
him in his house.
with AAbd-Allah Abü
when asked his master
town
Afterward
4Abd-Allah of Abü
and even stayed
law, his teacher l l In about as Hanafi.
a small
of the
teaching
(d. 320/932).
al-Jubbäli
a disciple
Hanafi
Rämhurmuz,
theological
9
the Mu'tazilite
scholar,
Abü Häshim's
he
he For studied a while circle. 'Ayyäsh (d. "" 9o), the pupil Abü Ishäq Ibrahim b.
to join
where
visited
340/951,
of the
by the
influenced
he became
He also
In about
there.?
traditionists he became
where
of Basrian
and successor he went
to Basra,
and decided
Mu1tazilites
in Baghdad.
and later
follower a where 8 in jurisprudence. Shafi'ite and
school of the Ash1arites
Later
famous of
and Isfahan,
to Hamadan
went
in Basra
first
his theological
to Iraq, where he continued
he went
in his home town,
he left
Baghdad
to
in
stay
to be many
where
there
seemed
his famous
book
of twenty
volumes,
i. e. al-Mughni.
(about In the meantime 'Abbäd, (d. 385/990) b. opportunity himself
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
of teaching
learned was a
362/972-3) invited Mu'tazilite
him
the Chief to
come
theology
man and influenced
Minister to
of Buwayhid Rayy
and religious 4Abd by al-Jabbär's
and law.
ruler,
gave
him
Sahib the
Sähib b. 'Abbäd
ability
and talent.
Asad Abäd is a city, very near to Hamadän, popula-L.ed by Asad b. dhi al(Yäqüt, Mu5am al-Buldän, Vol. I, P. 25. Sarw al-Himyari. (Uthmän, Qädi al-Qudät, K. P. 11. A. Ibn Murtadä, Ta,bagät, P. M. ýUthmän, Qädi al-Qudät, PP. 55-57. A. K. Ibn Murtadä, Taba ät, P. 112, Subki, Tabagät al-Shäfiliyya, Vol. III, P. 220. Khatib Baghda i, Týrikh Baghdad, Vol. II, P. 113. Ibn Murtadä, Ta,bagät, P. M. Ibid., P. M.
2
'Abbäd In about 365/975 Sähib b. appointed for
The holder
Rayy.
Zanj in and Jurjän
of
It seems that 'Abbäd. b. Sihib
tAbd al-Jabbär
who
authorities
the post of Qädi al-Qudät
held
al-Jabbär
In 385/990,
to
come
Qazwin,
He
until
of
the post by anti-
the
spent
his death
the death
until
leave to asked was
power.
and teaching
on studies
concentrating
of
was chief
post
in Rayy,
all judges
and Tabaristän.
'Abd
Mu'tazilite
this
of Qädi al-Qudät
him to the office
life
of his
rest
in 414,415
in Rayy
or
416/1023-25.12
'Abd al-Jabbär's
During
theoretically
were
No doubt outstanding
in which
scientific,
scholarly
of Ikhwän
epistles
his bibliography famous
1050).
Ash'arite
of
school
Mu'tazilites
Watt
in his
1023),
by
as Ibn Nadim
period
historian
the
(d.
al-Mufid
1022)
has been
of
philosopher (d.
(d. lezi)
as head
of
(d. 1058) theological
as
Shi'ites. work
of
as the leader
of
(d. 1037).
the Islamic
throughout
arranged
It was the time
Ab-u Ishäq al-Isfrälini
of al-Mäwardi
and
The encyclopedic
(d. 1035) and al-Birüni
Ibn al-Haytham
and Shaykh
lifetime,
can be characterised
about 988 AD.
(d.
al-Tawhidi
famous was
himself
was
century
(d. 1013) and Abd al-Qi hir al-Baghdadi
al-Jabbar
original
state
by his
credited
amazing
and
productivity.
expressed
his view
about
there were of the Mu'tazilites 13 4Abd " the Qädi al-Jabbär.
During
his lifetime
active
intellectually,
12. 13.
in Baghdad
writings
world
regime
achievements.
in tenth
we see in this
that
was also political
al-B-agilläni
the
and literary
scientist
of Islamic
parts
the Buwayhid
lived
al-Jabbär
ý
There
1Abd
with
the
in fact
while
were written
Hayyän
Abi
(d. 1030),
Along
head
al-Safä
and eastern
state.
4Abd
of the knowledge
essayist
Miskawayh
rule,
areas of the Islamic
period
the
the central
Abbasid
under
large
controlled
lifetime,
4Abd
him
and said, "Even in the period
still
first some
al-Jabbar
and his work
composed virtually
class
mind
numerous
covered
among
writings.
them
notably
He was very
most of the different
Subki, Tabagät al-Shäfifiyya, Vol. III, P. ZZO, Ibn Murtadä, Watt, Formative Period of Islamic Thought, P. 303.
3
of the decline
Ta_bagät,
kinds
P. 112.
of Islamic
Ibn Murtadä
sciences.
the work composed 14 A. K. Uthmän paper.
of his works his lifetime
during many
questions l6
Egypt.
with
the subject
of al-Mughni, wrote
he argued
and the refutation
of Imama.
In his famous al-Jabbär
important and
When it was first
discovered
information of to present
attempt
book
detailed describing there
that the
about
a book
by
tAbd al-Jabbär,
five
famous
al-Jabbar of
refutation
'Abd
about
'.,
through
of fact,
in great
an enthusiasm
ideas,
detail.
among the
but also it is an In his Sharh
manner.
to write Hajji
that
Hajji
al
in detail.
a separate
of Christianity, seems
of
does not lie in the great
was able
It
He also
wa al -Adl,
of Mu'tazilites
the refutation
al-Jabbär.
al-Tawhid
principles
Christianity.
work
Khalifa,
and while
reported
that
Khalifa
was
is a chapter about the Christians in his In the same way A. K. 4Uthmän mentioned such book in the list of
As a matter
books.
t-1R
the Mu'tazilite
in a comprehensive
ýAbd
the books written
was
confused. three
sure
it created of the work
about
doctrine
their
he has discussed
usül al-Khamsa,
We are not
it contains
concerned
the refutation
of the MuFtazilites
and published,
The importance
Islamists of this century. amount
the doctrine
sects like
to
and even
are remarkable.
fi Abwäb
al-Mughni
work,
has presented
against 17
other
Iraq
the famous
among them
al-Khamsa
known
answers
contained
are directly
twelve
sheets of l5 nine.
well
was very
in Persia,
places
(kaläm),
al-Usül
many books in which
al-Lum',
1Abd
and Sharh
al-Muhit
many
theology
of speculative
His works
by al-H-Kim,
mentioned
to be sixty
1Abd al-Jabbär
world.
from
sent
were
of 400,000
came to a total
that
the Islamic
through
books
Of the numerous
the fact
that he had heard
as saying
the list of his works
has described
reflects
which
records
iAbd by al-Jabbär
that
The list
Aiim al-H.
there
the reference
of Hajji
Khalifa
and Ibn Taymiyya.
That
is
14. 15. 16.
17. 18.
Ibn Murtadä, Ta,bagät, P. M. 'Uthmän, K. Qädi al-Quciät, PP. 57-7 A. like The treatises al-Tarmiyyät, al-Khawä. rizmiyyät, al-Ashýariyyät, do indicate that those al-Küwfiyyat and al-Misriyyät al-Qäshäniyyät, in as answer written response to the enquiries sent from these cities. were tthmän listed by K. in his Qj4i alA. All these are PP-66-69. A. K. Uthman, Qädi al-Qudat, P. 71. Kashf al-Zuwnlin, Hajji Khalifa, Vol. I, P. 338.
4
totally
19
wrong.
.,
In the volume V of al-M=, the Unity
not accept
It is noteworthy
much
doctrine.
Christianity monothestic
By including
part
religion,
he shows that he regards
2. In his Sharh al-Usül he has endeavoured
thesis.
al-Khamsa,
to refute
what
3.
fi al-Muhit
A1-Majmü'
Christianity. 21 books.
4.
Finally,
Tathbit
different
quite books,
bi-al-Taklif,
Its contents
in style
Tathbit's
Nubuwa
have been subject notably
to much 22 Stern and Pines.
Christian
Doctrines
In his al-Mughni have
been
Christianity.
19.
20. 21. 22.
study
He
and debate
much
section
modern
about
mentioned
in two
and Apocryphal among
discussion
shorter
to his three
to the
regard
to above
similar
of God),
volumes
above
is
mentioned
Gospels. Western
These scholars
and Sects
Vol. V, while
concerned
Contrary
seem to be scriptural
with
Muhammad,
Sayyidinä
and arguments.
sources
are very
on
as a non-
(Unity
a very small
also contains
and arguments
DalVil
believe
in a very
of Christ in the Godhead 2° than the one in al-Mughni.
section
as polythism.
the tawhid
the Christians
and Union
Trinity
this
of
is
chapter
Christianity
the Trinity
discussing
while
and their
religions
translation
annotated
religions.
The longest
Christianity.
is main
this
different
and analysing
The
of
to non-monathist
reference
toward
attention
do the of opponents who P
the doctrines
special
criticising
while
Christian
the
about
of God, with
that
he paid
doctrines,
he refutes
with
the
specifically
the Christians,
discussing doctrines mentions
of three them
4(Abd al-Jabbär
main by
sects
names
of as
the the
seems to oriental Melkites,
'Abd knew through the reference No doubt that Ibn Taymiyya al-Jabbär of 'Abd book his books, but he did not mention of al-Jabbär any about the 'ala Christians. his In he al-Radd of the al-Mantigiyyin, refutation Greek described logic the books of early scholars who refuted and 4Abd Here he mentioned al-Jabbär without philosophy. naming his book about Christianity. Kitäb al-Radd 'ýalä al-Mantigiyyin, Ibn Taymiyya, P. 142. '4Abd al-Jabbär, Sharti al-Usül al-Khamsa, PP. 291-8. Fi al-Muh-it, Vol. 1, PP. 222-225. Idem, Al-Majmü` For further study see the Appendix.
5
Nestorians
and Jacobites.
occasions.
In addition
sect
he
which
He does,
however,
he described a doctrine 23 have Walyäniyya, which
to that,
named
to the Maronites
also refer
Christian
of an obscure been
on
identified
as
the
Julianists.
in his al-Mughni,
five
On the sects are described. Z4 i. in hand, his he Sharh, two and e., the Nestorians other only sects mentioned 25 fi Christians in his he Jacobites, the al-Muhit, and al-Majmü' criticised Consequently,
without
any sect.
naming famous
the three
them a1-Tawä'if
As far as his Tathbit
sects i. e., Melkites, three
al-thalathaZ6
ýAbd al-Jabbär's Church,
from
separated
main
doctrine
order
to understand
some
idea
of God,
in 431 AD, Z8
'Abd
i. e. Trinity,
his criticism
fifth and
in the eastern of
by
divinity
in
to
his
it will
that
separated
history
the
Jacobites
discussion,
and the nature
the reference
with
in his Tathbit
the
while
al-Jabbär
and arguments,
doctrines
according
he called
where
the Jacobites
because
only
of oriental
of were
is
of Christ.
be necessary
and
the In
to present
sects
on the
the area concerned.
within
doctrine
to
referred
of Christian
The fourth
in 451 AD.
the orthodox
problem
Christian
subject
is incorrect, C' was declared heretic
he mentioned
and Jacobites,
First
sects.
reporting
Nestorians
is concerned,
He also claimed
groups.
of these Christian 27 them the Nestorians.
after
ý
Nestorians
is the origin
Rome
The
Vol. V, these
were famous
centuries
churches. Trinity)
These were,
and how
for prolonged
controversies,
how the Son of God was Himself
Christ
was both
man
(the God and
mainly God (the
doctrine
of
person of Christ).
Numerous
councils
Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon of
eastern
biblical
Christianity.
origins
(325) Constantinople
of bishops were held as in Nicaea
were
(451).
Their
Concerning made
key
words
decisions
these
were rejected
councils,
in authoritative
23. 24. 25. 26.
`Abd al-Jabbär, Vol. V, P. 146. al-Mughni, Shark, PP. 291-298. fi al-Muhit, Al-Maimal Vol. I, PP. 222-25. Tathbit, Vol. I, P. 91.
27. 28.
Ibid., P. 164. John Henry Blunt, Dictionary
technical
(381)
in some parts terms
statements
of Sects, Heresies, P. 347 and 332. 6
without of
belief.
Their
led the Latin-speaking
use, sometimes
misunderstandings disputes
and
contributed
As far as the orthodox Christ
was a single
Christ
and his human
person
but in their
Christians,
It can be said, that God while by
possess
faith
simple
Arius
they
(d. 336) first
to the
never
had to met
of the
of
generations
earlier
these philosophical
or
any
right
wisdom,
perfect
the
of
goodness
from
different
the Father
that
of all claimed
the Son was essentially
nature
sovereignty,
unknown
deity the of
difficulties.
and theological
really
were
nature
the incarnate
that
The doctrine
at once God and man.
these
world.
they believed
is concerned,
doctrine
east to
Consequently
another.
in the Christian
discussion
to major
west one
misrepresenting
Greek-speaking and
divine
He did not
his father. of
qualities The Father
and purity.
alone was
immortality, him
produced
as
God, Father in being did the he the and of a creature. not share 29 Nor can he be called the true and natural Son of did not know Him perfectly. 30 God, at best, he is the adopted Son. Nevertheless
through true
the ages has served
faith
Council
was the first
Creed
The Nicene
its
produced
On the other principle However
of
postulate
his doctrine
minimizing
Constantinople
was condemned
and
It was held to defend by his own word.
The
stressing
the
statement
death
redeeming
the divinity the human
are one and the 31 It and Resurrection.
than the Father.
the human
polemic.
used by the Monophysites.
that
at the Council
if God in Christ
Councils and Creeds, P. 154.
Z9.
D. F. Wright,
30. 31. 32.
Encyclopedia, Vol. X, P. 431. The New Catholic Ibid., P. 437. Encyclopedia, Vol. I, P. 666. New Catholic
7
Arian
The
accepted of the Word, he actually 32 in Christ. He maintained nature
in east and west and conclusively the argument
in Christ. soul
of his anti
as a result
as were afterwards
in 381, through
Church
is the Son and the Father
arose
to defend
this by the same argument
This heresy
is a Trinitarian
(d. 390) denied
Apollinarius
in attempting
the Arian
was condemned
the Son was no less divine
hand,
thesis
that
own creed,
his incarnation,
same in substance), that
In it, Arius
the Son (that
of
consubstantiality
was decided
as a sign of the orthodoxy.
Arianism.
against
of the Christian
definition
dogmatic
had not
of laid
hold
full
of
humanity,
incarnation
then
seem like
saved.
man was not
humanity
of God and Christ's
a mere appearance
had made
Appollinarius
the
was not
real.
The
theology
of
to that
opposed
the
early
with
clashed
Christ.
of the incarnate
nature
Antiochene
Alexandrian
the 33
Antioch
of
to
tendency
as
considered
was
of Christ.
the humanity
it emphasized
because
of Alexandria,
it
Consequently
Church
Christian
divine
the
stress
was one of the representatives
Nestorius
of
theology.
Nestorians
Nestorius
II in 4Z8. the
be called
rather
and it was impossible
On the other
Christ
nature nature
(ousia)
the human
nature
While
distinguishing
He would
not
voluntary
union.
be called Hypostatic
applying (hypostasis).
Nestorius
Nestorius
the natures,
was
Union.
of
the
33.
Dictionary Oxford of the Vol. I, P. 625. Encyclopedia,
34.
Ibid., Vol. X, P. 348.
35.
J. H. Blunt,
Dictionary
and Nestorius
city
to attribute
to the
denial
Christian
of
union.
the unique
was declared what
P. 368.
a
of a conjunction,
and clearly
In 431 AD. Collestine,
Church,
of sects Heresies, 8
to
their
affirmed
still
two
the
of the Gospel.
Christ Jesus one
in terms 35
Nestorius
but he spoke sons,
to reduce
unable
held a synod in that heresy
of two
between
of Christ.
acts and suffering
to speak
human
the
the distinction
refused
in the
a nature
between
precisely
in his Christology
between
consent
undifferentiated of Rome,
and distinguished
nature,
and person
divine
against
"two spoke of
and never
But he defined
as a man.
simply
or substance,
and the divine
However,
of Christ
hand, he did not deny the deity
ousia
by preaching
debate
a new theological
God should be born of woman.
that
Sons" nor he considered sense of
by Theodorius
Mary, God, to she claiming virgin given or mother of 34 Mary Christ. He that was a woman, argued mother of
"Theotokos"
title
would
introduced
Nestorius
He was a famous
of the Nestorians.
made bishop of Constantinople
being
before
at Antioch,
preacher
founder
to be the
is claimed
is called
PP. 65-66.,
bishop
heretic. a in
It can
theology
New
the
Catholic
his exile
After
"The
title
asserted
that
F. Loofs,
he persistently
declared
In rejecting that
maintains
are two
the
1910 by
Bethune-Baker
that
'two
persons'
he said,
the theory
there
under in
and published
his book thoroughly,
of Nestorius.
was not the teaching
in the
substances,
one
"37 God. is Word Son the one and of who
Christ,
and justified
He also argued
all who believe
against
In other
words
together,
things
(substances)
However,
Godhead
whether
or
the
not
the fact,
doctrine
of those
be concluded
Nestorius
in himself
their
originated
the two distinct (natures)
it
Nestorius,
called
Nestorians,
and they
divided,
as to
the
who were
persons
characteristics
with
clearly believed
his doctrine.
that
opinions
are
far it was heretical. how was and
really
be brought
of two distinct
did not think
Nestorius
fairly
equally 38
was in two natures.
though
they were following
can
Christ
might
and manhood with 39 united in him.
the doctrine
became
the charge
but of a single person who combined
and intact
complete
that
that
one can say that
joined
It
was translated
historians
who has studied
Bethune-Baker
in Syriac
surmises
which
such as A. Harnack, 36 he was not necessarily a Nestorian.
Some modern
that
It
of Heraclides".
Barzar
Bedjan.
"Though
his apology
in 431, he wrote
that he repeatedly
to speak of conjunction
doctrine
of
But one must not overlook
the oneness of Christ,
affirmed
rather
what
though
he preferred
than of union.
Melkites:
described
Abd
al-Jabbär
king,
and sometimes
Malkä)iyya Milkiyya,
which from
Ibid., P. 3lo. Bethune-Baker, Ibid., P. 84.
39.
Ibid., P. 87.
as Malakiyya,
incorrect.
is
member
Al-Shahristäni
as al-MalWiyya.
which
36. 37. 38.
them
40
Whereas
the 41
"Melchite"
is derived.
Nestorians
and his teaching,
of the religion
also mentioned
normal
form
of the them
is Malakiyya
as or
P. 83.
_ Vol. V, P. 81, P. 13 al-Mughni,
40.4Abd al-Jabbär, A Muslim Watt, 41. Vol. VI, P. 67.9
account
of
Christian
doctrine,
Hamdard
Islamicus,
According Arabic
both
malik,
of Syria
accepted
the decision
was adopted p
wu
ka
The Council
of Chalcedon
of the incarnation,
Father
The term
Syriac
malaka
or
to the
was applied
a formula
and consubstantial
of faith God
perfect with
man,
division
or separation
and without
suppress
the difference
in natures,
It
of the dogma
in the history
and
man,
consubstantial
one sole
being
in two
however,
their
without
natures
remain
properties 45
the
with
does not
The union
or change.
confusion
The
and approved.
was prepared
in one person or hypostasis.
together
and Egypt.
Palestine
name for the Orthodox.
a culmination
represented
Christ,
one
and they joined
comes
in Syria,
rite
as the ordinary
because
defined
Council
of the Byzantine
d w, ly
jC'
-
from
Monophystism Nestorianism and and who rejected 43 The term applied also to of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
by the Jacobites ¢,
word Melchite 42 or emperor.
and Egypt
Catholic
speaking
king
meaning
Christian
Arabic
the
to some scholars,
untouched
Jacobites:
The Jacobites
are the representatives
Monophysites
The
condemnation Chalcedon.
of
heresy
maintained
that
in the incarnation
nature that
the glorified
held
that
the
is wholly
natures
were
orthodox in
the
the union
in the ultimate
resulted
saviour
two
the
Eutychian
the
Eutyches
of monophysitism
from
separated
in the Syrian
and only
so united,
eastern year
that
by
of Christ's
while
although
the
divine
extinction
Divine,
upon
the
Council
of
church
451
church.
and human
of the latter, the
so
Monophysites
the 'one Christ'
was
became by their union only one divine, human His two natures and partly partly 46 divinity The According to them Christ's absorbed the humanity. nature. leaders
of theological
Mongus, appears
Peter after
the
thought Fuller
the Monophysite
Jacob
Baradeus
offered
42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.
a life
and Jacob
Baradeus.
from the Jacob 47 Church.
575 AD comes
within
in Monophysite
the Monophysites
among
(d. 587) was brought theology of luxury
as a helper
Baradeus
and Syriac
of Empress
Peter
title
Jacobites,
which
who organized
where
literature.
Theodores,
Encyclopedia, New Catholic Vol. IX, P. 627. Church, P. 647. Dictionary of Christian J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, P. 305. Encyclopedia, New Catholic Vol. III, PP. 425-6. J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sect, Heresies, P. 332. Encyclopedia, New Catholic Vol. VII, P. 795.
10
as Aelurus,
The
in a monastery, up
and Greek
were
his group
he was educated Although
he preferred
he was to retire
to a monastery
near the city
of a complete foot
of fact
As a matter Ghassän,
two
Christian
Arabs.
extended
the
numbers
One
them
of
that
Baradeus
the Syrian
Jacob
was a greatest
became
the and
decreasing
in
It was because 49 as Jacobites.
emperors. known
of its distinctive
propagator
for
reorganised
was in fact
which
the Byzantine
Monophysites
He
on
of Band
tribe
specifically
Baradeus.
of Syria,
from
opposition
consecrated
were
was
Church
of the Arab
at the request
bishops
Monophysite
Monophysite
of his efforts
Jacob
in the 5th century
due to strong
and travelled 48 as far as Persia.
Syria and Mesopotamia,
Asia Minor,
the life
his way of life
he changed on
Later
recluse.
through
where
living years
for fifteen
he remained
in Syria
principles
and Egypt.
He spent
the rest
of his life
died in 578 AD and after
As
a matter
of
great
Jacobites
are
not
later
Monophysites
in Syria.
the Monophysites
organising
his death the Monophysites
fact,
because
Monophysites,
secretly
from
were driven
the
only
Antioch.
the
of
representatives
on consolidated
He
in three
themselves
Churches.
1. The Copts
and Abyssinians.
Z. The Syrian
Jacobites.
3. The Armenians.
in the doctrine
They believed but a single
nature,
divine
natures,
that
ie, divine
and human,
in the person
nature,
as against
of incarnate
Christ,
the orthodox
there
teaching
was
of two
the incarnation.
after
a The Jacobites his divine resulted Glass divine
48. 49.
strongly
nature. one.
is made nature
in the absorption
believed
They
think,
that
They have explained of sand, but has absorbed
of the humanity
in the incarnation,
from
two natures
in
there
it by an example: whole
is only
glass,
the humanity
so that
the two are one.
the
of Christ
no longer
De L. O'Leary, The Syriac Church and Fathers, PP. 119-120. Churches of the east, P. 204. The Christian D. Attwater,
11
sand, thus
the
'Abd
al-Jabbär
precise
discussing
while
Christian
the
about
discussion
in his al-Mughni.
refutations
in detail
On the Jacobites,
that
probably
into
indicate
the divine
by using the term
which
Along
it
without
naming Nestorian
other
them
and refuted given proper invalidate
.
at the
the doctrine
of Monophysites
In his detailed in a single
while
that
discussion, that
argument,
to the sects.
and this
was a
seems to
the Nestorians,
with
of union.
describing
he mentioned
is obvious
It
instead
of Christ
the nature
(Mujäwara)
to conjunction
in his al-Mughni,
attention
that
of incarnation
moment
that
and gave his
the- doctrine of 50 is This essence.
the
argument
applied
long
he mentioned
his reference
Nestorians
any sect.
the doctrines
through
union
is also noticeable
doctrines,
Christian
nature
However
that,
the
his
sect.
where
to the Monophysite's
he has muddled
that
with
in
believed
they
of essence.
union
we see in his Sharh:
a reference
subsumed
any specific
is not
sects,
examine
we
when
He only described naming
Christian
the
of
especially
sects,
without
hand,
other
doctrines
the
the
two doctrines
he mixed
both
indicates
"Abd
His only purpose
about union5l
was Jacobite
one of them
of
summary
and
these doctrines52 had not
al-Jabbär
was to try to criticise
and
the doctrines.
Maronites:
'Abd
al-Jabbär 53 Märiiniyya.
them
historian the
The scholars that
maintained
heresy
of one will preferred
disciples
death,
around
Church
later
During
the.
this sect twice
mentioned
who
have different
it was named
in Christ. the first gathered
in his discussion
Others option. around
the monastery
erected
after
opinions
during
its name.
Some of
Maron,
it was a city
Consequently Maron
Vol. V as
about
the hermit
say that
in al-Mughni
to his memory,
the
who
near Antioch.
Maronite his
4'
means a group
lifetime, that
54
and
was called
after
The of his
Maronite
on.
early
6th
century
the
Maronite
monks
were
Sharh, P29650.4Abd al-Jabbir, 'Abd al-Jabbär, Vol. V, P. 83. 51. al-Mughni, Ibid., P. 123. 52. Ibid., P. 84, P. 146. 53. _ Tarikh al-Tä? if a al-Mä. rüniyya, Istif än al-Duwayhi, 54.
P. 3.
12
defenders
of
the
doctrine
of Chalcedon
been informed that
(that
Monothelitism
along with
to them,
according
Christ.
On
practical
will,
55
it.
about
the
In 8th century,
Council.
as ontologically
is equivalent
which
to
as heresy was merely controversy Maronites Sacd b. Bitriq, ý are rememberedý"" to Martin,
attributed
a priest
in Christ.
and two natures
one will
in
ý'Y!
one
about one will, two
were
they
will,
in
wills
mean
one
What was terminology. 56 But according to over semantics.
regarded
`Iý
there
of
heretic as
But they had never
doctrine
their
speak
in the
action
A'
were
speaking,
they
when
declared
of one will).
justified
Some scholars
hand,
other
is the doctrine
they
by ,,
this
name,
,E.. hA %L .PJ
h
57
they
c"., ß,f7 hd4
He '4t
.
because
are ,5
&u
'L`_
Julianists:
fifth
The
and last
he
which
called 59
Yüliyäniyya.
Actually,
they
Christian it
mentioned 58 Walyäniyya, while
as
It is one of the two groups,
in Egypt
Julianist,
being
After he
took
refuge
As far
55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.
they
to 61
from
incorruptible
language
of the sect,
Alexandria, (teacher
and
or Aphthartodocetae. were
(d. after
From as
527), was a Monophysite.
by the Byzantine
became
the
preacher
emperor
of
I,
called 62 ) body Christ. the of of
and death 63 of His will.
that
Christ's
were real,
New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, PP. 245-6. Ibid., P. 246. _ Tärikh al-TWifa al-Marüniyya, Istifän al-Duwayhi, PP. 9-11. detail see translation footnote P. 24 ). For further 6o, 'Abd al-Jabbär, Vol. V, P. 146. al-Mughni, Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, P. 38. Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, P. 48. New Catholic Church, P. 766. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Encyclopedia, New Catholic Vol. VIII, P. 48.
13
divided.
in Caria
His passion choice
is
pronunciation
and its neighbourhood 60 as Aphthartodocetae.
he maintained
are concerned,
of a free and extraordinary
as Julianist
of the incorruptibility
and that
correct
is Julianist,
in Armenia
and in general
Halicarnassus
the
Monophysites
the
which
were called
leader
as his doctrines
essentially
into
Gaiamitae
expelled
Apthortodocetism.
result
leader
of Halicarnassus,
Julian
sect,
in Western
are called
the name of their
by 4Abd al-Jabbär
so
body
but were
was the
He further
argued
sin, while
Christ's
that
was real,
suffering
the
other
Monophysites Their
hand,
leader
there
though
sect,
that
the
that
earthly
bodyof
believed
Christ
fact did/prevent 66 by a free act of his will. though
him
this
(Abd to note that al-Jabbär
It is interesting sect,
maintained 67 human being.
they believed
that
So He would
knowledge
about
that
be adored
an obscure
Aphthortodocetae Christ
ought
even
as human
that
not to be spoken he should
have been a proper
Muslim-Christian
the Umayyad
64. 65. 66. 67. 68.
69.
one part
object
its
nature
while
describing
the doctrine
is a deity
It does reflect
maintained being
as a created
in terms
and death
Because
attributed
So he described that
after
as regards
God and Creator, the very beginning.
of this
of his being a 'Abd that al-
and sound.
the writer
of
incorruptable,
suffering
sect is accurate
from
moment
accepting
in reality.
be designated
nature.
from
Christ
of them
of worship
in
the
not
from
separated
from
that
was
see in the Dictionary of sects and heresy, where 'Abd doctrine has mentioned. same as al-Jabbär
The earliest
also
of
Julianists
the
which
it was naturally
human Christ's corruptibility which maintained 65 was Severus and they were called as Severianists.
incarnation,
Jabbär's
death,
the
can be concluded
immortal,
of original
due his to act of an will was
another
was
to the effects
was not subject
for his body to experience 64 to suffering or corruption.
subject
It
Christ
because
it possible
made
On
that
we
to them under
the
the incarnation, his humanity,
and must 68
but
therefore
discussions:
recorded Caliph
debate
polemical 'Umar II (682-720)
took
place
and the
by correspondence Byzantine
emperor
between Leo III69
Ibid., PP-50-1Dictionary of Sects and Heresy, P. 334. Church, P. 69. Oxford Dictionary of Christian Vol. V, P. 146. Al-Mughni, Dictionary of Sects and Heresy, P. 39., see also - D. K. Crow, The death of i Imämate, in al-Serät, B. Ali Shi the Vol. and early al-Husayn view on XII, (1984) P. 80. to Umar II is supposed to be the answer by Leo III to the caliph The letter Umar II, in which the Emperor refuted the claims of Islam. An American letter has been this by A. Jeffrey, of preserved version and translated Text of the Correspondence Ghevond's Between Umar II and Leo III., Review, Vol. XXXVII, (1944) PP. Z69-332. Harvard Theological
14
(C. 680-741).,
dlthough
its
been
has not
authorship
established
with
absolute
certainty.
About
781 AD Timothy
Mahdi
the third
report
records
about
from
that
However,
with
took
is essentially
this
friends,
two
and was later
al-Häshim
and
The full 70
and Syriac.
between
place
Christians
each other.
side in Arabic
and the Muslim
al-Kindi
215/830.71
debated
the Christian
discussion
religious
Christian
Nestorian down
caliph
of the eastern
patriarch
(775-785)
of Baghdad
the debate
famous
Another
I, the Nestorian
the
written of
piece
a propagandist
work.
In ninth
century
doctrine
turned
we see for first from
that belong
b.
Al-Qäsim
2.
it is the earliest
'Ali
b.
treastises73 written
Rahban defending
during
large a number
70.
71.
72. 73.
al-Tabari, Islam.
the reign of Biblical
a
The longer
of al-Mutawakliil,
work,
inclined
toward
Convert
around
to al-Din
the
it be can and
al-Nasärä, 72 polemic.
Kitab
Among
method.
al-Raddall
a Nestorian
Christian
towards
group of Mu1tazilites.
but
Zaydie,
anti-Christian
references,
systematic
to the rationalist
He wrote
surviving
approach
to a more
al-Hasani,
He died in 246/860.
Multazilites. said that
Ibrähim
Muslims
that
debate
a simple
them are those polemics
1.
time
Islam,
wrote
two
wa al-Dawla,
was
the year 240/854.
and one can say the Muslim
It contains
scholars
were
by A. Mingana from Syriac to English, as an official It was translated See John Ryland library Bulleton, Vol. XII (1928), Apology of Christianity. (ed) by P. L. Cheikho, PP. 147-226 and its Arabic version in Trois Traites PP. 1-9. Hamdi Bakri, an Egyptian scholar has suspected its authenticity. Kulliyya Majalla Muhäwara For detail alma'Timiitäwis, see al-Mahdi Adäb, Vol. XII, Part 2, (1950) PP. 41-57. _ b. Ishaq al-Kindi, in Its Arabic text was published as, Risäla'Abd al-Masih by William Muir done London 1870 and its translation under the title was 1887. Hamdi Bakri London, The Apology also claimed that of, of al-Kindi, it was written in late ninth century to third and attributed actually ilä Kulliyya Majalla detail For Risäla al-Kind-i, see, al-Häshimi century. (1947) I, Part 9, Vol. PP. 29-49. al-Adäb, it in by I. Di. Matteo, translated It was first published edited and who Italian. in Rivista Degli Orientali, Vol. IX (1921-3), PP. 301-364. by A. Mingana, First book was translated as The Book of Religion and 19ZZ and its Arabic text was edited by A. Mingana Manchester, Empire, Manchester, 1923. at published and falä Al-Radd by K. I. Khalife The shorter one, al-Nasärä, edited and in Melanges de L Universite (1959), W. Kutsch, St Joseph, Vol. XXXVI, PP. 113-148.
15
able to know the references 3. Abü tIsä al-Warräq 74 became a dualist. is preserved
which
(d.
Mutawakrfil,
al-Radd
his al-Mughni,
S.
Abü
Nasärä.
Yüsuf
6.
Abü
Nashi
b. Bahr
section
al-oAbbäs
75.
76.
77. 78. 79.
are attacks
on the
known
wrote a small treatise at the request of caliph 76 'Abd 'ala al-Na§ärä. It is used frequently by al-Jabbär
al-
discussing
al-Jahiz,
a very
well
scholar
in
the Christians.
(d. 864),
al-Kindi
he was not a theologian on Christianity
who wrote
but famous
al-Radd
as a philosopher,
'(alä alle
was
'Abd-Alläh
and the approach
b. Muhammad
al-Anbäri,
generally
known
as al-
died in 193/905.78 He was a Multazli. His famous book, Kitab 79 fi al-Magälät, is a small encyclopedia of the doctrines of Muslim together
sects,
about the Christian
Abt
'Ali
important
74.
There
the
one sects of the Christians,
seen
of it.
min
is quite philosophical. 'Adi, in the refutation Yahyä b. made by a tenth century 77 who analysed it in eleven short sections.
scholar
and non-Muslim
works
firaq
on he 75 al-Nasärä,
al-Akber
al-Awsat
7.
and later
of
an attack
is preserved
Jacobite
these converts.
a Mu'tazilite
al-Thalath
ýAdi's b. refutation
Ya4qüb b. Ishäq
Although
able to write It
869),
while
through
in this work.
ýAmr
Mu'tazilites
Al-Raddali
He wrote
in Yahyä
'Uthmän
Abi
4.
(d. around 861) was basically
and incarnation
Trinity
Testament New and old of
about 'Abd in
al-Jubbäh and the
leaders
critical
remarks.
sects, but it is important
It
contains
as he has described
a small twenty
most of whom are unknown.
(d. 933) and Abu- al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 935) are more . Unfortunately their own theological school. of their
Christian
al-Jabbär's
with
doctrines
work especially
have
t, but
the
former's
work
can be
in his al-Mughni.
(Dodge, Khayyät, Intisir, Ibn Nadim, PP. 419,804, PP. 108, al-Fihrist, -'" 110. by Armand Abel, for his doctral degree This text is edited and translated from in 1949, handwriting is Bruxelles Arabic not good. o*lthough PP. 1-68. It was edited by J. Finkel and published from Cairo, 1926, PP-10-38He few its See Journal of also wrote an introduction and translation of parts. Oriental Society, Vol. XLVII, (1927) PP. 311-334. Americana in French by A. Perier, as Un Traite De Yahja It is edited and translated Revue de L'Orient Chretien, Ben'Adi, Vol. XXII, (1920-1), PP. 3-21. Period, P. 224. Watt, Formative This book was first edited by J. V. Ess, who wrote a preface in German from Beirut, 1971. Section and published about the Christian sects, PP. 76-87.
16
8.
Abu
Mansiir Muhammad 80 Tawhid. He devoted two Christ
about
9.
Al-Hasan
letter a
al-Mäturidi, half and a
b. Ayyüb,
to his brother
a converted 'Ali, because
in al-Jawäb
al-Sahih82
Jacobites
and declared
that
Abü Jalfar
Muhammad
authority,
died
sections
containing
like a substantial
11.
Abi
Bakr
Muslim's
to the opinion
pages
criticism,
Muhammad
theological
Kitib views.
al-Qummi,
81. 82. 83. 84.
al-
Christians
about
between
Kitäb
Muslims
than Shiite
and Christians.
It has a section
(d. 1025) four extant
Islam.
It is
severely
the
propaganda.
al-Bägilläni, 84 that is devoted
al-Tamh3d,
wrote
It does not look
(d. 403/1013)
b. al-Tayyib
81
the son of well known Shi'ite 84 there are two al-Tawhid,
about
workfon
an Ashtarite
to Muslim
Christianity.
it is a very comprehensive so lengthy, summary. 'Abd discussion and others are quite similar to al-Jabbär's
12. IfAbd a1-Jabbär's
century,
He criticised 83 view is very close to Islam.
In his book
rather
fourth
of his misunderstanding
b. Bäbawayh
discussion
in the early
Muslim,
not
80.
of Kitäb
of the
by Ibn Taymiyya.
Arius's
381/991.
about
His book
theologian.
the author
and its refutation.
preserved
10.
(d. 333-944)
Some
and non-
Although
it is
discussions
are
new.
Christianity.
doctral first Khulef by Fath-A11"ah thesis as a edited al-Tawhid was from latter 1970. Beirut, published and Section about Christianity, PP. 210-212. P. Z46Ibn Nadim, Al-Fihrist, H, Vol. PP. 312-363 For this letter see Ibn Taymiyya, al-Sahih, al-Jawäb (Cairo, 1905). from Kitäb al-Taw] id, was edited by Häshim al-Husayni, Iran, published 1957. See its section about Christianity, PP. 270-275 and PP. 417-427. first Kitäb al-Tamhid from was edited by R. J. McCarthy and published 1957. See section about Christianity, Beirut, PP. 75-103. Kitab
17
PART
ONE
r
An Annotated
translation
of al-Mughni,
18
Vol. V, PP. 80-151
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHRISTIANS
Section -
Summary
Alit Abü
Our venerable
scholar,
Christians all
except
of everything
and the Creator
spirit
they
whom
a small
life
are those who say that
They
that
alleged
group
that it is one of the doctrines
of them,
is a living
God Almighty
that
entity
with
speech;
of
is the Creator
and His life
and His speech is knowledge.
is the
Among
them
is power.
God, His Word and His Power
Son who is the Messiah body which
has mentioned
the Holy Spirit
call
doctrines
of their
Himself
was on the earth.
according
are Eternal.
to them,
They differed
about
The Word is the
who manifested what
is entitled
(zahm)
in a
to the name
of Messiah.
Among
them
each other. body.
Among
body (al-jasad
1.
'Ali Abu-
are those who maintained Among them
them
are those
are those
al-muhdath)
that
it is the word and body united
who alleged
who alleged
that
and the word became
that
it
is the
it (the Messiah) a created
Word
not
with the
is the created
body when it was in
'Abd
i, one of the most Muhammad b. al-Wahhäb al-Jubbä' He attended of the Mu'tazila, celebrated was born at Jubba in Khuzistän. the school of Abü Ya`qüb Ydsuf al-Shahhäm at Basra, who at that time He Abü the al-Älläf. chair of al-Hudhayl succeeded al-Shahhäm occupied to the and it can be said that he was able to add a final brilliance He died in 303 A. H. /915 A. D. tradition of the masters. He thus held a place in the line of the Basra Muýtazila who differ from the human In Basra Baghdäd Multazila the action. of especially over question (whom he opposed) itself, he was particularly at variance with al-Nazzäm ' and al-Jähiz. His son Abü had two pupils who later became celebrated. Al-Jubbäi Abd (the in 3Z1 A. H.; 933 in died Baghdad Häshim teacher of al-Jabbär, 'Abd A. D. His ideas and views can be seen in the writing of al-Jabbär). `ari breaking Abü al-Hasan Secondly, away, was to al-Ash who, after "founder" Mu4tazilism become devote himself to refuting the of the and (Encyclopedia Ash4ariyya. of school so-called of Islam, Vol. II, p. 569-570) Watt, Predestination in Early New edition. Islam, p. 83-7,136-7. Kahhala, Mu 'am al-Mu1allifin, Vol. X, p. Z69.
19
the womb of Mary
They
and became
that
all allege
Word is the Son.
visible
They
and they are from
one substance.
You
that
must
realise
of
[which
can be a distinction
and there they
This is a summary
some of the Christian
only
agree
on and
ý
doctrines
their
what t. / e,
w-
.
and the
of what they said.
can be discussed,
doctrines
is possible
between
to understand]
they disagree
upon, and between
agreed
disagreed
c, -
Spirit
are one God and one Creator
all these three
that
allege
has the
is the Son and whatever
Word
the
for mankind.
the elements be
can
which
upon
what
understood.
It is difficult
to be exact
based upon irrational
The famous
Z.
The
They
The Melkites,
also have
doctrines
We will
now report
these hypostases Spirit. living
and speaking.
the Father
Father
are old or more
proceeds
from
is not in terms
from
the intellect
from
the sun.
are
which
of three
The other
these
three
is always
of the
hypostases
is the life,
hypostases
begetting
and the Son.
of offspring
and heat
must be reported
Their
and which
is the Holy is Eternal,
and the Father
in a state
of being
begotten
the Son, and the Spirit
by
is a state
The being of the Son as Son of the like
fire
the fire
from
One of
are the same in substantiality
but rather
20
(agänim).
is the Son and the third
The Son is always
the Father
recent.
upon.
is one substance
in hypostasy. and the Father
they
sects have been reported.
those three
doctrines
of their
is the Father.
All
Sometimes
Nestorius.
of which
The Son is the Word and the Spirit
different and
which
deity
the Creator
of
of the king.
with
sects are in agreement
the three
Firstly,
sects,
those
statements.
of the religion
some
are in conflict
which
are
of Nistür. I members
further
arguments
of Jacob.
followers
the
followers
called 3.
the followers
Nestorians,
their
are as follows:
sects among the Christians
The Jacobites,
because
and incomprehensible
principles
1.
doctrines,
all their
about
the generation light the and
of the word of the sun
They
The person
There In
that
agreed
the Son was united
is some disagreement doctrine
their
hypostases
the
substance
that
is no fourth deny that
They maintain
one.
it is a compound
hypostases
are
for three
(khawäss)
hypostases
They also differed:
only named
also
hypostases are
themselves
Kalima the
differed:
substance
and
that
the
wrtis)
were
aspects
a single
them
(wu'üh)
and
(existed)
substance
of others
are substance
are different
but we do say that that
they are only one
that
alleged
is a doctrine
of these
each
of the
of some
on being
mentioned
by others
is that
and nothing
itself
the
from
reported
of
them
else.
21
through
Word
they maintained
and His knowledge Some
itself.
(the Word) is knowledge.
it manifests
that
them
the Word is knowledge
that
of Kalima
doctrine
Him.
the
and the same in substantiality.
This
maintained
because
from
to
regard
nor speaking.
(the Word),
of
with
each of the hypostases
the meaning
some
maintained
they
God.
said that
are heterogeneous different
they
Some of them
some of them
It is reported
knowledge.
that
them
of
and speaking
said that
hand,
other
and there
CY-thers considered
in hypostasy
again.
is not a God nor living
Some of them
are a simple
are the same in the fact
which
And the rest
individually
Some
differed
is a living
Nestorians.
thought
others
"We do not say that
they
hypostases
the
and hypostases
Some of them maintained (Ki"'
differed.
They
Some
and for three persons.
said,
substance.
the
to the Melkites
the hypostases
characteristics.
Some of them
"
hypostases.
the
hypostases,
from
the hypostases
that
they were different
that
are three
is different
(This was) as if they were saying
further
hypostases
is
in three
that
maintained
have attributed
the hypostases.
and the
(sifät).
they
Others
actually
(ashkhäs)
Nestorian
substance
we have given.
which
substance.
regarding
attributes
life
the
yet the substance
Then they differed
They
the
is one substance
the Eternal
are the substance,
the
and
Messiah.
call
and killed.
was crucified
of the summary
and
they
whom
parts
this also to the Melkites.
doctrine
persons
about
Jacobites
the
are
attributed
Then
for the people,
himself
manifested
the person
with
them
(Father's reported
Even
though
they
knowledge) that
are not
is power.
spirit
that
On
speech.
and speech
that
It was
the
in terms
said
the
and His hypostases of
being
hypostases,
They illustrated
substance. without
seeing
have in terms
what
Christ both
which
one Messiah.
one out of two.
which
came
substance,
into
ad/ (incarnated)
taaannasa (became
The Melkites
after
it had not
instead
of ittahada
Christ
that
it did not
which
claimed (aspect) ('t tOL united pis
and unanointed
The sense of in reality
to them
and the
other
of the deity,
is a created Sometimes
existed. (united)
is
the Messiah
i. e., the substance
they
use the they
and sometimes
said
(compounded).
man) and tarakkaba
believed
an ember,
The Nestorians
One of the hypostases
everlasting
existence
(aspect)
According
and two hypostases.
is Eternal
an attribute
and the union.
and became
Word,
and other
of Christ
An anointing
two substances
word to '
for it acquired
is a man and God.
He became
that
it becomes when
of
charcoal.
the nature
united
terms
regarding
made
not
of charcoal
an example
of being simply
is
which
it was before,
They vary regarding that
a distinction
is
there
had two
is Eternal
one of them
substances,
is Created.
The
majority
that
He is (formed)
of
Jacobites
the
out of two
Eternal
deity
became
one substance
Christ
that
alleged
One of them
substances.
is the substance
and the other
has one substance,
of human
and one hypostasis.
except
is the substance
being.
Some of them
They united said,
"He
of and
has one
" nature.
After
agreeing
by which
Messiah
was and according Word (Kalima) of them temple
to what with
that
asserted and locus.
kind
became
united
Word was covered that
the union
that
it
Messiah, aspect
(the
the appearance seal) without (of the design)
into
it existed.
by him and his body.
of the design the (actual)
the form that
being
maintained
of a seal in clay
design being removed
in the clay.
22
(amr hid-th)
the incidental
event that
maintained
of a human
(the Word) inhered
Some of them
of a human
Some of them
on what
in time
by means of intermingling.
being
maintained
occurred
Some of them
Word) adopted
Some of them
it.
which
differed
they
human
that
but it is as a picture
when he looks
was an event
L
said that
appears that
which from
the
Some
person
as a
in him and
it is nothing
in a polished
it is in accordance has been stamped
of
mirror with (by the
the seal, and the inherence
There
are doctrines
of those
not
who could
the Word
make
and the body one
thing.
As far
as the Jacobites
become
one substance.
are concerned,
Some of them
reported
that
two subsisting
entities
(dhät)
another
Some of them
way.
united
the totality
with
being.
human
some
that
considered the
believed
them
of
redemption
humanity,
They
Eternal,
Christ
about
with
Christ
is a divine
is formed
Mary
was
substance, one aspect crucified, pain
were
two
these
of
mankind.
Sometimes
and they
Eternal
of two
being
their
substances
and unborn
in another
died in another
aspect. of phantasy
Some 'iha)
that
that
agreed
the crucifixion The majority
parts.
place
who
the
with
of
Christ
entire
The majority
of
and death took place on one substance (natures)
believed
of them
and created
aspect,
crucified,
that
believed
died
not in reality.
were
God and
The pains
were
He who was born of that
in another
Some of them said that
Z3
which
and He was God.
and Jacobites
in reality.
they
after
maintained
those
and human.
at the same time.
in reality
Messiah
(gatl)
took
hand,
other
not the divine
crucifixion
in one aspect
in the terms
described
we
is Divine
Christ
and death
the crucifixion
so the Melkites
God (deity)
as
the union, that regarding created (muhdath) became ands
The Nestorians
the
out
(of humanity).
On the
that
maintain
and human
that
He was the in Him,
a personal
of humanity"
of
one substance
crucifixion
that
(nature)
inhered
basis
the
nature)
the whole
Christ
of
the human part of Christ,
alleged
mankind.
on
for part
is Eternal.
and died.
the Jacobites that
it in
So, those who believed
Christ
the
believed
Melkites
nature
became
that
was crucified
(where)
the
the union differently
took place the
(natures)
differed
They
a part
about
with
W-10)
with
the
(i. e.
substance
He united
with
cause the redemption
about
maintained
explained
that
about
not that
They differed
said:
"He united
Union/
of the will,
the general
and others
saying,
about the union.
substances
that
differed
his
He will
differed
controversies two
believed
in reality.
have
two substances
the Son united with the whole of humanity so that He will cause of Some of them said that He united with all. part of
so that
also
have united
they
Some of them
statements.
that
the union is in the meaning
of mankind
Then
believed
they
Christ aspect,
is one born
c,n one aspect,
death,
The nature
crucifixion which
in non and
is united
Him
with
grace
with
; latif)
that
do not
pains
inhere
in it.
It is
by a small group of the Jacobites.
narrated They
is endowed
agreed
have different
be should worshipped
Christ
that
that
opinions divine
aspect
and He is entitled
They
to that.
either He is adored entirely or worshipped we have quoted i their controversy about union
and
Among the categories there is a class called of Christ. of the Christians Z Marüniyya. They maintained that Christ is two substances (natures) and one
nature
hypostasis
in the sense that
he has one will.
The deity
was really
crucified
for
the sake of our salvation.
Some of the people to enter Him
Christ
say of them
during
in the rest
the
of his actions.
Word at the time
of union
the air and water
into
came earlier is the creature
Word
that of
one of their
Some of their
doctrinesis
earlier
the womb
(God's)
the Creation
out through
Him.
will.
as the arrow
that
(Istifäý.
For this reason,
3
the
crosses
scholars
and claimed
of the universe
from
that
alleged
It is said by some of their
pipe.
God and His Son through
was carried
the Word used
and depart:.
scholars
of Mary
God is one and they name Him Father
before
that
the miracles
of performing
passed into
the water
who vLas created
of everything
time
that
who
Christ He is a
and the creation they call him deity
(God).
They said and alleged
2.
3.
that
Christ
united
with
a human being through
Mary
and
Maronites: The only fully Roman uniate Church in the East. The name is derived from Maron, a Syrian solitary who died around 423. By their own it is claimed theologians that their existence can be traced back to St Maro, a friend of St Chrysostom. Maronites According to this tradition have always been orthodox and in union with Rome, but in fact they were Constantinople. followed Monothelites Sergius originally of who is in As a unite body they possess their own liturgy, which essence an in in language by Latin Antiochence Syriane the modified parts rite influence. faith has been the Chief Since 1926 the Maronite confession of the Lebanese state. Church, Douglas, J. D. The new international Dictionary of the Christian P. 633. h Cioss, F. L. The Oxford Dictionary Church P. 876. of the Christian Watt, translating the Christian while al-Shahristäni about s section (by way of Choice), we translated doctrines, translated it word Istifä'uas God, because it is very close to Christian the theology. of will as Watt, Ash-Shahrist5ani's doctrine, Islamochristiana, account of Christian Vol. IX, (1983), P. 258.
24
He
was
blessed
They
crucified.
than any other
and the
Son, which in the
that
alleged spiritual
essence,
was taken
from
inspiration
beginning,
Christ
not
Mary
(spirit) it and
takes
them(
some
through
Mary
and He was a noble
for His obedience,
who
mixed during
the four elements
Among
alleged
between
Father
was an intangible
these elements
and where
the
Christ
that
prophet,
with
any
gathered
whom
to the
substance
His union
came
that
spirit
is intermediary from
and not
composite
He only clothed
elements.
alleged
spirits
God has a created
that
into
the Father Son.
They
and purely the
four
the body
that
other with
is more
of
together.
existence
God honoured
He named Him His Son by the way of adoption
(ibtad ýa)
and venerated (way by of) not
birth.
The doctrines apart
from
which
what
are the famous
we have presented
is to be mentioned
later.
Z5
one S(of their
doctrines)
2-SECTION
The Invalidity
we have reported
which
You
must
realise
(al-Qa(Jim),
However, three
they
when
which [On
three
as the Kulläbiyya4
living
invalidates
with
life,
the
the other
proof
that
4.
the
differentiate hypostases
characterised
them
that
Him
in reality,
God
Eternal
in it
is what
anything
on a
with
and they dn. not intend
indicates
to God
by the attributes
that
He has
that
considered
He is knowing
that
divergence
their
attributes,
with
knowledge
God
Eternal
the
is
one,
this doctrine.
would not be able to characterise
fact
it were
that
from
possible
for
anything
the
other, it
eternal,
by something
and nor could
was not
fact
occurs
hand when they
which
eternal,
Spirit
there
hypostases
believed
before,
these
argument
(ma(nä). sense
As said
would
with
'since they have referred
and living.
and
proven
when
are associated
being knowing entities.
the
any other
say: God has three
in terminology,
occurs
being
to common
(dhawät)
entities
before,
doctrine
of their
is contrary
to the
according
them
there
without
invalidity
basis which
from
the Trinity
about
as mentioned
is one
the
proves
only
Doctrine
of their
which
would
which
participates
possible
of them
the Father.
Thus it would
by what
the Son must be a Father
impossible was
and the Father
which
doctrine,
because
since
for
Father
to be
for
the
the Son and the Holy
do this or be characterised
any of those
to be characterised
their
be impossible
was not
God as being
(essence) by anything
its entity refutes
with
not be possible for the others.
for
by what any one of
This requires
must be a Son and a spirit
and the
Kulläbiyya, a Sunni group of the Muslims whose leader was Abii rAbdulläh b. Said b. Muhammad b. Kulläb al-Qattän Muhammad al-Bari. Watt has introduced him as an influential Mutakallim of the period of Mihna. He died shortly after 854. He is reckoned as a Shäfi'ite though his He is said to have argued teachers the are not named. against Mu'tazilites Ibn Kulläb's chief contribution to at the court of al-Mä'miin. however Kaläm, was his elaboration of the attributes of the doctrine He asserted for each name such as 'powerful', that of God. Sifät 'eternal' 'knowing', 'knowledge', 'power', there was an attribute of or 'eternity'. These attributes It were not God and not other than God. 'Abd is referring to this argument the al-Jabbär seems that about here. attributes Peters, God's created speech, p. 21. Watt, The formative period of Islamic thought, pp. 286-7. Maq. lät, p. 169. Al-Ash'ari,
Z6
Holy
Spirit
must be a Father.
According
to this
the Son is a son because
that
Eternal,
and
be
must
in/ same situation and Kalima
in
His
with
to the fact
regard
Whoever
(essence),
entity
it
the impossibility
film is for
of need
the same with regard
must state ,
is
the Son is
that
He must have a son which
that
demonstrates
was a Son at all,
in being
the Father
with
self-subsisting
this doctrine
to admit
must have a son, who is ilm and Kalima,
and so on.
if there son,
them
since the Son participates
similar
if the Father
necessary,
forced
scholars
our early
method,
a
to the
Father.
Similarly
would be required
they
had another
He had a spirit
that
that
are (of the same substance)
they
participation
in eternity,
the Father
with
(needing
and Spirit father
and
being)
by arguing
that
to
(subsistent said that Word
of
(the
Son).
them
to
repudiated knowing
end.
In this
during
a subsistent
way
We
discussion
the it
is not
which
share
in
eternity
implication
(li. dhätihi).
So what
insofar and
not
we mentioned
to
that
we have
how
Him
and the this for
was possible
of Kulläbiyya
requires
be
It could
decrees
of what
explained
doctrine
by
necessitated being
the necessity
already
the
knowledge
and knowledge) is
of)
essence
knowledge
as it
way
same
referred
His
Father.
eternal
Son
(subsistent
they in
has
is the
Word,
both
of His being a
though
He
what
being
in the
Him
have of
in
has
is (proof
there
already.
accept
for
be possible
will
to be a knowing
and the
to affirm
essence
even
for
He
share
not
to refer/His
because,
Him
them
the fact
claim
that
knowledge
Whatever
Him.
(God
is the
cannot
does
for
Son's
of the
needs a Son without
declare
to
it possible
makes
the Son, who
knowing
being being
being)
have
they
a cause,
They
to a cause,
refers
the doctrine
it is not possible
Him
a son of
it
that
and that
both
Sons and Spirits).
son being
the
(sifa)
attribute
they
to the Father,
regard
and so on without
requires
He (the Father)
it is for the sake of. it that
that
has a spirit
of the spirit
and spirit
with
He
that
to admit that the Son has a Spirit and the Spirit has a son as the a hJ"I" has/Son and a Spirit because they (both) participate in eternity which
Father JhL fact
had said,
they
of what
to the Holy Spirit
with regard
have
They
by
because
spirit,
to admit
forced
this
problem
is
that
He (God)
is
be knowing
even
fact
God
as the because there
of
that
knowledge
it refutes
this
(Christians)
the
problem.
According view
that
to this method, every
our earlier
one of the hypostases
scholars
forced
is a deity Z7
upon them
because
since
the Son and the
Spirit
participate
deity requires
their
as a deity
that
by the reasoning
is active,
repudiates
knowledge,
argument
Therefore
mentioned
been repudiated. hypostases.
We must
The
affirmation
in this
doctrine,
also refuteSthe in
doctrine
the numbers
of eternal
They
argue:
might
postulate there
three
that
postulated substance
The
doctrine, because terms like
describe
5.
6.
is that
could
not
in reality.
6
hypostases
every
variation a doctrine
their are
language.
However,
the
they
that
attest to.
God has
So they
made
more than the Christians.
to
that
admit they
the
are three
only be forced
different
and
three
hypostases
hypostases
to admit
while if we
that that
postulated
the
was different.
argument
The variation
which
the Kulliibiyya
doctrines
their
He is entitled
that
the
require
invalidate we
because
because
each of the
would
by which
in
We would were
be dismissed
of
forced
for
series as we forced
we say that
which
is brought
by a difference
the basis of the refutation
of wording. the
because
(for each of them)
answer
(Qudamäl)
This
case.
aspect,
perverted,
We are not
these
every
according
hypostases
more
do differ
of attributes
entities
is one substance
two
of the Christians
is more
deities,
for
they
although
as the number
many macni5
has
So every
doctrine
Kulläbiyya
of
each of these must be a God, this method
in an infinite
connection.
meaning
be necessary
would
also affirm
deities
of numerous
except
the
is required
same
to admit
similar
that
and to be knowing
to
since
earlier,
and the one who
(the same) for the two hypostases,
to affirm it
were led to
they
for the Eternal life
as a
of each one of the
because
argument
through
except
it is necessary
Spirit.
and
The existence
since it is impossible
that z6
(i. e. God)) be living
through Word
the basis of their
His existence
requires
what
as two deities.
existence
two
in eternity,
the Father
with
of the doctrine
is invalid
according in terms
to
to refute
the
in wording
of that
is in terms
of meaning
not in
as it does not affect
it, is
of the words insofar
expressions
forward
different
of what
doctrine,
languages
makes it invalid,
which without
'Abd here seems obscure. The use of the term ma{nä by He had al-Jabbär O Qudam in it the next sentence. the It synonymous made with word (sif ät) to find a word to describe the attributes seems to be an attempt As noted before they are not God not which have been existing eternally. other than Him according to the Kulläbiyya. is said and approved by Christian This doctrine scholars as Elias of Nisibis, `Afif (Cheikho, Trois Traites, (Ibid., P. 75). See also P. 19) and b. Mu'ammil Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. Z.
Z8
changing
We have said that
Christians the since
they have to accept i. e.
Father,
He
becomes
affirmation
Son and Holy
knowing.
by the change of language).
(of the doctrine
the nature
living
they
and
When they
subsisting
They
make Spirit
then
have forced
on them becomesinescapable
As for their
doctrine:
"We say that
It is like
forced we
them
However,
some of the Christians
for
they
from
things
in
different
and requires
According
that
We say concerning it is not other
terms
other
entities
them
(i. e.
consideration
of
they be one thing
the thing
on what
are different
So it is not right to admit
them
they
from
the
them
.
This is/the
abnegation
whether
these
because
of the expressions
doctrine
their three
they say that
it out by descriptions it is an entity
by attributes; apart
being
their
of
that
being
one
it is one from
of the group,
the totality
comes within
(to it), because
attributes)
existence
things.
to admit
argument,
and
one aspect &cau4
than it when you have added it to the group; and that
and characterised
that
accept
must
by
aspect.
other
which
has no effect
forced
or several
forced
in reality,
or from
are not
than that.
requires
our scholars
are illogical
a description
the
the attributes
is one.
differing
things
that
than each one of it when you single of applying
from
and not in another.
not
it is three
we
it.
does not affect
that
maintain
illogical based on an and
and one being three
Gods which
the hypostases
we have
what
different
to this aspect,
was contradictory
the aspect
from
that
But it is more certain
are
which
becomes
are not different
the substance
although
in one aspect
another.
He
which
to the Christians.
they when -even
are claiming, is different
agreeing of
the hypostases
by which
of them,
of three
and the wording
have claimed
themselves
impossibility an
is
the postulation
the same applies
are hypostases,
to defend
the deity
This
to admit,
as they
them
what
by
the argument of Kulläbiyya which states that from God. ' In the same way that this doctrine
different
insofar
the life
in eternity
than the substance. "
but they are other
substance
.. (dhawät)
entities
knowledge,
Son,
make
that,
admit
are
of three
Spirit.
(m a4ani)
in
from
concerning
Z9
from which
and it could the
that.
other
it is other
the point
of view
is different
be characterised
entities
that
without
from by any
If
followed
they
intended Then
in terms
they
eternal quite
this
would
in accusing
right
argue:
"According
to your
being
statement
that
from
illustrate
it it
since
are different.
that
and one entity
that,
we are
units
are one
without
your
us to say that
He is
belongs
to
is according
this
because
for
other
from
of the contradiction
by our statement
about (by it)
and we meant appropriate
for
"one human
being"
that
one in ability.
of
"one
by
it is removed
(of three
from
Furthermore,
we
contradiction
of
when
from
part
which
can be characterised
consists
which
and there
it
that
a structure
So the contradiction
as the
We only
meant
the other
We mean by saying
of those
(which
parts
On the
you do not
mean by
of hypostases
in
the within
and
in it.
is a group which
be
and will
as being one in activity
because
remains
So the
ten.
they are many (parts)
is no contradiction
the same position
substance"
total
is as obvious
for.
else is appropriate
of
in the same
three
which
of the human being that is different
being)
do not apply you
have claimed. you
is a group
of
total
we have mentioned
in what
the hypostases
hypostases
Similarly
they
there
attain
virtue
that.
nothing
is reasonable
cannot
you
every
which that
That
like
that
being)
make up a human
characterised
the parts
that
affirm
no It is
have we given.
which
are a group.
it
is
There
time.
one
do not you
what
of such a contradiction
confirmation
your
at
may be
this group
We say one so that
ten for all countables
the number
way as we can apply
doctrine
group
things
countable
so that
and groups.
to the meaning
they (the hypostases)
that
expression
other
"group"
in
are different
of the group
You do not mean by your doctrine
one substance
hand
the units
of the numbers
for you to do that
not possible
something
and
"
it by our statement
the rest
that
contradiction
removal
being
numerous
So why did you not allow
we affirm
and we describe
distinguished
this
to say that
are one human
hypostases.
is no doubt
reality
deities
to confirm
is:
The answer There
we
(ma'nä).
sense
do not concede
they
it is right
of view
parts
before,
what
of contradiction.
contradictory.
in three
substance
them
point
and countless
group
Whenever
concede
would
in an absolute
as we mentioned
have no end.
that
entities
they
different
being
of hypostases
They might
may
argument
be forced,
doctrine
in their
hypostases your
which
are
occur
argument
or
while
ours as we said.
meant meaning.
by
the It
contradiction
is not
possible 30
which to
we accused
accept
it
without
them the
of,
a
words
themselves
contradicting was existent is already
known,
they
that
maintain
belief.
According declare
this
it is required
same
the
are
Because
according
who is a knowing hypostasis.
It requires between
one thing
between
its being
being
of
among
hypostases
are different
protection
from
7.
the
the
For this translation
there
what
aspects
in repudiati
r%j
the point
reach
from
the believer
remove
They
to
his
in looking
is no point
to the subsisting
in terms
the substance
They
forced
maintain
upon
them
similar
requires
(the
different and
in
those
say
to those
refer
is like
that.
is only a Father
of the Father
the same
with
to
is correct
to every
regard
that
their
yet different.
entity
Because
and non-existent.
what
they
and whatever
admit
is
that
is no difference
there
and being contradictory
to the other
it
being as
of the things
it, because
and affirming
must
of the hypostases,
but rather
entities,
they
of one substance
cannot
(ma'än1)7
an attribute
that
admit
entities
subsisting
doctrine
existent
in the Chapter
those
in
something
discussed
for
to
we
rejection
one or two
we would
The existence
impossible.
and living.
demands
As
is
to their
rejecting
is the same with
oneself
and in terms
they are the same in subsisting
is that
doctrine
thing
forced
are
be different
same
So what
from
is impossible,
be the same one.
them
it is
for we have claimed
and the same because,
do not refer
entitle
that
we would
they
view,
He must
different
which
elements
of
He should
and
hypostases) attributes
point
that
that
required
so that
God is different
that
in words,
It
it could be removed.
by which
to
is possible
in pre-occupying
through
know this belief
As we already
for an argument
because
is valid
what
and white.
The argument
in reality
three
is no point
There
is unacceptable,
of invalidating
being
something
was black
(this contradiction)
upon the Christians,
one thing
be accepted.
whatever
the
what
about
one substance
(those words) mean.
we have forced
to what
cannot
and that
even though
to accept
not possible regard
as we accused
and non-existent,
that
a person of who claimed
its being in its
in be accord /to
to it and
contradictory
affirmation,
as we
of attributes.
them
who
in order consequence äni, of ma
that
maintained to escape
from
because
cf. Peters,
31
it
"We this
do not
argument,
depends
on
God's Created
say " they
meaning
that
the
have no not
Speech, P. 156.
the
So in
expression.
that
maintained them
to admit
there
He said
"When
is impossible living
be
which
is the
and
Son
must
produced
except
from
to
agent
knowing.
that
living
then
way
which
God apart
He
On the
requires
living and
Him having
if
attributes.
and Life,
(dhdt),
subsisting
they
Hearing,
9
then in the entity, Him
affirm
having
Word
of two hypostases.
because If they
Seeing
not
or Knowledge,
and His (Kalima)
to the evidence, is not
Him
If they affirm
to make a limit
it is contrary
for
affirm
must also be
must be His Life
In this way it is necessary
affirm
must
and one.
to be His Life
make His Power
and
his knowledge
through
His
hand,
other
these
You
entity
through
need
and knowing
His subsisting
and living
for
and Perception
Vision
great
living
be
cannot
to be living
You must
actions.
life.
is
which
him
of actions
are repudiated.
through
knowing
for
He
knowledge
action
and perceiving.
doer
has
has a greater
action
has need
then His being
even though
because
of
is acting,
Spirit
affirmed
the
seeing
Knowledge His way
the Knowledge
that
as He is mighty,
insofar
and they
His being
affirmed
He has Hearing,
that
intends who
and Life.
originally
from
it
as He is the
but
whenever
(God)
Power
in terms
hypostases, He
for
than
affirm
be knowing
Power
is conceded,
to concede
9.
do it)
Power,
Power
Knowledge
must be His Life.
8.
insofar
He must
that
has
be hearing,
and Unity,
in the same
(rnAnä)
you
must
for
through
through
If that
(to
In this way the hypostases not
Power
he
they say
either
doctrine.
their
are three
have
you
one who has Power,
deny Him having
rejected.
through
and
that
affirm
make
Greatness
If they
Word,
the
He must be someone
of them,
same
have
will
He has Will, (a;
Power
So you
power
as the
Might,
knowing.
have
This
insofar
you
that
and
you
there
that
to admit
or repudiate
to believe
to set
That is obvious.
upon them
that
they wanted
Therefore
these.
hypostases
you affirm
for
Therefore
its
forced
are more than three
would
and non-existent.
to accept
Abu- Ali
scholar
to them:
it
that,
by refusing
as those who position 8 So we forced upon
same
it is the same and different.
that
Our venerable
in the are
they
is existent
one thing
aside this argument
that
doctrine
this
they would have of
(an element)
affirm
Power
and Perceiving
for then
text is there is a which makes no sense. Obviously in has been It text. the tentatively translated as confusion -4.0,401. p' The second repet ition has no sense, so it has been dropped from the translation.
The Arabic
3Z
they
are forced
Christianity
to affirm
hypostases.
numerous
In this
the doctrine
way,
of
is repudiated.
10 It is impossible
for
He is living
that
for them
(Person)
living a as
being powerful
without
(by arguing)
knowing
being
without
both insofar
He is living
to say that
them
and
the case is the same
that
be without
may sometimes
both these
qualities.
The position is
there
no
Knowledge the fact
two,
living
(person)
that
doctrine
because
or it is three
That He is the living, and Creating is three
That
the
Then
it
is three
is necessary
impossible
because
that since
For
other itself
alongside
14
If, concede
that
alongside is
living
create
..
lthough
are forced
to is
This
He is the activity
that
doctrine
doctrine
Father.
an effect
(hukm)
(hukm)
for
the
alongside is knowing
the knowledge that
is
That
for something
itself
is possible
God
that
be continued.
may the
that it
is
not the two other
alongside
an effect
it is incorrect,
else,
something
Life.
the other
it way
terms
the possibility
His
of
be necessary
of the living
Him.
Similarly
10.
The word translation.
the question
aY sihu,
has
upon to concede
to affirm
it
it
should
in
make
to dispense
meaning,
33
that
with
for
His being
Life,
as they
it does not require hypostases.
is the Father
them,
so it
is required
requires
endless
which
can be put against
no
attribute
of His being Life,
(being),
it thus would be necessary and
this
living,
being
In terms
person.
would
so that
forced are
they
things,
So in
it.
In this
can be living,
Life
maintained
Himself
must
mentioned
is living.
of their
the
be living
it to create
reason
for a living
require
so that
it is
else be knowing.
somebody
itself
this
hypostases,
of
argue:
upon to admit
argue:
a cause
for
it is impossible else, thing.
They might
Life
They
is only the Father
They might
the
we have
or Life
is the repudiation way
In this
hypostases.
living
living
hypostases.
Life
without
without
one of them,
is repudiated.
then they are forced
Deity.
itself
He is living
that
be
two in terms
these
what
upon is that
would
is without
that
doctrine
their
which
between
is correct
they have to say that
either
hypostases
it
Then that
it,
(person)
of a living
is agreed
which
understand
is no difference
if some aspects
and requires
the
as we
There
imperfection.
necessary
the evidence,
regarding
and Power.
certainly
admit
of the
Life
which
It would
being
Life
is other
in
than
when they argued:
has been
dropped
from
the
"That
knowledge
They
are forced
would deity
that
whoever
be God.
In this
is one substance
Their
argument
the
of their
to admit doctrine
that that
he the
the
argument
is the deity
apart
that
requires
from
of them
each
must be a deity.
insofar
Each must
is
as what
So they have to say
attributes.
hypostases.
of three
action)
Kulläbiyya, of
of them
be living
should
be
and having
In this way, they are abandoning
argue:
The action
of three
Because
it
The answer
that
affirming to affirming
They might
one action
one of them
that
the action is different
can be an action
may do it and another
for
more
leave it.
than
one
We mentioned
of each of them from
would be different
from
his fellow
as
his fellow.
argue: is an action
is three. only of one who
is:
is no difference
There
that
earlier.
each of them
The action
is only one, it does not need to affirm
one agent.
is impossible
its invalidity
They might
is
argument)
is:
agent it follows
It follows
4Abd (i. e. al-Jabbär's so that your
when the action
but rather
agents,
The answer
is one action
because
not necessary
Every
they are forced
if
because
own doctrine.
They might
three
it.
(hypostases)
active
is the
hypostases.
be like
and also each of them
power
or the Knowledge
to repeat
is a repudiation
there
way,
is (the
obligation
of three
the affirmation
of three
would
action Its
active.
So it is pointless
is acts a human being,
to the attributes
subject
their
to admit
hypostases
of the two other
of the two hypostases.
they argue
that
is the life
the Life
that
between
it is an action
affirming
that
it
is an action
of one who acts who is three
in reality
of three
and
in addition
the act to them.
argue:
one of them
is acting
with
the others
in reality.
34
and not every
is them one of acting
The answer Haven't
is:
you said they
are three
if as one of them
just
who are acting
was acting
the other?
with
They might Every
reply: is part
one of the three
The answer
they
(i. e. the Living
who is acting.
division.
to
of the actor
part
because
Deity),
as it would
the deity
subject
being
the action
is impossible
action
is
Life
that
concede
of him
part
of dividing
the possibility
of
possibility
are one actor.
is:
This requires that
of them
and the three
of the actor
for
would
the
require of life
the possibility
Him
also be impossible
It
It also requires
to be acting
being
and not
for him to be living
an
and not
Life.
are forced
They
to admit
and yet not Him.
They
there
is no fourth
from
God.
their
doctrine
who affirmed
If they
along with
is different
must
not the Life
Him (God) Knowledge
from that
affirm
by the argument
was living,
Life
that
conceded
They
Creator
be the only
be repudiated
would that
it.
about
is a part
Life
to say that
Life
that
admit
must
position
God would
it is impossible
that
of Him because
Him,
is different
Life
and Knowledge. we discussed
which
and Power
Now of those
are eternal.
they would be acknowledging
the unity
of
God.
It is correct that
argument
say that
caused there
affirms
which
He is a Father
was caused
God.
Since,
and an agent
in Eternity,
becomes
is no contradiction
the same is the case with
forced are
virtue
fact of
if they held any such argument
to admit that
He is active
that
to be and the Father
They
is part of God or Life
is God or they
would
Christianity.
have to abandon
The
from
it is different
that Life
the argument
to repudiate
an agent
between
it is reasonable
because became
forces also
in eternity
a Father through
through that.
Him being a Father
to say that it, just
them
the Son
as an action
Since according
to
is
to them
for Son all eternity, and a
Him being an agent.
that
He is a subject
He is a changing
body
is He caused. and
35
'ism)
to division which
into
three
is subject
divisions
to differences
by
They
also forced
to admit
and exist
because
said that
the Eternal
are eternal
and exist
there
would
He be living
same way that Son, because
just
it is necessary
Concerning
it
Because Kulläbiyya
According
repudiated
and because
from
the other.
insofar
Father
substance
of
If
this
the
was
this is because
along
its contradiction over
predominance11 possible longer
a thing
sure
whether
They
for
the Father
would
the same, any reason
11.
would
differences
because, which
with
only
if
they
If
be like
that
or) non-being
of the
Him,
that
this
because
it
the be
would
of
a
(Son's) his of
in its substance
of something
is to give the attribute it
would
also
be
This would mean they were no the
Father
Son,
and
even though
the
and
the
Father.
are different,
them to be different
36
though
of Father,
which
the hypostases
it as "al-räji4a".
if it
Otherwise, even
was possible,
the (hypostases)
argued
of
for the Son to cease being and
would be the same as that
We read it and translated
to (Him).
to all the attributes
to its attribute
regard
they
is one
substance
cease being an Eternal
would require
that
hypostases
from
an equivalent
substance.
that
so
distinguishes
what
three
of
different
would
to affirm
(being
have to admit
for their cause
substance
to cease being its substance. the
about
its
and a
doctrine
the
which
describe
they
as the
same
it
case,
by
way
to cease being a Father
substance; with
same
is the same as the Father's.
Son was
the
Son is the
the
for the Father
possible Son.
that
been explained
the Son is entitled
that
admit
the
"the
that
as His substance
be possible
would
doctrine
in the
a Spirit
and they are not what is attributed
has been
their
and non-
and being everlasting,
has already
in
" they must
substance,
it
and Life,
repudiated
to
caused
it is cause, necessary
in eternity,
be
each hypostasis
(in such a
and living.
they are attributes
will
being
requires
hypostases)
because
it being through
without
As they
which
(three
they
and exists,
without
His existing
He be knowing
Knowledge
say that
cannot
and knowing
as it decrees
that
His
He exists
that
argued
to deny that
(the Father) of
be the affirmation
(ma"nä).
of an element
is Eternal
the Father
while
Since they
existent.
for them
be correct not
be Eternal
must
an attribute
because
and living
is knowing
it will
requires
which
of an element
an attribute,
denial)
hypostases these of one each
that
required
were
different
them
to be
without
it would be impossible.
They might That
the
this
would
argue:
i
hypostases
different
they
must
of their
in substantiality
the doctrine
admit
do not
and Jacobites
for them
it is possible
they
was one substance,
substance
The Melkites
(a än) and substances,
entities
they would have to be different
in hypostasy.
they say that
if their
that,
necessitate
Otherwise,
same.
because
differed
to be different
from
that
they are different
that
the son would
as they were this
maintain
when
Therefore
one aspect.
from
be the
by which
the aspect
they are the same.
1.
are forced
They
to admit
the son is the same as the substance
2.
are forced
They
of imperfection.
absence
attribute
hypostases
is it possible
the hypostases
would
to say that
the
from
(substance)
being
the same as the substance
contradicts,
them
(hypostases)
from
are the same
substance
if
Furthermore, from
different
hypostases
the
them,
three,
are
then they need to affirm
their
doctrine.
If they
to one of them,
they
contradict
their
else itself.
They three,
This
them.
would
require
claim
argument that
that
they
that
one thing
be
them,
the substance
although
these
(hypostases)
being different
from
not being different (hypostases).
the
made
the fourth
from
should from
that
them
they
and
they
When the
the substance
from
to it.
And how could it
reality,
in reality?
being different
have abandoned
from
the (substance).
these (hypostases)
then it must contradict
and the substance
it
is different
in
is
the Fatherhood
from
Why is it not conceded
as it
(hypostases)
different substance
from
the
requires
is different
substance
(hypostases)
them
which
to say that
the
are not
are not different
different
be
that
to them,
according
being a Son is contrary
otherwise
When is it conceded?
be reasonable?
of
the Son should be Father,
that
It is incorrect
hypostases
though
even
because,
and one of things
is necessary
doctrine
Melkites
the
to
How
while
it
and Divinity,
of perfection
regard
asked:
Then
of deity
He would be incomplete.
otherwise
With
the Son as Father
to affirm
since substance
of the Father.
is one of the attributes
Fatherhood
be Father,
one. refer
In this way they by the substance
the substance would
substance
is something
be different
from
This is irrational.
cannot because
claim that
that
the substance
is impossible
is not a fourth,
to judge 37
while
as we mentioned
it is not one of the before.
There
is no
difference
between
saying
and between
not one of them,
from
it is different
saying that
fourth,
it and is not
from
is different
that
and yet
is it one and
them
of them.
Furthermore,
God must be the substance
be the hypostases
is different
the substance Father,
they claim
the Father,
adores disbelieve
because This
these
would
However
are forced
to admit
are not God.
Therefore
whoever
God Himself
that
Holy
of
Spirit,
Christianity
not
which
has
be wrong,
would
the God.
are not
inclination
and
does
doctrine your
that
to the God, they
are added
an abandonment
them
is substance
this would require
Son and the
the
in
disbelieves
who
say that
which
doctrine12
this
that
"three
saying,
requiriLJ
the
towards
and something
something
else
difference
is
the it
Furthermore
It
three.
are
It
same.
would
"three
" else.
require
would the
and one are not
would
also
require
that
one not
would
countable
This would
the
same
as
that
three
things
to
affirm
and
deny
makes
one.
through
the
should
be a
that
require
require
1).
" else, was
and nothing
This
would
three
(3 is +1= one and one
three
saying
someone
that
to admit
them
they have to say that
Rather
necessitate
and
one
increase
and
of numbers.
addition
to
According substance is not
and
If they say that
of Kulläbiyya.
doctrine
four.
they
Father,
things
are
be
God,
they should be told
God is the
the
If
Spirit
because
they
and the hypostases),
adore
in the deity.
hypostases,
three
not
hypostases.
of three
the eternal
doctrine,
their
the
God is the
that
to admit
be abandoning
is one substance
to them
to exclude
If they say that
they are forced
the Son and the Holy
does
them
Divinity.
and this would
(the substance
is both
from
Spirit
(the
of them
and according
forced are
they
or He must
be both
or He must
the hypostases,
the substance,
the deity
that
the deity
that
from
is not the deity,
substance
their
because,
a substance
hypostases
Z.
from
apart
the hypostases
If God is the substance,
the Son and the Holy
hypostases
must
apart
apart
the substance
and the hypostases).
substance
that
from
from
affirm
are
the
two
doctrines,
exist
substance substances
(God is one substance
is required
the hypostases
that
to them it is not correct
according can
it
by
itself.
and the that
which
Therefore substance
would
has three 38
be
the
to affirm they
is another deity.
hypostases)
that
must
that
say
which
that
They
substance. In this
way
the
it
is a
contradiction (substances) of them
Christianity.
of
hypostas.
are different,
The
of
one
the doctrine
If a proponent
from
becomes
It will
that
also be invalidated
through
in the context
place which
demonstrates argument
According speech
to this
has another
Furthermore,
since
them,
why should
Father.
Indeed
is life,
the
word
speech
knowledge,
is not
became
which
speech
invalidate
will
the speaker and speech
is a created
forced
them
be a Father
motion
separated
with
total
from
and that
for it (word)
more appropriate
the speaker
an
ignorance.
to admit
and tranquility
took
This
forward
put
It
category,
creation.
they
can
speaker
when it
rational
requires
themselves
would
that
only
in time.
speech,
Whenever
scholars
it be more appropriate the Father
that
be called
doctrine.
early
that
speech,
affirmed 15 and creator.
agent
our
speech
only
that
they associate
method,
they
which
13.
this view,
This
substance.
mentioned
Then it would be from
this
of
that
would
from
separated
other
he produces
that
require
speech
the invalidity
against
two
eternals.
That would stop him being an eternal
of sequence.
be
cannot
the
by what confirms
of the fact
that
to
we have already
then what
only be an activity of a speaker. 14 a'"A Father and would explains
the
are
the Son is the Word and Speech in reality
that
argues
by virtue
speaker
asked,
two different
to affirm
is different 13
them
of Dualism.
them
are forced
they
of
and he is not Knowledge, his argument.
be
could
s not the other?
If they say they substance
they
If they say, they are the same, why did one
the same or different?
become
resembles
Then
that
His
the speech
and it
is the
according
to be a Son rather among us, because
to
than a through
The term is applied to a system of thought according to which there exists the religious dualism which is ordinarily two Gods. Here is it particularly to be the Chief Characteristic of the Zoroastrian considered religion. God is Ahura Muzda, According to them, the Supreme conceived as to him is Ausa Mainyu (the destroying good and in opposition essentially 111. Encyclopedia V, P. Religion Ethics, of spirit). and vol.
God as an eternally does not accept 14.4Abd al-Jabbär as a Muqazilite God The same arguments, with an eternal speaking uncreated word. although not stated apply also to begetter and Father. 15.
'Abd is extremely This argument What elliptical. al-Jabbär's seems to be is that there is an unending chain of speech and life etc, if you implying define the Son as the Word of God, then as God, he would need another Word of God etc.
39
being
a Father,
(Father)
was not,
proceed
the
Him the Son existed.
of the Son, through
He is the origin
the Son would not be.
According
Son, so why did he become
to be a Father
appropriate
more
does not
the Father
to them,
If He
than
the Son?
If
we
hypostases ;I Jct.,.I,.o while He is one substance because things must have substance or accident (fill) is possible from accident, (it is required), that the Deity must activity so one of their
be substance. body.
said,
proponents
without
body.
physical or
preference
of
power
he
So
speaking. discrimination
and living
it
If
substance
not
speaking
and living.
life
speaking
and living
speech)
must be from
the substance
because
He is Eternal
not Created.
They
argued
be the Spirit
Sometimes offspring
it is necessary
further
and the other that
itself,
Thus
Now He must
substance. life
and speaking
it is required
that
every
it is confirmed
that
He is
is required
that
(life
both
to be the Father,
and
in Him,
because they are not created
for the substance
say that cannot
Life
would
as Life
offspring
if
and it
is also necessary
we said, Father,
Son and Holy
So it is that
He
Spirit.
Word. Speech the Son the and as and
to this is: the argument (yajib)
one kind can produce
Then He would be incomplete.
do that.
So for this purpose
And we make the Spirit
is of two kinds,
the living
can produce
Deity
be the Father.
The answer
and speech.
having
as
and Speech would be the Word whom they call the Son.
they
necessary would
cjthen
with
It
and non-
speaking
described
having
then
Therefore
into
or
So we have
actions.
He must be speaking.
and speaking
He is a substance,
must be
so the Deity
be
cannot
He is a substance,
because
be speaking
of
divided
it is required
is without
The dead have no choice
power
can be further
He is a living
that
is so because
would
or dead. or
Therefore
and wisdom.
and speaking
power.
is
(2) one which
and being assembled,
discrimination
who
it has been confirmed be living
to division
to be three
there
(1) body,
kinds;
He must be living
Him as living
confirmed
is two
The substance
The body is subject
have claimed
(iýtibär)
which
you have put
forward
be an entity
would (ma_'lüm
only
be acceptable
16.
4Abd is described by many Christian This argument quoted by al-Jabbär, (Cheikho, in Sharh Vingt as one can see al-Nasraniyya al-'Agida scholars, PP. 3-4) and by Paul of Sidon (Ibid., PP. 20,25,49,55) Traites, and by Elias of Nisibis, (Cheikho, Trois Traites, PP. 31-33) and 'Afif b. Mu'ammil (Ibid., PP. 75-76).
the only
thing
40
which
could
that
which
that
God is not a substance
based
can be known)
this problem (physical)
because
he is not subject
is possibly were
something
substance
if%opposite
of that
was affirmed,
for
His
would
which through
part
affirmed
(relying
without
if
substance, substance
quality that
life
quality. simply
because
17.
substance
that
and speech For
if
itself.
they they
would
are
speech later
by Life invalidate
become
are two special
instead
qualities,
of minhä 41
to same
be
of
of
for Him. the
substance
because
possible to their
same cannot
be affirmed
it would
Speech
be possible
because They qualities
qualities
Then He
because
on basis of their
argument.
such
of men's need for it.
and
that
that
does not
if He could
the
of
He must be
He is) speaking.
Life
special
part
reasoning
whoever
as a result
special
elements
possible for something 17 them as living of one of
and Speech their
(ma'äni)
of speech and life
that
have to be like
and
seeing
is an affirmation
and Speech),
by
Characterised will
be in the same
there
Otherwise
(affirming
to
them
requires
He would
because
(Life
because
all
required
According
without
living, and
is only
be
not
would have only become
We read it minhumä
that
the existence
and deficient.
had not
He is not
that
hearing,
is of the That
would
and delivering
is
to affirm
be (such) for
and beneficient
generous
is Characterised
(khässa),
evidence,
way
whatever
Therefore
substance
substance
every
speech
on) these two attributes
be speaking
However,
it.
He is living,
that
to affirm
without
all
He would
and
for
be a miser
would
qualities,
might
the
as Eternal
HiS Own will
powerful,
be its own substance.
would
substance
If
from
of
since you
be incomplete,
In this
because
(hukm)
have need of a cause is different
because
they have confirmed
life
is impossible,
substance)
and accident,
is right
He would
that
what
the
body that He
you must maintain
He must be speaking
that
attributes.
like
(that
doctrine
(physical) a
since it is not possible
these
carry
is without
it
then
eternal,
substantiality,
hypostases
numerous Their
existing
This requires,
perceiving. manner
is
deity
or
with
evidence.
without
it is required
He
is either
substance
body,
that
that
admit
from
the substance
Therefore
to composition.
you have
that
Him as an agent, having
nor accident
doctrine
the
that
requires
He had no physical
although
which
Your doctrine
else apart
to affirm
allowed
Their
body,
So the basis on which
nor an accident.
is false.
without
or accident.
substance
was either
We have explained
for
it
is
argument.
its of
own special
must,
then,
for a third a third
would require
affirm special
quality
but
the same with
to each special
regard
This would
quality.
of special
an endless number
require
qualities.
According
to
body, because
the substance,
to defectiveness.
Indeed
drinks,
in which
_. Then it is required
substance.
because
to affirm
they are required
for anything
to Him,
regard
having parts and argued . He must be movable, it is like be that, something would nearer not when
have
they
what
that
living
every
that
they
being
was not possible,
affirm
of that
as substance
not
such
with
not be a
would
Him
has
who
the possibility
who eats and be
would
qualities
incomplete.
It is required,
to this
according
a Deity,
because
He
speaking,
because
He was
living
is
living
thing
and speaking
that
argument, and
that
He only
as He
was
only
This requires 11011
a substance.
be Deity
would
just
speaking,
admit
they
the
living
and
that
admission
jinn
so the angels,
became
every
being
and human
would be deities.
Their
it is the necessary
that
argument
knowledgeable
and
knowledgeable
and wise,
knowledge
without
doctrine
Their and
that,
doctrine
Some
of
intermingling
argued
types
of
the
one
is
who
sometimes,
numbers,
two types
because
one
that
is
He
that
He is three
For this argument
two
because
companion,
that
to admit
speaks
and are not
one
in spite
That is a sign of temporal
in number, are
even
because
types
see, al-Kindi,
of
perfect
number
Ris"Ala'Abd 4Z
He
was
two
and the
causation.
consists
of two
then
that
which
brings 18 does not,
does
not
attain
numerical
and whatever
and odd numbers
is more
their
of
species
three
number
do
status.
if
two
of
the
requires
the angels are also
because
substance
and sterile
he who cannot
fathers,
He was a mixture
that
of the number the
a Father
to human beings and have a greater
of two substances.
together
18.
the
is incomplete is
He
that
affirm
marry
never
require
would
of
must be
a speaker
a baby,
while
offspring
They are required
they
argued
that
of
a female
they are superior
it
because
produce
to
is necessary
He has adopted
them
substances,
They
he who cannot
because that
ignorance
his speech,
arranges
would be incomplete.
incomplete
(that)
and wisdom.
it
that
admission
wise
that
therefore
is a matter
consequence
al-Masih,
P. 30.
completeness,
He (God)
is the
that
and
and
that
required
describe
to
numbers
as does the hypostasis has three
would
be nine.
types
of number,
That requires
by Himself
Otherwise,
it
of them
that
This requires
be incomplete
not be a Deity
the
together
two
to
their
according
each one of the hypostases
the all would
that
of the hypostases
if each does not bring
would
This
two kinds of
together
and then the number
is required,
that
requires
brings
by Himself
perfection
and odd numbers.
even
is
So it
numerical
of the Son and of Spirit.
hypostases
each
That
argument.
that
is impossible.
through
together
the Father
them
to admit
brings
which
requires
Father
be characterised
should
number
incomplete as
Him
be incomplete.
would
and the defect
be general
would
to all of them.
Furthermore,
in its hypostasy.
three He
together they
So it is required,
be incomplete
would
in His
two types of numbers.
mentioned,
number
or' the kind
require
Him
incomplete, anything
not as they brings
According
must
and
would
together
must
affirm
numerous
they
must
attach
to Him
This requires
It could
be asked about
Father,
so that
Father
19.
in terms
that
their
He does, not
from
Him
statement
numbers
for
attribute
is more
the deity.
which
that
reproduction,
being
to admit
if
and excellent.
Thus
It is also required
that
is attested
to be praiseworthy
is assembled,
it is required
so that
is
that
Therefore,
complete.
of
would This
eternal. them
bring
kinds
in Him
that
tall
He may
and wide.
He should
"Why did you not say that 19
that
to what
two
of that
perfect
He had a body that
doctrine,
is contrary
together
requires
then it is more
He may not be imperfect. of sexual
because
the establishment
hypostases
every
argumentation
to us, the defect
prevent
two
the odd and even in it are more,
and perfect.
for
it is
to their
when He brings
exist
Their
claimed.
they
according
substantiability,
is even,
which
created
which
it
because
is not three in its substantiality,
the deity
to them,
according
not
be a
He is the
be imperfect
is Christian here be What 'Abd al-Jabbär the to seems referring concept in detail Wolfson has discussed the mystery of generation of generation. (see his book "The Philosophy He pp. Z87-304). of Church Fathers, "That they felt at explanation, still, despite all their attempts concludes: It is a unique event, a mystery that generation cannot be explained. " kind in the of creation or generation world. unlike any other "So Irenaeus says: He further supports his idea by some church Fathers: "If anyone, therefore, by the says to us, - "How was the Son emitted him, Father" to that emission, that no man understands we reply or or utterance or manifestation, or by whatever name one may generation, describe His generation, which is in fact indescribable.
43
because
only
mentioned, which
fatherhood
is irrational.
which
a female
can adopt
We have discussed
it, while
If they
the birth
argue
the Word
that
rejecting
they
admit
that
you
He is a body,
as one of ours can.
and can procreate has reached
that
one
point
We
Christianity.
about
anthromorphism.
of the son from
is as the production
the Father
of
heat fire from fire light the the the and of reason and of : 20 it the sun,, would be said to them that the Word is not produced because
through
the reason,
person
and sometimes
the one who is doing
is reason,
you meant
it,
not
when it refers
acquired
through
a reason
possible
with
knowledge
because
regard
can be uttered
one who may possess reason
produced
knowledge,
to necessary and whatever
the intelligent
cannot
knowledge
through
by being
by Word he meant
saying,
it
sometimes,
is only possible
Word arrangement
itself
whoever
that
the
not
through
the sun from
argued
It requires
companion
to argue with
are not going
negate
could
imperfection
that
by an unreasonable produce
one word.
by means of selection
by the reason.
by
If a Christian
it should be argued that knowledge 21 knowledge. On the other hand, if is similar,
person
is free
then it is not produced from
that
and that
is
to him.
He quoted Basil who had the same theory. "That the substance of the Father did not generate the son" by fluxion or forth shoots, as plants put forth their fruits on the contrary, by putting is ineffable inconceivable to the the method of divine and generation human mind. " and finally he mentioned that the statement of John of "that no other generation is like the generation Damascus: of the Son of God" and "that the nature of the generation and procession is quite beyond " comprehension. Wolfson, 20. 21.
The Philosophy
of the Church
Fathers, P. 304.
For this analogy see the description scholars, Cheikho, Vingt of Christian Traites, PP. 2,5,14,21 and 42. lm al--darüri (necessary knowledge) but Peters did not knowledge', it as 'immediate Some scholars translated Because we see that translation. agree and said, that it is not a correct i. e., direct or immediate has divided it into two categories, Abd al-Jabbär it it better be indirect knowledge. translate So to as necessary would and knowledge. in the defines it as "necessary knowledge McDermott which is established on the subject's part and which the subject cannot mind through no effort film "knowledge doubt or deny". On the other hands that is as al-muktasab by listening to revelation either or by the subject's acquired own " reasoning. Dictionary terms, Vol. I, P. 880. of technical Peters, God's Created Speech, PP. 53-55. The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufid, McDermott, PP. 66-67. 44
The
that
reason (tanäsul) is because
from
the denial
The production
of the heat of the fire
heat of the fire
is produced
substance
heat is produced being
the substance) heat
was produced
that
a thing
doctrine
the
of
be said
from only
to them,
in terms
it is required
fire as a
heat
it
is produced
is possible about
for
by another
have
something
consequence light; else.
not In this
of them (i. e.
of it
from
is
there
hand,
On the other
in it,
not
So it is required
that
you
that
with
of
which
which
is no difference
and body
of its polished is on it.
a quality
are two the
mentioning
However,
atoms)
because
they
the sun (can be
from
we have described.
something
It
of the heat
of light
has such
the
Father,
Him
affirm
him.
to dispense
by the light
a body
there
situation
it.
composed
characterised t when
from
Similarly
is the same kind. "
you first
the production
entity
that
every
as if you said that
heat.
the Father
a physical 23 body. The sun has light
of its being
is just
having
that
them
(ajsäm;
a necessary
that
if the
that
but in terms
on the basis of fact
a body
i. e.,
because,
If a proponent
is an affirmation
and Son at the same time
The argument
and because
of heat.
as it
of the son from
in the same way as the argument
23.
of the
be among
only
would
then it is required
be answered:
treated)
22.
in terms
is not possible,
its substance
not through
be understood,
that
the
Therefore
produced
fire,
He has a Son who is generated
that
Father
generation.
would
Son) being
and the substance, or from heat only. It requires 22 itself. If they argue "that we mean by that that
of something
we claim
origins.
heat
from
of fire
it would
generation
that
affirm
affirm
from
would
the affirmation that
fire",
is produced
fire
being
then
the former
its substance,
through
be in the place
would "that
argues,
should
reproduction
(i. e. the
of Him
of Him being Father
because
reason,
of sexual
things.
created
its
in terms
Father
is requirement
there
necessitate
of the word
generation
being
him
in that
This would
created.
deny
they
light
is not surface
Because
(polished
is
it is
ZZ ace), surf
from produced rho ,, between one/says that was
is that heat and He seems to be arguing that as the Christian argument the fire are the same substance, then it is simply producing itself. 'Abd In order to refute this argument, al-Jabbar has resorted to arguments 'ism) light body described Universe. He has the as a physical which about is here means a collection The too, such a body and only sun, of atoms. Therefore, God can cause atoms to come into existence. the sun does not light. he In his the seems to suggest that the rest of argument produce is is described kind light by the thus that and surface of a sun's reflects light which is reflected that he on it. In this way, he seems to indicate light and sun to be separate entities. understands
45
the
is sun produced
from
the
light
light
its says
or another
that
of their
doctrine
is produced
the sun.
Some of them, the
from
(image
in their
the sun and light,
of)
individual
presentation
(shakhsän)
elements
case
Eternal
the
of
but different
in hypostasy
but different
substantiality impossible,
because
attribute
of the
different
from
light
the
two
and which
(shakhsiyya). the
are
which
That same
in
That
is
(shakhsiyya).
and personality sun is different
the
of
hypostases
being
together
unites
in individuality
is three
who
sun and light
on the
relied
one substance
which
are the same in substantiality is the
have
by using
of the Trinity,
from
the
sun and the
one differs
from the attribute of other, and some parts are Z4 According to them, that is impossible to say parts.
the other
this about the hypostases.
Some of them
argued:
he is one human
Whenever
'
being.
In the
a human being is living, same
and He is one substance.
speaking human
being
through
human
being
he is differentiated when
though
he might
fact
that
what
indicated.
human
being.
as they
was correct
with
regard
and they
them
would
the
although
substance
things,
described, to him
to admit
in reality,
but it
of us is not a complete
part
(to
common
all
is
(khäss)
is a particular each
that
is a substance
substance
had
structure
each one of the hypostases
that
have to admit25
ne thing
the
not exclude
the
a
Even
structure.
it would
was what
and each single
and
He only becomes
through
all animals
living
the human being is not a
mortal.
this description,
through
This requires
not substance
from
being
to structured
because
and being
speaking
be a human
It would not refer
refer
would
his living,
It is wrong,
and mortal,
is existing,
Deity
the
way,
speaking
of
them).
(äm m)
However
what
they
other.
that life only
Z4. Z5.
is required
and description
member In this
So it
which require
inheres
are called in him.
the criterion
of a human being which
they
of the hypostases
is the contradiction
many parts
that
may which
they rely
one living
human
It is the necessary
such
apply
of all that
of being
because
our argument
confirms
maintained
(hukm) to every part
the same criterion the
have
being
a criterion
because
to the other.
he lives
of the parts
occurrence
Z3. For this argument see footnote 'Abd al-Jabbär to them, but he obviously says according hold have this after his argument. to would
to
to every
It is only possible
consequence
a man through
46
we can apply
may be applicable upon.
we apply
to say
through that
a
they
of the numerous
means that
they
parts
of them
that
not possible with
Deity
only became
the Eternal
be argued
that
be described
He should
of His existence
because
substance,
that
would
body.
God is one substance
to say that
because
living
Why have you come
them:
It is
of the substances.
parts
a special
and created
against
appropriate
in
structured
Him to be a physical
It could
than
are structured
by being
others
require
more
which
in numerous
as three
to a point
it is not
that
hypostases
of three
rather
of one hypostasis.
substances
They
in terms of being hypostases are different 26 but are the same in the substantiality. It would be argued against them: Why might
do you not say that insofar
"one substance"
means I only
statement
about
it is their
doctrine,
substance
in reality. that
say that
It
that
that
(nature)
expressions
before,
the Son is united
with
was one thing
and a human
Christ
Then his
of the Christians,
because
hypostases
three
as one is
of the Christians
the Son by the
characterise
then it is not possible
in reality
and
I mentioned.
to affirm
and they
living
eternal,
doctrines the of one
that
explains
is united
the doctrine
"three
and my saying
what
That
that
description
these
as we mentioned
doctrine
is their
I mean by my saying
by His being
contradicts
but the same
of substantiality,
He is characterised
his meaning
which
in terms
Those of them who argue:
mean through
If the Eternal
union.
are different
He is one in absolute
that
speaking.
the view
they
are hypostases?
as they
hypostases"
hypostases
Because
answer:
for them
to
is not the one who unites.
the
union
(nature),
makes
Christ
or He became
of two
one after
substances,
divine a
each one of that
had
been one substance.
So all that Christian
Although scholars,
explains
that
he (such an opponent)
what
said is far
away from
the
doctrine.
we
have
narrated
this
they do not escape from
type
of
the fact
doctrine that
they
from
some
are wrong
of
their
early
in this argument
in two aspects.
One of them
26.
is to apply
these
nouns
to Him
in the classical
Arabic
I in his debate with Caliph Mahdi It is explained by Timothy Trois Traites PP. 6-7 and Yahya b. eAdi, Magälat, PP. 36-37.
47
language.
(see Cheikho,
According
to the shari'a,
Him
Eternal,
being
Powerful,
it is shocking.
living
perceiving,
That
and speaking. hearing
willing,
they limited
Secondly,
His attributes
the denial
requires
and seeing.
being
of Him
This is unbelief
to
on the part
of
in terms
of
those who said that.
As for
those
adoption
that who maintain Z? first of all this
of them
and respect,
the Eternal
Father.
of Christ.
have a Son in reality it falls as
into
of living
a dead body can adopt
that
may adopt
person calf
a very
or a young camel
Zayd
he
that
him, because
respects
of that
adopt
manner
as a son in educating,
the son and the father. how
However,
this argument
His
anything
which
the others
said that
He adopts
say that
He takes
that
doctrine
their
other
brotherhood that
with
He is Father
that
and rules
will
to this
adopt
a
about and
one whom he
him in the same to
are related
the Eternal
one.
him as son?
that he be
each one of the prophets, be no distinction
The human
another
a young
he exalts
which
regarding
that it
our saying
that
he treats
to believe,
So there
according
between
by that
He adopted
do not have.
it is not possible
it is impossible
statement
association
There
in reality. some
of that,
for one of us to respect
regarding
as he adopts
to brotherhood
similar
requires
to one who can
In the same way he cannot
be intended
special
of adoption.
as brother
somebody
our
it is possible
said that
could(be
son in terms
or
That is impossible
Therefore
His creation
It is also impossible
is no similarity
There
It would
as a son.
cannot
He is
that
during
regard
one as a son because
old man as a son.
somebody,
with
Because
it is dead.
while
as a son.
adopts
beings.
a living
could have a son in reality
argument
their
to one who can be born like him and insofar
regard
the category
invalidates
is only possible
of adoption
or with
of Christ
that He would be His Father
It requires
The meaning
He is the Father
Christ
being sometimes
in terms
of
respect
is no difference meaning,
the other.
for
associates
Since it is invalid,
and has a Son, is not possible
is
and what
between
and between
with
one who
others
who
it confirms according
to
this aspect.
On the other Abraham
27.
hand,
is a friend
those
who maintained:
that
since
of God, so why is it not correct
it is correct to say that
to say that Christ
is His
is attributed Such doctrine toward Photinus, Paul of Somosata and Paul Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 87, and Vingt Traites, P. 36. see al-Masisi,
48
son not
through
scholar
Abt
the reality
Ali
Abraham
about
(specially being
he is a friend
Characteristic Abraham
with
giving
He did not distinguish
which
"Friend
be called
This analogy
of God, because
from
is a friend
your master
from
refrained
anyone
all
the special his
of
people
distinguished
character time,
Abraham
in terms
person
In terms
khalil
friend, which
They might
a friend will
else.
whom
unless
ask:
because
he
The needy
He distinguished
him
someone
the
of
mission.
apart
from
for
Qu? än, although
as a friend.
by that
through
what Because
everybody
that
in that
the
he was a is more
It
because
or necessity,
needs
is
which
its significance
So it is a metaphorical
person
of had
He
him
to the angels.
love of
way
the rest
Furthermore,
his sweetheart
he has adopted
do not characterise
as a friend
a nickname
to both cases so it could not be said that
is His
wealth
somebody
friend a needs apply
If
meaning
distinguishes
the lover
of that,
hardly
things
the
He
Moses was distinguished
apply in both (God and Abraham).
distinguish
not
giving
khalil
but
to one of them in that
God has spoken
by God, although
said:
Do you not understand
use of names
(books).
also to other
than
hardly
will
by this
"If I
God. of
message.
and it became
and honour
friend
himself
place
of the usage of the name.
addressed
appropriate
the
convey
that,
with
Qu? in had characterised can be applied
to
friend
as a friend,
Abü Bakr
God had given him,
which
he may
that
by being
and explanation
to give a special
in a way in
him honour
our prophet
community
in his communication
He set
of God".
of that
or called
his
among
So since
else.
by inspiration
have taken
then I would
it was not possible
Therefore
possible
people.
with
it is possible
was characterised
of God so he named
taking them
encompassed
because
a friend,
to take
was going
other
a special
"Friend
Because
a
him
would be characterised
every prophet
each one of them
was absent
which
that
Istifä
a human
and giving
So he names himself
from
It is said about
anybody
else in his time,
anybody
of God".
requires
him revelation
God is possible
is taken
he associated when
he does not associate
Our venerable
with
(friendship)
association).
of the other
which
through
apart
(special
and Ikhtisäs
(friend)
khalil of
khullah
because
in reality,
chosen)
that
the
of sonship,
The mentioning
said:
of honour?
but in terms
that
expression. he does
which
is needed, as a of that
it will
whom he loves
His prophethood
and other
else.
Is;'not as the poet said -
comes
one day
not be absent
to see him
(from
to ask for
you) or prohibited
49
something,
(to you).
he will
say my
So he characterised
him through
The lexicographers
explained
is taken
from
is taken
from
meaning
in both?
The answer
khallah
We only claimed
it was a metaphor
by being
characterised
a friend
or he showed
love a
distinguished
by Him
of God which
a proper
noun for him.
sonship,
because
the real
the Father, that
required the terms
Abt of
sincerity
through being
28.
thrown
into
him
from
are excluded
to enter
his devotion,
Christ
God
and
God. himself 10b
and his state,
the
fire,
through
attempt
of time,
Then the name to
regard
about
God.
of It is
as Son of God in
of God.
was not friend
friendship,
through
because
he showed
to
because
brotherhood
was friend
no one experienced his
no one
it must be the offspring
Abraham
because
was
else, or he was
may be characterised
He (Abraham)
to God, which
what
period
anyone
be imagined
as a friend
it
meaning,
to say the same with
cannot
and said that
replied
between
he caused
which
It
who was described
al-Jähiz28
a friendship
that
he showed
else was characterised.
of the son is that
matters.
Abraham
that
to God in that
he did not show for
his sperm.
it is impossible
of Abraham
ýJthmän
his devotion
It is not possible
meaning
from
existing
because
then it
be a literal
there
to these two
it is required
it
then
is love,
if it was its real
not that,
in a way nobody
became
If its meaning
So why cannot
of God either
show of, his need through
else could
is need/needed,
its application
is because
This
our opinion.
khalil
on the khä.
we did not disapprove
that
disprove
would
if the meaning
dam ma on the khä.
with
is that,
that
the fatha
with
khullah
this need.
before
him,
sacrifice
his
and
friendship his need
through own
his son,
'Amr luthmän b. bahr al-Jähiz was one of the greatest Arabic authors Abil He was a Mu'ttizili of all time. and politico-religious polemiý; st. Born at Muftazili He belonged to Bari Basra about 160 AH/776 AD. He group. for long in Baghdad and won the compliments time a stayed of ai-Mämün. He died in 255 AH/868-9AD. knowledge is amazing. His encyclopedic J. Finkel mentions that Risäla Fi 4alä al-Nisärä al-Radd was written at the express wish of the court, because he had been in close association According with the Christians. to J. Finkel, this work is merely a propagandist although pamphlet, no to the vital feathers of the problems, no work other work goes so directly has such a potentially deadly effect.
E. I.
2
vol. II, PP. 385-7.
J. Finkel,
A Risäla
of al-Jähiz,
J. A. O. S. Vol. XLVII,
50
P. 316.
through
his giving
treated
him,
through
his leaving
into
his homeland
relationship
the Kaaba is called Mecca
are called
the she-camel
fire",
as He said,
of God. Khßlid
As it
the Qur'än
Hamza
Mary
of
distinction, sonship,
because
compassionate
a baby,
associate
and then
Spirit
known
to a young puppy,
it a son and he cannot he adopts
called
it is well
in the curse
For this reason
as is usually in
body
and
was
countries,
good or evil
through
as of
and as
or reward
Christ
of God and His is the month
of God and about was described
the sperm
as
(seed) of men,
God created
the case.
and
in the
Because of that a miraculous way. 29 That cannot be applied to of God.
by everyone
it to himself of ter
if
of us that
and then looked
looks
him
The same is the case for
he was the lion
the souls are created
a spirit
Christ
that
of God.
when it is put in the womb of woman womb
him
and resting-
as the people
is the Book of God and al-Muharram
was said about
of God, because
Spirit
from
whether
and
among the prophets
in other
of God.
death
God brought
temples,
all the people
and
country
of God.
the other
"leave say,
the Arabs
he was the sword
that
friend
the she-camel
God has magnified
Similarly
punishment.
of God among
life
to another
him His friend
of God among
temple
in
parents
and emigration
and named
of Sälh is called
that
everything
Himself
people
of
these hardships
through
with
his
the way his people
through
as a charity,
his renunciation
through
so he became
place,
his property
away
after
father. as a
him,
each one of us is
it, it is incorrect
to call
On the other
hand, if
it is possible
to call
him
a son,
because it is similar (person) could be born to to his own son and a similar 30 him. Since it is not possible (to use the term Son) for someone who has body like
another
would
but would
be even more
(in be any way) similar not
appropriate
that
such a thing
to a son, if he had a son, it could not be said with regard
to God.
They
29.
30.
might
argue:
Why is it not possible
to say about
Christ
that
He is Son of
'Abd-al-Jabbär
From the beginning of the paragraph, up to this sentence, from al-Raddalä. has quoted this reference by al-Jähiz. It al-Nasärä the seems that he has taken the whole source of information regarding from al-Radd, but with changes and of khalil explanation and khullah leaving It is obvious that while a few lines and adding few sentences. dictating this chapter he had a copy of al-Radd'alä For details al-Nasärä. 'alä hiz J 30-32. PP. al-Radd see al-Nasärä, 'alä This is another from P. 30 without reference al-Radd al-Nasärä It is quite strange that the argument the source. mentioning stated by 'Abd is the original the al-Jabbär, argument against of al-Nazzäm 'Abd Christians it it. But then as al-Jähiz mentioned and criticised alit without any reference Jabbär mentioned other than to al-J whiz.
51
ý
ý
.ý 5co
ý3
God because
He distinguished
The
is that:
answer
him without
created
They
The same is the
might
did not
a man as father
distinguish
anyone
with
Christ
He
with
which
He
to describe
Christ
as
as mother.
with
an upbringing
it is possible
Therefore
else.
because
to Adam
regard
and a woman
He distinguished
argue:
case
father? a man as
Him without
Him and created
His Son.
The answer
is:
God, in the sense that Because
them.
food and drink
the
rest
in His heaven
it
and dispensed
is possible in
appropriate depending
Our
the
case
of
scholars
metaphorically
with
of the fact
method
Adam.
His
All
used analogically,
then
will
it.
sonship
to someone
he is a human
cannot it would
gained
from
cannot
be used analogically?
most
He created
that
that
would
invalidate
what
being.
the same species,
such an old man.
They
be
him
more
they
to the Eternal.
be incorrect
in this place,
are
because
(further)
and no advantage
it is son", quite
it is incorrect
explained
that
of his son, by
If the metaphor
that
that
reality
not be used
expressed
when we know very well that
They have explained
in
applied
It could
(further)
be applied
So how is it possible
They
be
cannot
who could take the place
to an old man, "My son, and oh my little
31.
be the
would
him
after
and He settled 31 with regard to Adam.
by him on the basis of reason.
regard
that
of metaphor
he is from
Christ
up by mother
Son,
these
that
explained
to who is begotten
virtue
is
them
and giving
who looked
him by the fact
are more amazing
Christ
and fed
to anyone.
regard
to God Adam
was applied
up by
upon.
venerable
except
to God with
with him being brought
that
say
of nursing
it was his own mother
So all these facts
to
on the task
He distinguished
were brought
all of them
the means of subsistence
with
apply
that it
If
people.
him in His garden.
If
the fact
case, because
appropriate
them
of taking
concept
from
the
of
He provided
could not correctly
is not excluded like
in all of the prophets,
It exists
that
could be can be
the metaphor
if one of our youth reprehensible, he could
one of us cannot
the
said
although
give birth
to
say of a beast 1a1ä-al-Nasärä
This argument is taken from al-Radd against the Christians by a1-Jähiz (pp. 32-3). But this time tAbd al-Jabbär has presented the in his own words not the exact words of alof the argument summary J4iz as he usually does.
Si
that
it is his son, nor of inorganic bodies
physical
latter
The former
thing.
is dissimilar
with
should not be applied
By depending
Christ
himself
asking his disciples
"Our
Father,
to the essence and
regard
it
that
appropriate
"I am ascending
32
to my Father"
as His Son and God as Father,
to say in their
in heaven,
who art
a beast
of one of us with
with
with
to Him.
regard
describing
of the Eternal
So it is more
is said in the Gospel,
upon what
Christ
and upon
is dissimilar
to attributes.
regard
with
The dissimilarity
than the dissimilarity
is more intense
or an inorganic
bodies.
and upon
prayers,
Hallowed
33
be thy name",
and God's saying
to
David, "A Son will be born to you, who will be named My Son and I would be named His 34 (by depending on all this), they argue that it is necessary Father ", that it be a decision
would
be worshipped
This is wrong,
It
what
from
That
that
correct then
it
aspect
God would
companion
love and
that
friend.
a description,
through
describing
to say that
3Z. 33. 34. 35.
would
Him
He is Father
It
is invalid
of Christ?
which
isolated
it
reports it is
Therefore
God.
If
If it is possible
be correct if
because that
It is incorrect
is conceded
and maternal
would
require
it
it
requires
the Eternal
imperfection. to say that
of my
it
then
through
Him
honouring would
53
the be
to
a
Christ
be created
How is it possible He is uncle
John. 20: 17 Matt. 6: 9 -
from the Bible, but it does not exist It seems a reference The second line does not exist in the Bible.
is
to say that,
Uncle for
God
that
born (Ex. 4: 22) He is the first
of Joseph.
then it also requires in terms
is like
and the Book of Psalms
be paternal
and then
names of God.
about its authenticity.
be Son of
be a grandfather He would
(Son of God) is not
about its authenticity.
is my first 35 him as son.
and respect
through
its position
Gospels
the
this name
of the revealed
mentioned
Israel
Jacob
that
is possible of
they
the Torah,
whom I adopted
requires
as your doctrine
to it and be absolute
"Thus said, says the Lord, creatures
us to name him by it and God should
even though
as we do not know
to adhere
is reported
(Christ),
Arabic
because
ahäd) insofar
not possible
God who ordered
him
through
in classical
well-known
(akhbär
from
in the Bible.
of the
Children
or cousin 36 "You are my brothers".
disciples:
How
it is possible
Christians (5: 18). angels
to say that,
If that
argue:
deduction.
been a correct
is:
The answer
one"
for
its interpretation.
possible
what
in their
is reported
meaning
in their
language,
Deity
and
that
from
it might
Lord,
is
aware
of if it
It is
sonship.
mean that
impossible
be
would
what
that,
it and might
be permissible
although
from
it is
that
and the Gospel,
is different
that
we know
for us to discuss
the Torah
in the sentence
so we are not
When we became
argument.
it have
would
this use of language,
about
sons and it is impossible
then its
is Eternal,
or the Gospel,
It is only necessary
things
or similar
we interpreted
that
in the Torah
was correct 38
God to adopt
by that
was correct,
he would not have denied it.
of Him,
We have no knowledge
to admit
impossible
He
of (Jews and
this phrase
the doctrine of the Arabs when they assumed that the 37 If it was not impossible He denied that. His daughters. to be
They might
that,
while
said to his
He also denied
used as a name and understood
meant
God has denied
Christ
that
in the Qur)än) who said: "We are the sons of God and His beloved
were
forced
fact the of
in terms
of the disciples
in
our
language.
have
Languages
that
maintain
the
aspect
place
in metaphor.
mistake.
36.
37. 38.
to translate
is possible
one word
The one who translated
There
has a real
is no doubt
that
Therefore
that.
one language
aware
sometimes
for another,
in the second language
only
to
regard
to another
which
their
about
meaning
real
is used in its literal
and he must know what
a metaphor
meaning
in the second
in these
books
the
the first
metaphors
from and
may be put
language
language,
be
meaning
may be used in its real meaning, from
we
must
to say about God and what is impossible be fully
He must
and as a metaphor
which
with
conditions
is going
because usage
for one thing
something
what
of reason.
metaphorical
in their
whoever
about
well-versed
different
not into
has made a
are something
Christ to the New Testament, According out his said: "And stretching hand towards his disciples he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers, in heaven is my brother For Whoever does the will of my Father and Matt. 12: 49-50. mother. and sister, See Qu? än when it says: "What has your Lord favoured you with sons and from the angels females". (17: 40). taken to Himself (Cheikho, For Christian viewpoint, see Sharh al-'Agida al-Nasranyya, Vingt Troites, P. 5).
54
is known
that
are mistaken
from
the aspect
It is reported
in their
This would
(John
God. "
words and the change
They
might
"I am ascending
it is in the Gospel:
that
It is said that
and your
the correct 20: 17).
The mistake 39 for rä. (i. e.
the alif
When it is conceded
argue:
is:
answer
Our
him
they as
religion
evidence
of truth light
which
which
as the healing
place
that
is Son of God, by analogy
Word.
In the same way it is said that There
word
son, to him
spirit
and between
God through
39. 40.
in the
analogy
terms
of that,
live
leads as a light it, just
Gabriel between
that
because
he would
him
through exist
of our in their
in their (word),
bodies.
It is just
and a healing,
in terms
through
through
occurs
that,
the
it, just
of that
we could
He is Spirit
is the spirit those
of God and His
and it is not said that
him by the fact father
the he is
that
and brother
in their these all of
For this argument, see Apology of Timothy I. P. 156. Elias of Nisibis has applied this argument and referred Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 35)
in
say that
not
who asked us to apply
be called
a
when
it would have been allowed
that
is
which
need.
which
the meanings
55
guidance
The meaning
It is not necessary
places,
because
get
as the path is known
in religion
behind
purpose
can
kalima
the
of us characterising
our demands
people
(Word).
with
of our phrase
is no difference
He can say in
The
said:
people
the medicine.
evidence,
of the
God proclaims
that
those of U4 who are alive
in the usage in different without
'Ali
own souls that
of it
which
Christ
he is the son.
their
the salvation
any
to my God
quotation
to you that
the Kalima
through
through
as His
as well
).
uJ
God is that
God is that
which
be known
of that
occurs
word is permitted another
describes
Abü
of
through
and your
I
and comparison
would
and in terms
of
the spirit,
and with
speech
Spirit
are living
is an extension
That
like
he is the
for
uI
why do you not allow
through
guidance
Father
in the
occurred
according
scholar Word
as the
as their
that
phrase
venerable
Christ,
characterising through
of the meaning
"I am ascending
is that:
version
is His Word and His Spirit, 40 the Gospel that He is His Son.
The
Persian
to my Father
Him being their
require
Christ
that
through
the ignorance
through
either
method,
Arabic
It
of reason or language.
(John 20: 17).
Father.
interpret
when many of the commentators
they
Father"
(mutashäbihät). in Quroan the passages
intelligible
to the not clearly
similar
of
reality
to the Gospel.
(See
are not possible
with
said metaphorically about
No
regard
human a
that
God as we mentioned
one
can
for that)
also be necessary be the children
you
not
insofar
Adam
that
These meanings
We have
that
in terms
to Abraham,
though about
(before)
explained
It is quite
the believers
all
who took pity
on another
because
him
him
he treated
with
to God.
regard
is possible
with
him
with
and trusting
about the rest of the prophets It is not possible
He did not characterise
(these
they would
of friendship
to Abraham.
regard
(The
him?
that
his father
distinguishing
as son
be His son and it would
would
meaning
him
adopted
are impossible
(to say) that
right
because
Therefore
revelation.
of Him
it is used with
mostly
the real
arguments)
be
else, possible
could look after
It can be said about a person he can be called
it could
is invalid.
in the case of the angels who have no father
of God.
His revelation.
God
that
as nobody
as son in the same manner.
regard
about that
concede
require
would
him as son that
and adopted
So the claim
of mercy,
is that
be a son of someone can
being
before.
did
to the aspect
according reason
Why
say:
by which
to God, nor are the aspects,
them
to say that
knowledge
with
Christ
repudiate
even
being
and the
called
Son of God.
As for
their
him
calling
because
the meaning
physical
body.
or God insofar 'Uthmän 'Abü ,
as there
of God and Holy said:
he cannot
Therefore
Christ
so we have revealed
did not require
it does not require into
breathed meaning
be His spirit All
Trinity
and the
hypostases,
of our bidding" of His command.
the spirit
As for the phrase
to Christ.
(66: 12), this with
him. "
in its real
these (arguments)
Christ.
the Qur)än that
should
rest
of
what
regard
(14: 29).
meaning
to God.
they
It
" (16: 12).
This
what
derived
it, and their
56
My spirit
require
in its real
that
about
in him,
fall
he (Adam)
The same is the case with
we narrated from
of God, "So we
It is as His phrase
does not
or His son.
invalidate
as they have explained
when He
(42: 52) and He
not be understood
"When I have shaped him and breathed before
bowing
Spirit
is called
än Qu? God, in this way the are sons of so or
regard
it is impossible
of Adam,
you down,
with
her our Spirit"
because
the story
would
that
had a
as Gabriel
Spirit
to thee a spirit
Gabriel
that
Christ
words.
(Word)
was called
with
meaning,
He was called
in the same way as He named
Spirit
said "He sends down the angels phrase
through
in its real
Kalima At. him and his pros-y e,' s.
be a speech.
was guidance
said:
is arranged
in its reality
of speech
(al-Jähiz)
"Even
the Word of God, it is incorrect
that
from
as their
application
them
about
the
explanation
of
of analogies
in this
because
matter, mentioned most
their
of
examples
Whoever
invalidity
depend
they
which
of the
that
3- Section
Repudiation
should
of their
doctrine
realise
that
about
reasonable
We have narrated
indicate
the invalidity
as the discussion
doctrine
1. They
would
(arguments)
as doctrines
will
and the
the matter
in
only
is
what
we
from
of what
are in
and what is related
to it.
in
is
engaged
this (their
them
ii LO
comes within
chapter,
refuting not
is impossible
what
to
(now) we will
in general,
doctrines)
what
the bounds of reason and classify
it
allows.
involves about union
may say that
several
the Son is from
points:
of the hypostases
the group
that
united
Christ.
with
2.
about Union
doctrines
their
believe.
Their
hold
they
meaning
these
all
repudiates
detail.
greater
You
external
is no need to pursue
So there
on.
their
considered
Mýj
body,
be a physical
because
and examples,
phrases
the
understand
as evidence
What we
of the expression.
God cannot
that
He was a body.
that
reflect
most
before
interpretations are
of these
Or they
may say that
what
united
with
him is the substance
has three
which
hypostases.
If they
argue
that
the Son has united
Son is a God who is creator, Creator,
Divine
the
Father
with
producer whose
him,
then
or they
and agent
Son is the
they must
Kalima
must
(word)
admit
that
make
God the
apart
from
the
the
Father. Cj
[Their
doctrine
3. They
may say that
Son is will different is what
(united
of Christ
from
I
w
] him) has with many aspects:
(in is the same position) each or the will
each other
(the Christians) we
of Christ
as it was, but the will
is His will
but what one wishes
the other
or their must
wills
of the
are quite
wish, so that
this
mean by union. ýý,
57
L a4JZ,
If the essence
of both of them
of God and the essence of man; or the substance
are as before;
4.
Or they
from
what
the union
may say that
has required
the removal
of their
essences
they were before. ************
in mind (all) that
Bearing
1. They like
may say that
He (the Son) was conjoined
Christ,
with
expressions).
ie, Christ
became
a vessel for Him.
This doctrine
is reported
2. They may say
3.
they would have to give (one of several
They
conjoined
4Z
from
or merged him.
the Son mingled
that
(became
the Son inhered
may say that
incarnate)
not he was
in Him,
him.
with
Those who hold the doctrine the Son inhered
Either
some of them.
41
(incarnation)
of inherence
in all the parts
must maintain,
a
of Christ;
or the Son inhered
part
of him.
************ These (doctrines)
apply whether
would
when He was united
Either
with
him,
that,
they maintained He and Christ
were two
43
substances
and
concerning
the
two essences; or
they
majority
both
one in reality
become
of the Jacobites
that
has been as -
two substances
became
reported
one substance.
************ Those who hold these doctrines when He united
Either Or that
He unites
with
with
is required
to say:
him, He would be united
Him in certain
forever;
circumstances.
************
41. 42. 43.
This is a Nestorian expression about incarnation. We read it an yaqülü. 'Abd This is Here al-Jabbär clearly using dhdt as a synonym for jawhar. is he it jawhar he treats the that way a physical when maintained not being. For detail
see Chapter
II, PP. 110-114.
58
In
the
same
way,
as they believe
requires Either
doctrine
their
He unites
He ceased to from
These
are
the
main
with
him.
with
the
of
of all these,
aspects
rational
about
then we shall repudiate
and what is related
of Christ
the adoration
him as he was;
being united
argument
the refutation
explain
about
Christ
of
and crucifixion
that:
they may say: that
Or that
death
the
We shall
union.
doctrine
their
about
to it.
************ You must realise to them
that
to do what action
which
united
is characterised
for Divine
possible
doctrine
Their
of his divinity
to be manifested
worshipped
the
their
that
their
those
doctrine
1. Their
of
That with
the
it
was
that
him.
would
what
require
we
have
namely:
him, so he is entitled
with
God
do what
is united
which
and because
through
Christ
Son of God and His
is impossible.
this doctrine
Himself,
of
worship
these two aspects,
that that
from
to be worshipped
the aspect
of his humanity.
(hypostasis)
wills
Christ
which
Son or the Substance
As for
Father
divine
that
but
is united,
which
he is entitled
to
be
in the same way as the Father.
doctrine
repudiate
the
not the aspect
Son is
The
requires
action
God united
1. That
Their
is the
on the view that
that
according is able who
being
the Son cannot
that
must say that
Christ
about
through
mentioned
or they
rely
So it is required
to do, then
shows that
is a divine
they
maintained
power
by them
of
him.
If they
as having
must be accepted body
him.
with
doctrine
the body of Christ
with
through
was manifested
physical
of Christian
can only be done by God, because
Word has united
Z.
the discussion
that
is united
which
doctrine
two with
consists
substances, Christ
of three
about the union,
who maintained will
has
divide
are different,
into
that three
will
divine
is a God. hypostases repudiate
He has united
with
and
human
They said that that
through
nature, He is the which
both of these aspects.
him in the sense of will,
aspects.
but it is required
59
that
we
they both agree in will.
2. The will
of the divine
3. The will
of human nature
is same as the will of human nature.
nature
of divine
is the same as the will
nature.
Section
4dý
That
of God (Qadim)
the will
What indicates it
but
possibility
of
(Messiah)
each
for
their
what
the other
other
wills,
for
that of
must be a concurrence
that
their
that
actions
their must
possible method
as the refutation for
occurs
drinking
motives
one of them
in
terms
what
may will
knows.
which
motives there
and between
those
is through
the same
that
attribute
every
in terms
other
may be
of them
of
eating,
(given
and
[It is known
Who knows
disadvantages
to him). ]
he should
that
what
be one who
As it is not required
be in the
would
Christ
while
that
the God
that
knows
also
he may know
in the same way it is not required
that
he
God wills.
involve
will
Christ,
circumstances statement Christ
of that
the
the
what
that
of each
something
of Himself.
advantages
Furthermore,
he became
the first
for
Christ
knowing
In the same way, it is not necessary
God wills.
certain
of
it
Furthermore,
action
of
It is also required
by the argument
occur
the opposite dislike
could
Christ
and
who maintained
one who knows about it.
God (Qa(1irn) knows,
that
everything
doctrine
of one who wills
because
a knowledge
through
to will
and Christ
the refutation
must
(Qadim)
is the
etc.
is a knower
future
the
it
that
to have different
them those
wills
be in agreement.
so that
concur
knows about it or be virtually (Qadim)
must
of their
it is right
Furthermore,
for
between
We know that
and crucifixion
one of them
are different
fact
(ie. God
of the God (Qadim)
of will
for the other.
which
that
is no difference
is the
one of them
be impossible
would
[Their
will]
beings
powerful
is possible
It
as it
who maintained
all
in
agree
and wish to enable
will
There
actions.
two
wills.
just
both
they
of Christ
the will
(argument)
of the first
the invalidity
is required
from
is different
wills
it is required
he wished according because because
He
that
matters
60
God wished
of God.
circumstance, wills
he may will
(Qadim)
God
everything
which
him God as a prophet sent when
to the will
in this
everything that
that
everything
which
or he wished
It is impossible
God does not will which
are
His
and it
in
to accept everything
personal
acts;
the
whereas
acts
of
('ibid)
men
after
things
these
situations?
to sequence
(of time),
in all
subject
for himself
only.
will,
though
even
Furthermore,
another.
in terms
of will,
miracles.
is possible
that
people
and
However,
wishes
according in that
Therefore
would
Him in one will with
concurrence
be among religion) thing
another
he did not
not the same be possible intentions.
or special
Christ,
through
only agrees
Him
with
But it
(who
mukallaf44
who knows
terms
of
God in all of His acts
of will.
of men who concur
their
special
of
of his life,
with
This refutes
acts
him.
with
Him at his beginning
for the rest
to
of the
the welfare
in
wishes
is obligated
with
through
concurrence of things
and perception
or realises
what
He realises
with
characterisation
of the doctrine the fact
of will
be necessary
where
everyone
must be united
the same is the case with
is not necessary
5- Section
The invalidity
Christ
and all
they have characterised.
of knowledge
(i. e. knowledge)
the same
all of them,
with
God would be united
concur
partially.
for the rest of the prophets.
God
to them He was united
how could union
He knows
that
united
of
he has
the
which
of union
that
someone
it is necessary
state,
what
Furthermore,
what
of the
been
things
something
in terms
and on the grounds
a prophet
is also necessary
for
one such
such
to all of the prophets
regard
(This is case) because
could
precepts
Therefore
obedience.
of Christ
there
have
may
wished
he wished
he is united
in
time)
Christ
be wishing
He would be united
that
of being
That
if
hand
other
wills with
requires
by virtue
manifested
the
their
of
be His sons.
would
although
both
sequence
case he would
in that
about Christ;
of them
observe
On the
(of
it be said that
So how could it be said that
this doctrine
doctrine
as their
subject
are
So how could
circumstance
to
of those
the will
regard
who knows God?
If that
to will.
,
who claimed
of the divine
with
without
nature
that
God has United
became
the will
with
of human
nature. r
44.
is imposing a requisition it or constraint requires an upon any one, in is difficulty it means the there Technically which and trouble. action lies on the creatures of Allah to believe and act as He has which necessity On definition, it applies only to things necessarily to them. this revealed forbidden. to things According teaching to Islamic and every required (ýägil, bäligh) is human thus mukallaf. adult sane E. I., Vol. IV, P. 631. Taklif
61
What
repudiates
that
the
will
limitation known it.
of divine
nature
indicated
that
has
evidence
doctrine
their
that
Christ,
is true,
through
that
Similarly
it is not possible
fact
that
it did not exist
that
it will it
through
of the physical
will
of God (Qadim)
did
why
Christ
God's
of
be the will
of
be in part
not
of Christ. through
it is the requirement
because
the
of an act
the act of one who carries
it out,
(agent).
Similarly,
be the
of Christ,
become
will
the will
of it.
can only
So anyone who allows
the
His action
will
that
must concede
creatures
something
repugnant
impossible
to wish anything
for God.
not differ
it,
about
of
associated
it
That
would
and this is invalid,
His will
through
will
bodies.
other
for God and men to will mean that
it is also
and to dislike
what He
It would
to what God wished
Contrary
would
it with
be impossible
would
He (only)
When in fact
will
is impossible
as that
The position
it
that
mean
would
would
to be the
appropriate
more
of the rest of bodies.
all living
this
wished.
of God would
in the same way as He associates
that
because
that
by being
to be the will
than the will
require
the will could
in part
inheres
a will
will
has become
in him.
Furthermore,
with
on.
the any
without It
through
being in part
body through
will
Christ
him
through
occurring
be located
him,
through
a will
later
explain
is that
nature,
through
the fact
through
His act is the act of Christ,
to say that
be characterised
only
that
divine
the
with
wills
y as we shall
him,
of human
will
(Qadim)
God
it is not possible fact
the
the
body can only will,
the physical
Since that
became
(Mahall:,
of location
He has united
that
whenever
God (Qadim)
wished
anything.
Furthermore,
if it is conceded
being located
in any place,
and everything impossibility what require exclude
the
which
then it would
of one of them other
him being ignorant Him
from
being
disliking
would
refer
(As
of what
exist
a result
of
in hearts
the one who knows
that
their
to God.
the other
whatever
know.
be the will
would
be possible
them,
characterise
does not
His will
that
shared
of him without
That requires
Likewise
the
and knowing it
would
That
would
ignorance)
of any one of us.
Himself.
knowledge
wills,
wishes,
it
it would require
to know about a thing without knowing about it (at the same time) as Zayd gAmr did not know it. It would require Him to be desiring and knew it and Him
needy, existed
because
it is not possible
in our hearts
man) sometimes
without
existed
that
desire,
to the extent
He would through
the fact
in which
62
be subject that
the other
to a knowledge one of them existed.
which
(God and
The absolute
invalidity
of that
Furthermore,
doctrine
this
living
persons
and there
every
situation
that
their
that
requires
be united
God would
(hä1) and the state
state
have mentioned
What
of
doctrine
the
intermingling,
doctrine
of Christ
the will
it
that
requires
would not be situated of Christ that
In this
way
ignorance heart.
if
required
there
person,
would
they
with
him
He united
that in
unified
God (Qadim)
that
of
terms
of
will
in part
a vessel
by him.
because
of Him
heart
and desiring,
All
and regretful.
of
these
of
the
became fact
if
are
the
of
Otherwise
it 45
have required
to the same rule.
ignorant it
through
in (Christ) for
any
in (Christ)
existed
impossible
heart
God.
So it
it is His will.
that
to be the will
more appropriate
that
will
in the heart
would
of what does exist
they said about His will
why should his will
being
necessity
His being an observer
virtue
that
the
that
What inheres
Christ,
with
(God).
of Him
in him would have been subject
be the
what
has united
of God, is the fact
be situated
in (Christ)
existed
by
ý
to God (Qadim),
inhered
would
to invalidate
Furthermore, other
of what
it
being
in and characterised
It also requires
and thoughtful
which
(-a.)
who argued
and
becoming
be applied
cannot
the rest
of those
conjunction
their
repudiates
Christ
because
and a location
skeleton
through
in anything
in
in this matter.
The Invalidity
(haykal)
of
It is required
of the prophets,
are not different
of Christ
the rest
with
Christ.
the rest
with
6- Section
through
for
be no distinction
would
be united
He would
that
requires
is invalid.
base of the argument
the original
of all
relation
these
of any
with
God
.. p
(Qadim)
is the same.
the necessity for
This also requires
of His being
one and the same thing.
everything
one who wishes (For example)
evil
that things
when Zayd
we mentioned
before
of
and willing wished
and unwilling it and tAmr did
not
45.
Apparently to it, galb means heart, or lump of flesh pertaining 'Abd al-Jabbär meant mind or secret thought, soul or intellect. For detail see E. W. Lane, (New edition).
Arabic-English
63
Lexicon,
Vol.
II PP.
but here
2553-4
it.
wish
It also requires
the same time,
Furthermore,
before
been willing
different
He was willing did not exist
Therefore,
through
the will
it is necessary (mahall). living
another
creation
living
without
a will
what
required
it to be established
that
He must be united
him,
and all others
total
repudiation
repudiation
of the
in the sense that
As for
the doctrine r cojoining mingling,
neither
substance
and conjunction how could
Christ
the relation However,
not change.
through
a will be
He would
of the creature, it
require
in
every
of the causes of what doctrine
this
requires
besides in the same way as He is united is His son.
with
way is the
In this
doctrine.
doctrine
7-
Section
of
these
(a Z 3)
who claimed
with
by what
He united
that
who maintained
in the form
between
God has mingled,
with
of a human in the
we pointed
body, because
possible
God united
that
with
in him.
He inhered
nor physical
it be said that
that
will
the
the creation
that
the creation
after
the will
before
was
willing
So it is required
be His Sons as Christ
and uniting
is only
what
had
which
wish through
His being
circumstance,
is known
others
of those
is invalidated
it
location,
one
will
with
would
of their
in
the will
He would have to will
any location
that as it
discussing
are
(mahall).
without
insofar
we
through
He will
to say that
In this situation
any location
through
circumstances,
Christ,
be willing
(and) because
being
is required
The
He would
because
whom He created.
requires
because in these circumstances
It is impossible
of the first
because
have
(to say) that
it was impossible
that
of Christ,
that
person,
of every
willing
God would
and was living,
created
It was known
affairs.
at
as alive.
no location of
was born,
Christ
and ignorant
knowing
must be invalid.
leads to that
and whatever
being
of Him
the possibility
argument
substances
that
God
is
about Him,
and physical
and became
coined
through
and in a special
is that confirmed since
the
him
united
bodies, with
him
in this way?
explained
that
be to excluded and
from
We have
such doctrine being
about
an Eternal
64
deity.
Him,
requires
It requires
Him
to be created
the impossibility
of
the occurrence
of God in bodies.
and mingled the
is only
between
So this doctrine
because
mentioned,
possible those
unreasonable
with
regard Him
who affirmed and between
way
and compounded
with
those
might
Do you
not
say that
concede
it in the same as we argued.
God is in every
is:
We say in
a metaphorical
(mudabbir)
everywhere
mentioned
before.
way
by it
and knows about every place
What we intended
Him
and characterised
the body of Christ
Then You contradicted
that
him
It is a rejection
not
He is coined
Christ
distinguish concede
with
him
on some
Union,
in view
bodies
are same
An opponent I affirmed divine
and
of the with
might Him
actions
unite
united f act
with that
regard
with
same
him
him
with
Why
occasions?
bodies
inorganic
the
sense is intelligible.
It
as the
way
in its real
to this point
according
your doctrine conjunction
of
do you
them?
his condition
What
others?
merit
that does
condition
Why do you Why do you x
and He conjoined r He cojoined with
occasions
concede
and the
and others?
from
apart
on some not
then why is it not
to Christ,
He is coined
that
He united
He might
that
and
it through
to the rest of the prophets
in that
is reasonable,
of what has been affirmed.
if it is possible
that
in
in it as we
conjoined to him
you made Him
So
He is the organizer
that
by using this expression
with
and not something else. ri He does not conjoin with
Furthermore,
way.
and what occurs
of view
substances.
composed
the Conjunction?
through
not
place
and we mean
the case as you said, because
possible
as tangible,
of using this word for it in a metaphorical
the possibility
to an
according
argue:
The answer
meaning
Him
on this basis.
him and being part of him in an unreasonable
An opponent
is not
to Christ
who affirmed
you
is no difference
There
substances. ri as being coboined
about
lead to what not
will
the
him
with
understood
is only understood
conjunction
to
they
what
contradicted
of the substances.
conjunction
i. e. (Christians) It
in a way that
him
with
He was cöjoined
can say that
Nobody
Christ of the
have rest
in
this
of the
to God.
argue:
united
with
him
were shown through
apart
from
the
him and by him.
65
rest
of the
bodies,
because
The answer Then
is: He (God) would
that
concede
the same reason.
Concede
the miracles
do not appear
through
does not
him
any location.
without Him
to be united God
that
because
its
possible
that
Indeed
is where
the action
without
with
this
for
appropriate
united
the body
with
be
would
in Christ. not
more
Otherwise then
In fact
it is
Christ.
with
In this argument
anything.
He is
even though
Him (ie., the dead or blind)
the union
without
or
conjunction
statement
occurred
unions with
of the miracles
more
than being
him when
with
through
miracles,
about
for this reason,
Christ.
God's Union
him
for
of the prophets
the showing
why did it become
be possible
should
without
Furthermore, He occupied
that
Christ
is possible
occurrence
with
God is able to bring
through
if its occurrence
him.
Furthermore,
with
raised
appropriate,
from
the rest
He would cease to be united
also that
indicate
else, because
something
be united
is a refutation
of
this doctrine.
it
Furthermore, Christ
is required
that
He
them.
His
being
or to some
parts.
That
doubt)
by the
of
would
God to be in many locations
require
case where
conjunction
be possible
for
would
require
applicable
is a thing
c
parts joined
to
Cl iT'-
doctrine
is repudiated.
of their
doctrine
about
to
the others
which the
miracles
So through
the union
parts
many
(beyond
parts)
in every
if He coljoined
with
and this
part
did not have.
these
to this
according
would
then it would
appeared, all
of
of his
all
is proved
hand,
He was united
that
all
It is impossible
On the other
by which
this
it
but
to
If it was not for that,
particularization
part
consequently invalidity
then it would
that
mean,
is not
on one occasion.
be possible.
might
have a special
would
(Being
a body to be in two places.
some of his parts, part
is one.
He
that
evidence
cc joined
either
God is of many
that
require
be
could
n coljoined
not
That Christ, the
arguments of view
point
is
correct.
8- Section
The invalidity
of the doctrine
human
nature,
which
As for
the doctrine,
invalid
through
a thing
and existed
of Jacobites
both united
that
many aspects. there,
after
that
and became
God has united
1) !'
has a divine
Christ,
is: that
ie. inhered
everything
it had not been in it previously,
66
nature
and a
one nature.
with
One of them
Christ
in him,
which
it is
inhered
in
must be one of
the
two
either
of accident
in the substance,
existence
one substance
that
through
two
these
impossible
aspects,
because
we have
transference
existed
in him through
something
that
would
the fact
to
He inhered
His
is
to say that
He
in Christ
this would
because
createdness,
the
is
it
then creation
of a thing
in
that
require
Him,
than the transfer
God
If
(hadatha)
in him and occurred
for
of
transfer
the
occurred
is impossible
is more impossible
existing
(Qadim)
(in a substance),
transference
about
that
He was a substance.
that
require
that
if
speak
indicated
God
the
be understood
only
It is impossible
if
that
of the accident
However
already
for
Christ,
in
like
created
to it as the transfer
It could
has no limitation.
which
the inherence
impossible
more
or it transferred to another.
through
God was created.
existed
being
through
ccgoined
and inheres
like
it
in
became
a thing
about
transfers
him
it
categories:
of
which
has no substance.
They might
argue:
Is it not according tablet
tongue
or
ignored.
having
without
having
without
to your venerable
been
You cannot
reject
does not stop this argument
from
'Ali to Abü
According
that
maintained is a voice,
which
1. The first
Whatever a ma'nä
Christ
You
or
have
to this
according
because you do not hold it, and that
take
can only
argument.
place
in
in a location
He is free
that
something
it
after
with
has
not
He which
in Christ
location
occurs
of a mafnä which else,
inheres
from
(mal}all).
an attribute)
carries
which
If God (Qadim)
of it.
because
exists
is that
The other It
which
place
on this
(mahall). it.
He
However, in
existed
it
must be of two categories.
previously,
it.
another
category with
being a rational
be impossible
in him
exist
everything
Z.
to unite
it merely,
from
to
is a rational
in a ma'nä (element
or memory
writing
only
speech
it occurs
then it would
would
transferred
on the
speech exists
is:
The answer
basis,
been
God (Qadim)
So you must allow
of view.
point
scholar
This
created.
Abü `Ali that
it existed
is that
was known is like which
that
it did not exist God
that
before
..
(Qadim)
caused
to occur
at all.
existed
it would be impossible (it
Then it went into it.
it was not in it.
before
in it)
6'
it was caused
That
before
His
for it to occur like
speech
union
with
in something
according
to
to be in Christ. without 'Ali. Abü
However,
if
it
occurs
is impossible.
that
in it, because dispense
a marnä
this doctrine
explained
They might
of
us to admit
that
in the
already
and not by the
in
you
have
in him, how is it forced
upon
involved
of inherence
manner
(wajh).
reason
in something
existing Similarly
every
for us to affirm So our doctrine
what
in
of the accident
Him as inhering
in him
is not repudiated
the
irrational
basis (wajh for a thing
impossible
is like
thing
'All
Abt
he affirms
that
affirms
lä yu'gal)
(zarf)
it inheres
the
as you
in something
in something
else
known
the
of
within
comes
(mahall)
else, except
What this
for one thing
to exist
what
in another
is
if the in it or
because
category,
is established,
it
our venerable
even though he maintained
Since that
creation.
other.
on an
that
for it or conjoining to it or inhering
about speech
through
on a rational
must be invalid.
It is already
to exist
spatiality
in location
in itself
is irrational
a thing
must be invalid.
to be understood
being
what of
existence
it is only reasonable
that
already;
the
of
put forward
in it not
takes place
that
a container
(h"ayyiz)
spatiality
else can only be established
doctrine
doctrine
Likewise
scholar
We have
is:
The answer
its
it would
it.
mentioned
other
it
Why is it not possible
to a different
according
He inhered
we said that
that
is not
doctrine
So our
we treated
(mahall).
basis.
and therefore
him, not on the basis of incarnation
with
conjunction. Granted
A thing
of
it inheres
in it.
inheres
it
which
to say that
in detail.
He united
mentioned.
location
be would required
that
occurs,
which
argue:
We say that means
because
of ma'nä
it is impossible
before
As we explained
of a reason in which
with
because else, not
in something
that
it
we said
on this basis,
is possible.
They might Could
argue:
not the thing
inhering
in it.
take place
in time,
This is a rational
without
argument
outside
anything
being
cojoined
the two categories
to it or
which
you
mentioned.
The answer In reality,
is: the thing
that
occurs
in time,
68
has no relation
with
it.
We only say
that
it existed
in it through
and its occurrence
existence concerning
its
time
As we say, that
as it.
time
Sometimes
we
coming
Zayd,
of
to
according
God with
Christ.
we do not
Therefore
and we limit
arguments
different
the
that
it be of the same
when the sun was rising. on the
of
the
we
are
occasion
of
situation
whom
for what they said about the union of it come
let
to these
argument
it is said
reason
of us making
sun occurred
has no effect
So this category
addressing.
the
of
rising
its
Even though
For that
of Zayd existed
the coming
that
say,
in terms
it.
with'
in it.
was not possible
it occurred
that
it occurred
a maýnä that
into
two
the discussion
categories
of the we have
which
mentioned.
What
the
shows
something
soundness
else, n
would
of our
was conjoined to it.
which
only
would
else, from
something between
those
claimed
a fourth
possible
that
in its
be that
took place
inheres.
which
or fifth
for it.
He was coined
or
category
a thing
On the basis of what
which
and between Christ
with
him, then He must inhere
with
conjunction
we established,
in its
exists
in
is no difference
There
that)
If God was in union
location
another
What took place
before.
To exclude
(for
in
in
existed
which
it through
with
is irrational.
these two categories a third
everything
location
as we have mentioned
who claimed
in his location.
it
So whatever
could only be a substance location,
be with
either
is that
comments,
those
who
is it and not
in him and become
anything
be
else would
irrational.
They might It
argue:
is possible
that
The answer
would
it,
with
They might
in the other.
not exist
it has no relation
Therefore
one location,
it
would
not
then the spatiality
with
other
another
accident
only
to what
effect
it,
They
would both
have we
because
exist
in something
mentioned.
when both
of them
it
If
had a
existed
in
for the other.
for one of them is spatiality
argue:
Why do you not
1.
exist
is:
One of them
relation
may
to these two reasons.
according
else.
an accident
We have meaning
concede
that
dropped the in the context.
He did unite
word
"innihü"
69
with
from
Christ,
translation
not
to this
according
because
it
has no
but in the same way as a picture being in human of appears a polished 46 when it is looked into, or appearance of the engraving of a seal in clay
reason, mirror in
it
which
inherence
has been
stamped.
that
in it
or shows
printed
must
be a substance
is seen
in
the
likeness,
its
of a man which
blocking
of
blocked
around
in reality,
an instrument facing
would
picture
according
at it through
the mirror,
It needed become
instrument
in the
it
mirror,
and that
things
the
than
the
it has
to use their
(In
noon.
was his
mirror
became would
be
be facing
it
one of us rushes
of his own face, just
can be seen.
is impossible
with
mirror
would
So we see that
which
if
of the day
his face
that
his face
the form
to know
(in the
to what
he saw in the
else by which to his eye.
intends he when
more
the beginning
it is impossible
of that
something
How can
the same course
differs
much during
object
any difference
is nothing
but he looked
In terms
actual
it has no shadow at all before
noon and sometimes
for him.
there
to its extended
shadow it
Thus it blocks
to use his eye to see the
rushes
The
occur?
sometimes
can it be compared
How
what
to use the mirror,
When there analogy
of it
as he is no with
to union and the Trinity.
regard
As far as the appearance which
his face?
(to say) that
his eye.
and that
being
which
is small.
according
be possible
it might
one way)
which
or is
that
(the
why should it follow
Consequently
sun's rays.
of the sun's rays.
and a little
face
the
may
in that
their
in it
that
than
in the mirror
Therefore
is not really
is printed
it
is bigger
occur
else's face without
of the mirror)?
he sees in it
shadow
to
refer
in the mirror
appears
It is known,
which
be said when a man sees his face
nature
if
or an accident.
is big cannot
which
shape or he sees someone
fixed
because
(a reflection)
mirror
and that
reflected),
of a human being
a picture
printed
what
does not
that
is:
We do not maintain
actual
basis
and conjunction.
The answer
that
is a rational
It
occurred
happens
in it
of the engraving
and the engraving
if the engraving
of a seal in clay,
of a seal is an impression in body a soft which
of a seal encounters
be an impression
of it,
just
of it
there
will
parts
it of raised.
46.
here by 'Abd a1-Jabbär The analogy criticised 'Adi Yahyä by b. mentioned and al-Shahristäni.
So accidents
as parts
whose state
70
there is an accident
(häl) differ
are depressed from
in it.
This
it sinks and and other
the seal occur
in
is a Jacobites expression as See also Chapter I, P. 105.
the engraving. be inhering
is only
the second argument
possible
to speak
He inheres
aspect
him not according
with
(demonstrated
They might Since
being
God exists
of
by which
substance
Him
was still
without
as we
He united is
rational
and accident
exist,
us to posit
allow
the
and without
His being
that
and inherence.
conjunction
did we not
existing,
from
Him
exclude
from is Him an attribute which separate n because of being in cc oining or inhering,
His
that
impossibility
Your
of that.
He is in something
is not like
doctrine
else.
Therefore
to him.
Since
both
you
doctrines
because
that,
to the reason
else not according
in something
conjoining
that
we only denied
existents,
thing
that
(mahall),
any location
that being through
without
When we affirmed
is,
is irrational
that47
and that
inherence, of
aspect
of those who claimed
aspects
to say that
is:
The answer
that
two
and to
to be) invalid.
in Christ
exists
to these
It is impossible
However,
the doctrine
it,
mentioned
to a rational
according
Since
is confirmed.
the first
as we have
in him.
argue:
the
aspect
is incorrect,
his spatiality.
Therefore
inheres else
and irrational.
(it being)
he comes within before.
mentioned
about
to this basis, He must
according
something
the union
is incorrect
in him without
that
namely
that
to them
the third
affirm
Christ,
with
in him or it is necessary
according
It
If God has united
must
which
are invalid,
their
of
existence proof
is rational
and the
of
that
you affirmed
as being a
inhering
in him
doctrine
about
Him
affirm
the reality
or the
union is invalid.
The other that
thing
cannot
exist
in a location,
inhere
the accident in every
We read lakin
is that
it would
So their
in Him,
their
doctrine
everything
in a location.
in a location
situation.
been inhering
repudiates
in him,
He has inhered
(mahall),
47.
which
is possible, doctrine,
that
of liana.
71
exists
that,
in every
it requires
would be invalid.
instead
which
It indicates
be impossible
He has united
that
without
any location
when a substance way.
in Christ
cannot
When inherence
its being inherent
He inhered
in the sense
after
of
in a location He had not
They
might
argue:
Why is His inherence
Does it contradict
The answer If
in him not conceded
he had not inhered
after
in him?
the rest of the accidents?
is:
He inheres
in him,
it
for
must
one of two
reasons,
His inherence
either
is
in him or is possible also and then the opposite would be possible. .-it It is impossible to say that it is required in him, because when God was living required
(prior
Christ's
to
it
(later
to them
according
and Christ
when Christ's
Christ
However,
since
to inhere
in hire,
which, despite
the fact
came into
God would
state
However,
it is not possible
possibility
of Him not inhering
him by virtue not
Christ
they
and
became
a relationship the
either
matnä
with
inheres
impossible
for the ma'nä to inhere
something
else.
to
inhere
ma'nä require ma'n with that).
it
That in
to exist
did not exist, Christ There
is totally God's
in Him either
(because
in Christ
separate
than
is no conceivable
it
other
not exist
in
would things
(by ma4nä which)
fact.
that
mAia
to exist
God could
require It
be a location
be more
or God would
would
location.
His
Nor is it possible
was no ma'C*iä in God which
7Z
they
a third
God cannot
for Him.
because
to require
God would
there
inheres
in God because
location
then
God would
with
is
That
with
natures,
to above)
in
God united
They do not affirm
it
was the
to be inhering
that
That relationship
impossible
'iha)
aspect
this (ma'nä).
demanded
two
both.
or
(jawhar)
there
while Him
maintained
and
God
in
for God
aspect.
of the ma'na referred God.
one
in
(as God's).
same
in only
would require
They
encompassed
which
that
God) which
substances
was the possibility
have to leave that
two
were
one person
(If there
(within
existence)
subject
Then
_ He inhered
to the substance
pertained
that
Christians.
the
of
because
Christ.
of
one and the
He should inhere
that
of an element
doctrine
the
existence, with
body
(bägi) and if it was possible
existence
God could exist
that
in the
became
have to become
Christ
of
inhere
body came into
(ie. of Divinity)
attribute
in the
he did not
existence)
for
appropriate in Him.
give
become
for the to
If that
not become
could
is
united
effect
united
to with
the body of Christ
They
Christ
except
cannot
say that
life
does not
Christ's
that
in him,
He exists
is the same as in anybody
He inheres
by reason to inhere
God ceases
exist,
else.
use that
that
he (Christ)
that
argument
Christ's
of
life
in Christ,
and when
because
if it is by reason
Therefore,
in him they would have to concede
They cannot
(and rejected).
discussed have we
which
48
He inhered
life
of life
in that
in others.
is like a voice
in relationship
to
`Ali, because according to our venerable Abi speech according to Abu scholar 'Ali voice is only possible with regard to him by virtue of the reasonable and accepted
any category
The
other
it would
before:
invalidates
which
that
require it
either
An effect becomes
They
cannot
provide
is that
if
God inheres
in has an effect
which
in
did not
from things through the other which did not exist before, as we or a state occurs; 49 (in inhere which mankind).
say, in the rest of the ma'am
They might
doctrine
this
is inhered
which
becomes
(of the inherence)
realisation
for voice.
God would need it for.
which
argument
mankind, exist
of the need of his speech
argument
separate
argue: which
does occur
one of those
in that from
things
is inhered
which
which
divine
action
(muhall)
in it,
is possible
is that
and that
it was
not the case before.
The answer This virtue that
would
is: require
that
at
of) God being power which
for it which
it would
(the that
moment which
(ordinarily) not
were not possible
before.
of
the)
is inhered
be capable
existence in becomes
of and certain
Since that
is invalid
(of
the
union)
(of doing)
capable things
(by
are possible
the (whole)
doctrine
is invalidated.
48.
49.
Here 'tAbd of ma nL against the Christians. Kulläbiyya
doctrine the Christian through the argument al-Jabbär refuted As a matter of fact it is pure Muýtazilite argument presented 4Abd Kullabiyya. But a1-Jabbar applied it wrongly against the 'Abd It can be said that according Christians to al-Jabbär and justify he in his are in same category, so could not argumentation. 4Abd Here that the man has a manä al-Jabbär seems to declare a doctrine that carry the cif ät.
73
On the terms
hand,
other which
(already
are
in something
occurred
the invalidation
(constant),
which
cannot
it would
what
that
die
inhering
in
may
except
by contradiction
needs,
so that
would
because
They might
ý
from
from
is inhered
in mankind,
and so God must
deny that through
not
which
remain
in by abolishing is it known and from
be excluded from
man
of what
man
to be separate
or by the abolition that
is one
thing
or else he would
have to
the abolition
He would
that
be non-existent
he had to
or that
in humanity.
in mankind,
It is known
that
living, is man
it
is true
you mentioned
that
from
He may separate
to be separate
from
(häl) of the possibility
it,
it
He must
for
His being
in the body of man in a circumstance
in which
in the circumstance
God can inhere
not a circumstance
it is a possibility
it is possible
and it
it.
is:
from
which
be required
would
He does not need what
The answer
Therefore,
exist
inhere
be separate separate
When that
or through
argue:
God may
because
have existed.
that
out
be contradicted
it requires
have a maýnä that
If
transference
has
that
everything
of what he needs, even though it did Wi's (sound) in in Abii All that is the case of theory of speech. as
exist,
invalid,
which
in him through
stop existing not
from
or be wiped
because
in it through
If God inheres
it needs.
only
in
in him
inhere
and is one of the things
be transferred
God would -
mankind
it
it would
only be separate
it or by abolishing mankind
established
by which
He could
invalid as)
inhere else can only
of that
of the things
in Christ,
God inheres
if
that
him except
in which
of His existing
he may not exist. through
the aspects
it is possible
man is not living.
in him in such a circumstance,
It requires
that
what we mentioned.
74
that
when
He may not be separate
If
God inheres
human
being
visible
body.
in man, in reality Then
He has inhered of his parts. every
part
every
part
Therefore, of Him of
many deities. because not affirm
50.
Mu4ammar50 as
they affirm
(God) inheres
for Him,
with
parts
as the part
He is one substance
many parts
according
It
of man,
of mankind,
That
be a
affirm
the
man is a
either
they
say that in one
for God as man has, of which
(man).
of him
every
of these are unsound. that
aspects,
as many parts
in part
as many parts
they maintained
or else they
and lie would
God is one, or He has inhered
although
part,
God has united
Both
said,
must have two
doctrine
in his every
God having
require
their
in one of his parts
inhere
lie must
cannot
be said that
because
that
or the affirmation
is not as the Christians of three
to the parts
would
hypostases.
of
believe, They do
of man.
b. 4Abbäd al-Sulami, a leading Mu"tazilite of the eight-ninth He was founder known centuries. of a school of thought as the Mueammariyya. He was a well known person among his contemporary He born and brought He colleagues and later authors. up in Basra. there, and gained wide recognition received his training among the leading theologians. Later on he moved to Baghdad. Mucammar
list His influence on the Mu'tazilites can be deduced from the impressive he is described as a very learned man who held In addition, of his pupils. independent views as an outstanding and a great seceder from polemicist Qadariyya. had been exposed to gnosticism Ibn Murtadä asserts that Mulammar and Zoroastrianism. A1-Sharistäni of reports that he was under the influence philisophers. the theological sphere, Muammar was concerned with most issues bodies, God, Uniqueness His to the attributes, speech, will and of related accidents views and which he explained on which he had independent in While Muttazilite the through his doctrine of ma'nä. general maintain Muammar bodies that God is the creator maintained accidents, of and that God is the creator of bodies not of the accidents, which he considers creations of bodies. as either natural or voluntary
In
tAbd
is is The doctrine that according to Mu_ to which al-Jabbär referring 'uz) itself is not a body, but the eight atoms make up a Ammar atom sari, by al-Ash by body. As reported body. are not created accidents follow by Mu'ammar maintained accidents atoms are aggregated, the atoms produce them by necessity each of their nature, necessity, itself, by He died producing accident atom whatever resides in it. between 831-850 A. D. Al Aläm, Zarkly, Formative vol. VII, P. 272, period of Islamic _Watt, 190,232,239., G. PP. Shahristäni, Chejne, 89 P. Anwar thought, al-Milal, 4Abbäd b. M. W., Vol. LI (1961), PP. 311-320., Mu mmar al Sulami, alAsh4ari, Magälät, P. 303.
75
It is also impossible
to say that
he is a man, because
the evidence
totality
(only)
not one part
Christians
the
manifested
through
impossible
to relate
They
cannot
being
is a totality
location action this
part
to say that
required He unites
should
application
inhere without other. because
in
regard
them,
requiring According their
concurrence
that
say that
Christ,
of
because unless
it, as their
a human
to know
divine
the
show
its
It is also required
and adored Christ,
with
that to
one according it would
rather
How is it possible
Why did one of his parts
be that
become
everything
prevent
So it is required
which
they
are
that
they
are
it and will
It is required from
separate
inheres
same
maanä inheres
that
its
what
we
all
the
which
because
in another
is possible
in one place.
He must be like
in one location.
76
in
thing, many
That
cannot locations
with
each
in two locations
its class Jins would
if he inhered
with
unites
are in concurrence
of concurrence
it being
only possible
are
(sometimes) and
of locations
that
the ma`äni which
the union
which
the
is required
of
to the whole.
are related
and
about
for God.
is required
to his location
one
the totality
while
of God in man, not
existence
to us the inherence
would
argument
It is because
man that
the existence
and would
inherence whose
and to
in one of his parts
God is one (thing)
concurrence
to God.
with
to the
be limited
say about the ma'äni
cannot
is required
one of his parts.
to the whole.
(hä1) for
a state
affirming
active
not the other?
through
is only referring
affirming
it
and others
God has united
He inheres
can say that
to be applied
required
was
So it is
though
even
the totality.
powerful,
he has united
is characterised
Christ
parts
the
It
actions.
than the other?
more appropriate
None of them
it
it, not through
one of his parts
with
because
parts),
between
be Christ,
would
to the
according
divine
the
one of his parts,
with of
It could not be said that
them.
They
He unites
through
manifesting
because
out later,
being is its
it.
the union with
differentiate
human
while
not the one part of the heart.
of Christ
(Collection
living a
that
by he showed
is that
the totality
say that
and to
has indicated
as we shall point
way of union
Christ, of
in one of the parts
He inheres
require
their
is impossible
with
the rest of the accidents
in something
else, which
was
They might Is it
not
argue: possible
inherence
the
of
Therefore inheres
to be similar
kind
a similar 51 of man.
in all the parts
of Abtt
locations,
many
that
concede
The answer
in
speech
doctrine
to the
has
the
allows
who
it
although
inherence
of
'Ali,
one
?
ma'n
when
God
demonstrates
the
takes
place
is:
What you mentioned
is not one of our doctrines. by which
The argument
opposite.
The evidence
it is the same argument
we repudiate
as we
(to (of is it doctrine theory) this to our repudiate as an objection yours) and use SZ 'Ali (this doctrine) Furthermore, Abü to not possible. according was possible with
than one location.
They might
is possible
because
His
from
part
of
its
of man and its totality
is one God?
some
of
say Him
impossibility the of
a human
(gädir)
with
possibility
would
to
tantamount
(sifät
the totality
be
be
parts
(parts) His of
This defeats
that
and if that
(through)
al-dhat)
the
life
the
and because which
is
He had
from
being
other
God is to
refer
(takhtass)
characterise and they
in it
if
of God,
is (one of the) qualities
which
not just
in Christ
to the
living
he becomes
through
him being a structure of
of Him,
if He inheres
because
structure
regard
would
attributes
of ma'äni.
being,
the
essential
the attributes
However,
(in man).
to God's inherence
So why is it not possible
The
essence.
every
in more
existed
of man are one man?
about
to
by being powerful
qualified
regard
alone
aspect:
a structure,
needs
because
parts, f.13S
(parts),
that
is impossible
It
thing.
many.
to say that
only
the. life
through
speech
is:
The answer
one
all parts
of God is in every part
that part
with
to the first
argue according that
that
it is invalid.
with
Is it not possible
he affirmed
is impossible
That
So the comparison
It
because
to speech,
regard
are different
argument.
was possible manifestation
for him, of
then the way
divine
action
by
Christ.
does not exist
in articulated
sound, but also in written
letters
51.
Speech
52.
memory. is One must bear in mind that Abü 'All's argument speech not about 'Abd by See, God's Peters, 300-2. PP. al-Jabbär. accepted created speech,
77
and
It does not require dependence
with
regard
with
the
location
of action
such ability
can be used.
action
to appear
through
the hands or voice
united
with
them
what
they
affirm
to
concede
that
of the divine
which
He
which
appeared
for
it is possible
the
God was not
even though
(God)
is united
the
with through
of
Christ,
with the
prophets, 53 words and prayers.
rest
their
distinction
of the special
God can inhere
He may inhere
in an inorganic
it
Because
for
impossible
if they might
It is His right knowledge,
to
They -
They might
of Christ
by union
is no way by which
There
in an inorganic
they
Otherwise
body.
can His
for the same reason.
impossible be must
argue:
forced are
in something
in a location
where
the impossibility
to admit
in an inorganic
in which
there
it would
body,
when He inheres
The case is different
is life
there
as (here is) of His
of the existence
is life
(there) as
is knowledge.
divine
be able to manifest not in a living
body.
is:
The answer
Since it is possible is it divine
God exists
body.
then it is also possible
argue:
When He inheres actions.
in the body of Christ,
inhere
He only inheres
that
(dhät) except essence
so why
Him
in the body of Christ
inherence
53.
of Christ
He is united
that
make
create
is true
that
in a
ability
God as they believed.
If it is possible that
action
by
is the repudiation
In this way there with
If
to use that
him.
Furthermore,
because
(hä1) of one who is able
in terms one who needs of
powerful)
the bodies
(state ha-1. His and
in Himself
the state
differs
where
requires
as he created
from
to being
ability
(Qädir)
He is powerful
because
things,
God does not act through
because
the actions
He only creates
or movement.
and other
(Christ) him with
his union
not
that
He performs
conceded
actions
through
in eternity
without
Although sense.
in the
text
that
divine
He may
actions, inhere
the hand and voice manifesting
it
is Iddi1ä,
78
from
him,
and
may
If it is possible
that
has resulted
in inorganic of Christ.
a divine
we read
that
action,
it
bodies
why should
r! that as du
it not be
makes
better
In this
way,
united
with
an inorganic
is a repudiation
there
of Christ
that
required
they
to accept.
insofar
as his action doctrine
they
living
because
Christ
they
must it is
Indeed
in the location
divine
where
He is more distinguished
(These arguments) with
that
upon them.
these (actions)
through
has united
He
that
His inherence
in them.
occurs
forced as we
thing
In this way
characterisation
it is required
argument
action.
His being
about
the special
about
claimed
to this
approve
must
have occurred,
their
them
in every
actions
of
body and what we required
According
His inherence
accept
upon
them
of what
that.
with
divine
manifesting
forced we
for what
is the proof
there
body without
in an inorganic
He exists
that
possible
the invalidity
confirm to
according
the
way
of
inherence.
9- Section
The Repudiation divinity
of the doctrine
and humanity
have United
Most of the Jacobites united,
then
invalid,
because
it
is impossible in
described become
that
the
previous
if
it
thing
is possible
with
substance thing
in one location. (within
another
(in
relationship mankind possible, through
54.
another
subject)
that),
then
it
one thing
would
union
This term
with
require God
is invalid
that man
different
doctrine
that
God
through
was
become
expression,
79
Furthermore, impossible one thing
but rather
in the be one
would
aspect His
if what
of
union
with the with
they say was
for
mankind
with
Him.
Nestorian.
one
through
of one thing
and the relationship the
would
is not a Jacobites
collectively
affect
death
may
and become
its inherence
through
accidents
is also invalid.
thing
be one substance
not
does
We have
one
mankind
would
be one thing
or many
the
with
substances
would
accident,
this
becomes
two
that
as
of two things being one thing.
God can unite
that
If that
is impossible
it
that
It is
in reality
(in reality).
things
the impossibility
It requires
it
then
would
be two
have
and one nature.
be one thing
would
of
(jawhar)
of God and humanity
one hypostasis
two things
chapter
is possible that 54 the conjunction, or accident
thing,
that
(jawhar)
the nature
one nature
the substance
one substance,
one
many things.
However,
that
it is impossible
that
and they became
maintained
became
they
of the Jacobites
because Thus
man
be outside
would
his human
Furthermore,
it
is required
every
attribute
Christ
and every
unity
that
eternal
because
(häl),
in that
this) through
cannot
If God has united several
1-
possible
either
man when
with
1.
(according
they
became
both
and the rest
which
from
become
its existence That
the existence
nor can the nonnor
(can it do
things
which
have been
one thing,
(arid).
there
the union of God with the quality
be
must
man) has
of mankind.
of divinity.
the quality
If it has the quality
effect)
are the speciality
they
it is God, then required of
of mankind
looking, as such
that he has got such as drinking,
for Christ.
because
cannot
a
by both qualities.
of the qualities
be impossible doctrine
left has and of man
to the first
all the things
for
because of a mania or an accident
(sifa) of God and has come out from
is it characterised or
impossible
to possible
Similarly
else.
that
been established.
to possible,
is
It
(wu ilh).
effects
3-
their
impossible
become
Z- or it has the quality
would
God or anything
became
in time.
created
(to believe)
impossible
being
this one (the one being resulting
the quality
that
from
change
impossible
is as it was.
would require
is impossible
Since that
through
Christ
existed,
has already
of which
being
that
that
is absolutely
that
substance.
as it is impossible
it had not
because
because
its
and doctrine
eternal
that
after
eternally
from
change
union with
established
existed
regard.
. of a main
Indeed
for
drinking,
extinction,
is required
union
be impossible
nature in their
should become
the non-existence
of a ma4nä cannot existence
what
and
he had been
after
created.
has existed
which
is impossible
(being)
it
the
after
even though his situation
doctrine,
God),
with
become
should
something in a state
union a created
(being)
created
is one of the
such as eating,
motion human
that
would
him,
and benefit
one thing,
to their
according
impossible
his
outside
God, he has become
(through
eternal
be
would
being
for
depth,
breadth,
would be no meaning
there
with
a human
be impossible
would
length,
he
union
Furthermore,
the
action
doctrine
to their
according
characterises
which
killing,
crucifixion,
Otherwise,
nature,
death of
the possibility
human of nature.
characteristics
through
for
According
affirm
that
80
to that, Christ
after
it would
killing,
length
crucifixion
be a departure
sonship and union with
from God
and killing
after
was related
to God or man.
Z-
that,
If it was through
the union
before. done he has as
and drinking
was seen eating
with
it
then
and that
the status
before
and that
his condition
the union
in that
them)
Both
exist.
God cannot
it
situations
(Qadim)
becomes
impossible
by the
because and
substances in
established
would
this
quality
it is the doctrine
they became
the
because
death. of
time
requires
them
himself,
if
became
crucified possible would
for
Him
be possible
Furthermore,
him.
with
is the
This
that
become
sign
if
of
two
that
things
more
as they
Christ
it
doctrine
their
be
would
why is it
otherwise
union,
has
would
be
would
be
divine
one thing.
But
this
that
the rest
things
for
separated
from
However,
this
that
with
union
then
that
doctrine
God,
death
and
(God)
and
God Himself
to the
at
creation
all suffering
happened
(Him)
the
God,
with
union
requires Him
When he
was different
Christ
and repudiated
through
doctrine
is possible
that
having
the
through if
died in reality.
Christ
difference. died
Christ
God,
and all
thing
it can be said that
That requires of Christ
for
If
than becoming
of some of them that
be possible
and killed.
Then
be
would
had been the
there
and divinity.
the
leave
one thing.
of the possibility
admit
he had must
extinction mankind
to
if
and this
is required
It
Christ
through
God
the
and God will
one thing
rather
after
natures
died, God ceased to be united (Him)
have become
doctrine.
However
nature.
that
requires
Even
of the
they should become
existing)
miracles
is no way by which
two
that
from
his divine
one thing
there
incorrect
of
of humanity
it became
that
before,
two
he has left
God, the two
appropriate
He was already
The manifestation
quality.
characterised
were
created
because
with
(although
to
the Son not to
the substance
that It
through
(According
existed.
because
hypostases.
require
his own qualities
it is impossible
three
were
God as it was
This would
else.
(God) or for
the eternal
Similarly
they
after
for
in impossibility are equal
be non-existent.
his personal
union
would
any divine
show
the union with
and he left
crucifixion
of God through
may not
be as if he never
be possible
would
hypostases
two
God was invalid
God and that
with
would be, after
the
the quality
Christ
that
the crucifixion
whether
was the same as anybody
the idea of him being
that
is required
of Christ
action
about
of man and He left
the quality
man,
differ
they
even though
They affirm
was
would
created
of
be
bodies
for God.
if it was possible
that
Christ 81
became
eternal
God after
the union,
what
was the criterion
when
it
which
bodies
is possible
that
(Christ)
them
would
the
one
through
united
one of the hypostasis doctrine.
which
inheres
it with
regard
to the rest of the ma'ani it cannot
if the Son inheres of a basis (hukm)
to him.
and would
be holding of those
a doctrine
that
that
the power
Our venerable
is impossible Just
that
to worship
require in Christ,
alongside
everything
which which
action
refers
to
cannot
be
is separate
it would be necessary
by the power
them
if at union
Christ
worships
himself,
can thank
himself.
of mutual
which
for him (i. e., Son inhering
Abü 'A1i forced
somebody
in location
(ukm) basis a
we have
that
there
in Christ)
by him is separate
should be required.
was from
We only
him to be able and because he is able, creation
requires
himself,
as nobody
inhere
which
it (i. e., new hukm)
is and what required
scholar
worshipped
that
change
that, up the
give
which
who maintain
the
the union
to admit
and they
the basis (hukm)
of divine
The manifestation
demand not
by him is possible
55.
would
(else) must
or comprehended;
particular
somebody
they
the doctrine
is something
was the requirement
(shukr).
is one God in reality,
from
affirm
them
all of
God, that
with apart
they
by him requires
actions
Indeed
or not.
of union
the way by which
is
be said
could
equal to him according to the argument 55 However, al-tamänu) and other argument.
Therefore
maintain
Then
(namely) -
(dalälat
hinderence
Christ
of divine
it
is one substance
who
by
method
In this there
God, whether
doctrine
Because
is a second power
God there
that
was
God
of the son and word, because
refuted,
it.
according
Christ
with
basis of their
perceived
invalid.
becomes
to their
the
then
was one of those for whom union was possible
each
already
eternal,
of knowing
of the method
the manifestation
unless
become can
to be created
are demonstrated
is known?
of the bodies
createdness
something
have to admit,
hypostasis
from
that
invalidation
absolute
by which
himself,
He forced
really
to admit
that
to him.
refers
they
and the Son became because
worship
must
say that
is like
gratitude
in the same way it is impossible those
who maintained
It
one thing.
the union
for does
, is a logical term used by Muslim logicians, DalAlat al-tamänu expressing that God is second to none. The term is based on the fact that the object is is to able produce something, able to produce the genus of that who its and opposite, - if there is an opposite. something 4Abd al-Jabbär's implies that it is possible that one hypostasis argument to move something, the second one wants to keep it while wants It is called mutual hindering, for the object cannot be moving immovable. See Peters, God's Created Speech, at the same time. and immovable PP. 264-5.
82
not
This is just union,
to be one to admit
them
require
first the as
as impossible
of God would
action
also possible
that
was capable
of doing,
the power
He forced
them
can be applied
to admit
be one power,
be capable
would
God, it is required
that
He forced Christ,
them
and separate
to admit Christ
because
is part
thou say to the men "take
the verse
(5: 116) Arbery;
if Christ without
so it
a male,
were among them
He also forced
to admit
(dalalat
hindering substance
hindering
among them;
of
of
some
them.
He explained
doctrine
that
affirms
it
must
refer
Therefore
being affirmed refer
as knowing
was necessary is possible
for
God that that
us to say the same
some
from
of
God. "' by that
be in that
would
intercourse;
would
even though
sense, and there
because
that
when
the mutual
feebleness and
or weakness
the Trinity
co-relate
it does not refer when
that
every
to His
that
explained
to one essence
to refer
at the time
and a thing
as we said before.
affirmation
it is possible
else because
with
to His essence.
The same applies
else.
and substance
of
substantiates
by his argument
83
be a possibility
hypostases,
That
cannot
He further
through
Mary
there
weakness
not anything
He is deity
with
by the fact
in a literal
these
they
and speaking
they refer
that
to something
to one essence.
by many attributes said about
their
Him as living,
by it to His essence,
as
(a denial
of requiring
that
it
to be able.
that
by that
insofar
argument,
as Gods apart
sexual
between
requires
to
this doctrine.
al-tam'anuC)
that
them
as he united
he Was Characterised
this doctrine,
is one, it is required
as was So what
He forced
to this
is required
those who maintained
them
is one.
Mary,
with
way
she gave birth to him without 4Ali interpreted Abü has scholar
our venerable
can be united
when God said, 0 Jesus son of Mary
as the
was God insofar
mankind.
of the hypostases
me and my mother
mentioned
like
substance
According
it
must be the
the rest.
because
category
mutual
God
that
from
"And God: of
didst
he was born
nature
of her.
interpreted
because
(taghäyur)
one of them
of them
to the rest.
the Son has united
that
them
Christ)
be applied
would
it is
If the man is able
a power
their
at the
that
is possible,
whatever
both
through
of the Word, because
to admit
of doing.
that
of himself.
part
If this
two hypostases
the other
for one of them apart
union was positive
they
them
of both would
to one of them,
the difference
admit
will
one.
of mankind.
the other
for the hypostasis
possible
their
He forced
The same is the case, if God is capable
same.
their
worshipped
be the action
his own essence like
through
Christ
that
(dhät).
when
and eternal,
it
Therefore
it
He explained
that
the
knowledge
and indication
have already
He forced
them
insofar
vision,
with
it in full,
to admit
that
as they
the
requires that
dealt
to His essence,
(14ý
They
are forced
living, as
he becomes
which
discussed
We have already Those
God in terms is their they
doctrine
that
require
location
Those
of them
they
of union)
body of Christ
same
57.
their
between they
were
applies
to
it is impossible
God.
the union
with
and they are two natures is in this stage
it
Because
the truth.
in a location
as
is united,
the accident
to the doctrine
becomes -He of union,
What follows
united
it
and the
with
regard
a body at the time Christ,
to
that
He becomes
from
that
invalid. be must
for God to become
tAbd
that man.
have
they
which
it,
maintained
are using
because
the same as it was before. with
maintaining
to maintain
whoever
incarnation,
(i. e., God did not become
claim
them
of corporal
according
that that
affirm
the rest of bodies.
because
56.
if
inheres
the doctrine
correct
maintained
was, after
is no difference hypostases,
is not
cannot
which
with
That is invalid.
who maintained which
one thing
for the sake of
about the unity
far from are
anything
when an accident
If they
presented.
The
be said that
must be united.
an expression
with
they did not become
that
If it could
were.
would
intermingling and
of inherence
thing,
who have described
and Melkites
Nestorians
the
among
that
descriptions
different
their
by all
refer
is affirmed who
of the Father,
(affirming) and speaking, without 57 living as do the Kulläbiyya.
knowing
That
and seeing.
When they
and
56
defective.
became
God as the hypostasis
to make
hearing
hypostases.
as many
reasoning
it.
sense of hearing
power,
(to be) powerful,
Him
of Him
their
for Him,
We
and affirmation.
is no need to repeat
so there
they affirm
affirmed
affirmation
of description
the place
take
the
rest
corporeal
God became
man
The same applies
the
There of
the
incarnate
(ta'annasa) to whoever
left inconsistent, he be the real to Here al-Jabbär as seems discussion, i. e., incarnation and jumped into the Trinity. doctrine, God is living through life that is not to Kulläbiyya's According 'Abd but than an entity. Himself, rather al-Jabbär means to say that God only through by Christians the Hypostasis must affirm of Father, living, is Knowing but be He they as affirmed actual etc., must not which for Him. entities
84
As for those who depend
in this
(taqlid)
of the four
connection
(evangelists),
sifa
refer
to revelation.
must
be interpreted
If
of
through
the
reports
of
the fact
along with
that
about
untruth reason
demanded
aware
that
is impossible
four.
They
in terms
and because
those
Mark.
is one of the things
no one left
holding
languages.
It
alteration,
has been
because
(Islam)
religion
necessary
(darürl)
reported.
Therefore
Consequently,
quite
someone possible
that
a huge
knowledge
brought
what
We are also
and interpretation Matthew,
John,
(too
(to
occurred
be conveyed in
the
accuse)
about
reporting
was
three
four
of
what
is
We can rely upon only what
large)
and the principles
to agree
upon
a lie.
support)
what
that
we of
Thus group
is true.
we have repudiated
of Christ
(to
there
Gospel
the
(Qurlan) book of our
group has
dictated
and
when Christ
had been killed,
can their
upon.
Luke
because
acknowledge
they
So how
what we maintain
because
they relied
upon their
if someone of the person
circumstances
85
they reported
what
the original
is crucified
source
blind
were
that
(Christ
involved.
with
regard
been killed,
so that
he looks
was crucified) The
the
report
having
after
about
of their
imitation
who was crucified
Thus when it was reported similar
their
only
of reporting
is legitimate
it
that
the reporters
the appearance
we know
the Trinity.
were
they
is not be relied
and even though
that
received
alleged
by this method
else.
they
the
our doctrine
to whom his book and his law might
(This is the case) because
it may change like
are
and the crucifixion four
the aspect
and lying.
substitution
have maintained
from
occur
is one of
is that
he (Christ)
of God, not
to the
will
invalidate
claim
he and his disciples
known
for God and what
possible
to it.
They
Christ
The reason
sure that
be possible
that
knowledge
Since
it
then
and referring
such
say:
it?
which
that
his religion
four.
these
except
books
and they alleged
was missing
from
Unity
of the
they make a mistake
This
cannot
and we are quite
whose
that
can not only
as revelation,
imitation
to you, how can your
it is taken
that
is blind
doctrine
is not,
How would
is
discussion
because
is confirmed
it requires.
by
generation
and by blind imitation
for God and what
claimed
to what
It
of God according
prophets
they
of their
(Gospels).
four
reports
what
according
when the basis (maudü')
is these
the earlier
is invalid
doctrine
their
is impossible
of God and what
about
killing
following
to the books (i. e., books of The New Testament)
referring
our
of God and man).
(i. e., a mixture
said He became a composite
true
nature
it is of
in such circumstances
anything because
one of the
knowledge
is that
of Christ
for
conditions
the circumstances
because
appropriate
to rely upon because
that
of
that
the resemblance
is possible
If that
Therefore because
may be disturbed
What
we
we know through
did not slay him nor did they
they
first
mentioned
is
the words of God: (him)
like
f,
it
is not
that
of)
that
probabilty
It
crucified
Christ.
Jacob
Christ
In fact,
account
the arguments
you made
He
feminine
doctrine
replied,
the
require
them)
that
UI.
a way
which
repudiation
of
Because
(the
(hä1) of
circumstances
to maintain blindly
there
was
by them
their
a strong
leaders
Therefore
are
same
in that
deduction, taking
into
When they
turn
without
should be accepted.
as was reported
asked:
of knowledge is
as Nestorius,
(i. e., Melkites).
imitation
in the
claim
on the basis of logical
is only blind
knowledge
the clear
their
of the emperor
doctrines
the hypostasis
as Son not the hypostasis
masculine
(in
gender)
and
life
of is
(in gender). asked:
"So why did you not say about feminine.
that,
circumstances
because
Then the questioner
58.
to
man.
whom one of our fellows
about one of them,
life?
to
are following
on which their
the
with
seemed
despite
they
of their
deduction,
Why have
(it
can be affirmed
the sourse
would
in such
we make as a base for reports.
held the religion
of theirs
logical
that
coincided
them
in this,
because
to
because
was the crucified
for
and whoever
no doctrine
man
has occurred
report
which
Therefore
was not possilbe
Gospels.
their
knowledge
(i. e., the Qur)än)
the source
missing
that
possible
(necessary)
requires
sight
more
(4: 157)
them. that
that
and became
him but it seemed
crucify
(411) has
who was crucified.
events
prophet.
by necessary
whose circumstance
on a person
when ordinary
known
it is possible
that
knowledge
necessary
of something
may have been ambiguous.
of a prophet
through
those matters
projected
miraculous
"Yet
the truth
It has been suggested
(miraculously) was
was the time
cannot
it must be among
(no58) ambiguity.
be known
life
that
it is the daughter
of God because life
"
In the text,
it is Yaltabisu,
we translated
86
as negative
Lä Yaltabisu
is
A similar their
thing
leader
with
He has no kindness
(minna)
for them,
(ri'äsa)
mastery
(mar1rs)
mastery
must
If it is lower
because
mastery.
For
mastery
that
It cannot
through
because
Adam
59.
that
require
would
them in order
to be Yet
must be eternal. to it.
This subject
of
than Him in substance. of God has descreased it is mastery
that
of mastery
when it is said about
reason
consent that
he would
and it is like over Abel.
of mastery
be either
be by force,
of that
natural
that
or lower
so the mastery
the subject
would
take possession
possible
His mastery
He is
to say that
from
him
over
and he is
a man that
of bull and ass, he gets very angry.
Then it is necessary His
that
God in substance
it is the glory
Him in its nature.
Again
if He had created
over one who is subject
than Him as substance,
dignity,
the master
exist
because
it is
that
must have two aspects.
it would be like
1- Either
like
it would be necessary
over them,
It is impossible
His creature,
is
of the Melkites)
(the argument) upon
relied
(ra4is).
(riiäsa)
master
its
regard
mastery
through
united
this
to the Trinity,
God must be master
that
required that
who with
Qurra
to me about
was reported
59 (a leader
which
is like
give
consent
the mastery
So it is affirmed
or by
God in substance. consent
to say that
It is also impossible that
that
or natural force it would
over
So it is affirmed sons and like
will be
It is also
must have a beginning.
to it.
of fathers that
be like
it is impossible
God.
whatever not
force
through
because
is like
would
that
it
the mastery
is a of
He has a Son and he is like Him.
in it is it is It Apparently the text. as a confusing name, also shows it incompetency the to or to of editors who could not manage correct 1Abd fact it. intended foot As al-Jabbär a a of write note about matter is known here Theodore Little Abil Qurra a famous Christian scholar. It is said that he came under the He was a bishop of Harrän. about him. literary of John of Damascus whom he and probably personal influence calls, his master. from his his but Biographers time, connection are not sure about with the Abbasid caliph, John of Damascus, Abü Räiit of Takrit and al-Mä'miin, from he lived that say can about 740-820. one J Waardenburg reported about him that he wrote seventeen polemical His Arabic work has been published, treatises against Islam. a few titles are below: libellus Theodori I. Arendzen, de cultu imaginum Abu Kurra e codice (Boon, latin Primun illustration, 1877): nunc editus arabico versu Constantin Bacha, les oeuvres arabis de Theodore Aboucora eveque d' 1904). Haran, (Beyrouth, Theodore Abi Qurra, M. W., vol. XV (1925), P. 42., A. Guillaume, denburg, Two lights Perceived, J Waar N. T. T., vol. XXXI Part 4. (1977), P. M. Habib ibn Hidmah Abli Rä'ith, Sidney H Griffith, oriens Christians, vol. ('. 161. LXIV,
87
He has informed doctrine
of their argument
is taken
from
blind
imitation,
that
follows
that
course.
anything
forward
that
to affirm as Adam
does not know that
argument
(God) has a female
that
than his mastery
over Abel
is excluded
Him by that
from
excluded
is it
How
then
and it would cannot
his people
generous,
two Hypostases.
the Son is also
which
of mastery
Furthermore,
differentiates
this
through
of subject
be used about
can only
a state
with
regard
such
of
it forward)
people
are changing
different
from
substance
because
that from
God
the mastery comes
a person
who
him from
them.
must
he affirms Him?
It is
in order
the hypostases
have given be
would
and different it or
discussion
or they is not
the
Him
master,
manä
its situation
against
the fact
explained,
to discuss
attention put
already they
this is the
that
from
taken
(khawäss) To go
this. forward say
the
that
the it is
deny that,
or they
say that
substance
or they
say it
invalidity the about
and
because
maonä, whether
with
for
as characteristics
We have
futile.
is connected
the substance
much
(ma-lik)
mention
is, as we have
doctrine calling
to warn
be
We did not
invalidity, its discuss we may
As for their
whatever
after
Then
to their
expression
saying
that
be separated
would
(sifät),
and attributes
by
that
But (we brought
imitation.
hypostases
with
so that
argument,
situation
invalidity
It
and mighty.
so what
obvious.
over
to nature companion
be affirmed
may
the affirmation
only requires
all.
opposed
noble,
hypostasis,
blind
of her
to be said about God.
a proponent
specious
When the female
it (to be excluded),
hypostases
three
through
to God at
from
impossible
If
that
possible
be completed
refer
forward
(i. e., over Eve) is closer
requires
him
Him for the same reason.
its when reasoning
argument
which
who put
someone
He may be master
so that
is hädith.
that
as an
he has said, for it requires
what
mastery
because
accept
we cannot
Do you see that
the basis
that
arguments
so that
companion,
This
of Eve.
was master
from
about
we reported
you of what
their
is the
of all that has come earlier.
10 - Section
Concerning and what
You
must
the invalidity is related
realise,
of what
they
believed
about
Christ
and his adoration
to that.
that
all the
Christians
88
whose
doctrines
we have quoted
are
those
among
worshipped doctrine
who
profess
Christ.
of
worship
differ
They
regard
to him and in what
(Christ) he way
matter
is based upon their
doctrine
with in this
the
about
is
what
is worshipped.
Their
(God) becoming and of union
man.
So whoever
of them
one person, they
maintain him
say about
are two sects.
The Jacobites
he is one substance.
another,
like
human
he is a body.
which
is
Christ
God
through
understood believed
However substances differed
that
being
as he
the
the Melkites, (natures), among
the divine
who is spirit sect
in a different
who is called
man
and
by which
the
However
being and God,
divine
and God in
way from
Walyäniyya60 nature
he is human.
and Nestorians
that
only
could
So these
two
by that
alleged.
that
maintained
Christ
be
sects
has two
one and human one, God and man, although Some of them
Some of them said that
they have two wills.
60.
is
maintained
that
their
will
they is one.
it because has many a most sect, confusing 'Abd it only once. While as we see al-Jabbär mentioned pronunciations, doctrines, he described their doctrine during the summary of the Christian it as Ilyäniyya, Al-Shahristani and said mentioned naming it. without Watt in Syria, the yemen and Armenia. that they were a community it as Julianists that they belong to the sixth translated and commented by Century, their and views are studied only sects still exist of such none doctrine. in the history of the theological the specialists Walyäniyya,
it
he is human
and
in reality.
Maronites
themselves.
that
one hypostasis in reality.
be worshipped
maintained
is
aspect
he is adored
is one substance,
But he is a human being in one aspect
The other
insofar
Christ
he would
that
although
the
that
Al-Näshi al-Akbar mentioned from Jacobites they differed Armenia.
them as al-lawliyäniyya. only in one doctrine
According to him and they belong to
When we study Magälät dim yya aý ima, edited by P. L. Cheikho, there is a fi Sihha al-din al Masihi, here this sect is also treatise called Maymar lawliyäniya. described But the editor as scholar who was a great äni it because in. It their to correct as alseems me --Uli corrected d. after 518) bishop of Hc. licarnassus in Ca-ritt. So it founder was Julian from Julian to Yuwlyan. was changed (See Introduction, PP. 13-14). Milal, P. 178, Watt, A Muslim account of Christian doctrine, Shahristani, Islamicus, Vol. VI, No. 2 (1983), P. 67., A'. -Nashi al-Akbar, Hamdard A1if al-Magälät, P. 81., Cheikho P. 9., The Oxford Awsdt Vingt Traites,. Church, P. 766. dictionary of Christian
89
All
of them
They
maintain
say that
because However,
the Nestorians They
Jacobites
say, that
they
do differ
about
before.
from
You
must
doctrine
that
union
the benefactor; individually (from
and provides
and power
that
deeds that
them
one of them
one was was through
and its invalidity
him
to grant
to be worshipped
and entitled
a body cannot
make
It is well
that.
about
by living the
about that is
the discussion
So how it is possible
them
and he is
depends on unsoundness
that
doctrine
their
of their
is worshipped,
Christ
that
Because
before
the invalidity
about
of the world
him to be worshipped
for
as we maintained
the means of subsistence
with
was a body in reality.
entitle
is impossible
all
we mentioned
invalidate
of Christ
they
although
births:
the second
believed
(hypostases).
the other
discussion)
will
or not
had two
explained
they
is the creator
or with
The evidence
Christ
that
we have
what
repudiates
that
the earlier
was
by him
(eternally),
time
in reality,
and crucified felt
As for the
and crucified.
Mary in time.
realise about
pain
maintained
God before
the bodies
creates
state
they
from
human nature
the
whether
Sometimes
divine was
God was killed
hypostases.
to three
is God born and man who was
Christ
God was born
do not say that
and crucified.
God was born
say that
birth she gave
that that
maintained
do not
They
be imagined
it could
and died.
God and was crucified
nature
to God.
gave birth
Mary
(by that)
the human
that
bodies,
life
a body,
known
that
the
he does such
that
the fact
despite
it
that
to be
he is entitled
by which
gifts
of that.
worshipped.
that
he should
(should
beings
others.
characterised characterised
1. rest from
because
circumstances
Insofar in
through
He is the original benefits the of
as the
the
could
worship
same
way
the
as
certain
facts:
source
of the benefits
would
from
not be possible.
Him.
90
are
because From
any other
produced
benefits
this
Because
of
by
God,
of that
benefits
them
are
because
if He does not aspect
of
on the basis
little much or
in being able to produce which
to the extent
equal.
would
apart
of the bodies
or the rest
only be entitled
than His benefits
benefits
those who declare
between
of prophets
to be worshipped
are entitled
different
is similar)
or the rest
would be greater
which
human no of their
be worshipped
be worshipped)
benefits
to
(when the situation
is no difference
There
He
exist,
all benefits
not is
the come
Z. He has reached such an extent that nothing can equal His gifts. 3.
Because
their
by way of the fact
master
which
from
come
aspects
impossible
are
benefactors
other
as we know
is the
it
that
(darüri)
All
for
duty
there
be worshipped.
However
and that
is limited,
which they
would
impossible
for
argument
two
the gifts
be
sometimes
gifts
to others a
to it and of the fact to do it,
have we
that
that
that
admit
Because
is necessary
know we
that
in any way.
In
is required
to
he is God in a real that
if that
i. e., eating,
God is a body is not admitted,
drinking
etc.,
such an argument
for God, because
is impossible
was is
of the
have bodies and we creation about 61 (mujassima) by the way of the corporealist the
presented it
that
Christ
that
one, must
of that,
all
that
doctrine
(etc. ).
the fact
known
to be worshipped
who maintained
drinks and eats
despite
Christ,
of their
became
substances
to maintain
presented
already
must
of the good in thanking
one who received
those of them
We have already
invalid.
He
to their
according
these
of all
Therefore
is entitled
is the disproof
which
have
occurrence
anyone else, even though
the body is not entitled
shows that
this (argument)
meaning
or the one
in most cases.
knowledge
of that
by means
or Himself
the benefactor
that
the
the
knowledge
Because
evidence.
giving
God.
to be thanked
are entitled
through
that
of
from
apart
entitled
and of the fact
benefactor
because
except
by being
characterised
known
He became
Him,
is possible
to the gifts
regard
has been
It
gifts.
with
from
gifts
Him
through
that
God, whether
the
who receives
in reality are
of the others
the gifts
against
the
of
argument.
It is well invite
people
according
How
to their
it
is possible
that
be the
All that
doctrine,
he used to worship
to say that
for the one who is worshipped
then he would
and God of himself.
However,
of Christ
the circumstances
to worship.
is conceded,
himself
61.
from
How it is possible
reality? that
known
Creator
is contradictory
it is necessary
he is worshipped
in
himself?
If
to worship
of himself,
the benefactor
of
and impossible.
that
He would
be capable
It was emphasized Corporealist, to God. who give bodily attributes Muslim group that god was not corporeal and not material, orthodox those who held that view were sometimes called mujassima. E. I2., Vol. 4, P. D.
91
and
by and
death
of suffering,
for
right
and pain.
for him to be punished
possible
him
is possible
If that
of being
regard
In these conditions
or rewarded.
and his condition
with
to him,
it is also is not
worship
be like
the condition
of
of being killed
and crucified
by
needy
would
rest of bodies.
They
cannot
maintain
it was an imaginary
that
claiming as man
him feeling
pain,
Those
maintained
for that
(the doctrine
must
confine
nature.
That repudiates
or else it requires
might
therefore
one, because
and other
worship
because
things
drinking
such as eating,
some aspects
or all aspects.
of
their
there
must
examination Otherwise kept
If one of their united
with
proponent
him
their
their
saying
is Christ
from
saying
doctrine
for
so
al-Jähiz
not be any mention their
said:
but because
said,
such
be
to God aspects
of
to deny
for humanity
they are possible
there
a
eat, drink,
God, it is possible
believed,
adored
is adored,
cannot
to attach
as they
that
Christ
that
the
with
They are forced
etc. Mary
to be the adored
Christ
Christ
that
since it is possible
kUthmän Abu
from away
completely
the human
and divinity,
humanity
else together
something
and crucifixion
of seed or born
scholar
do not allow
they
for God, even though
is a product
Our venerable
from
hypostasis.
includes
Christ
are only possible
which
are impossible
which
and two
substances
apart
nature
that he is a divine
between
and between
be killed and
crucified
that
is no difference
and provider
two
the one who is worshipped
that
is that
includes
doctrine
this
There
creator
things
It is necessary
is:
being)
him.
we can worship
The answer
one.
Our doctrine
argue:
of Christ
they maintain
that
him without
God feels pain in reality.
that
doctrine
their
is (something
it may befall
that
to the divine
the worship
natures
of
made God
they
man or his death
It is impossible
would require
because
thing
not a real
the killing
is established.
whose possibility)
They
thing
to them
and according
who
him in forms
what befell
to admit
that
according
either
God to
is a need for a minute
invalidity
in God these of
may
be
terms,
explained. may He be
doctrines.
We adore Christ he is the
92
not because
intermediary
he is divine
between
or God
us and between
God, insofar
Because of his d eat blessing
him.
as we know God through
fact
and the
that it is very close to the blessing of God (Qadim), worship him.
it is good for us to
The
section
that
for
reason.
is:
answer
it
that
necessitate would
According
that
those whose kindness because
they
by which
matters
is nothing
That
to Adam
view
blessing
of Adam's the
evidence
of
condition
is changed
merit
or revealed
through
of worship.
Since no thanks be
can
worship
due
be possible
and honour
the
conneded
with
now, there
As for cradle
the
it
in the
is convincing
arguments
and that
of miracles
due it
chapter (proof
which
it is genuine,
of his miracles,
the rest
is only
and reports
to Him.
God
(later
of waqd
things
God)
is
acts no
we have
which
the same
thanks,
We shall
and (other
(threat).
whose
therefore
or gift,
giving)
is
Thus worship
we said, that
are due.
of
This
was appropriate,
they
and thanks
to worship
to the religious
(of
Therefore
to
we have
the point
one of the
a blessing
blessing
of
to be made
from
thing
There
blessings
God ordered
regard
such order
where
between
difference
that
to thanks.
appropriate
worship
with
through
which
of such a command.
special
be possible regard
only
that
the
to the
than
of worship
is not
can be due without
according
aspects
and other
as we maintain
without
with
are
discussion worship
revelation
If it could
mentioned.
because
which
no one is entitled
because
and worship
anything
blessings.
other
two
and as an act
of Adam
by
greater
which
to prostrate
to Him
appropriate
would
to him,
(Satan)
closeness
the
the prostration
concede
He ordered
makes
(accept)
they
was an act of worship God.
from
It
of His kindness,
God's blessings
of
it
would
and the rest of
mentioned
nature
that
fathers
Christ
of
are distinguished
that
We do not
special
Christ
of
necessitates
maintained.
except
these blessings
in the
others.
the
of
given
blessing
the
this
to us on account
of those we have just
the blessing
we have
explanation
our fore
have been great
distinguish
this
of
the prophets
all
worship
we should
and gifts
cannot
it from
separates
to worship
was good
also necessitate
beginning
the
to
praise
mention
the
an explanation
of
matters)
are
which
In the argument
presented
of our position).
they
use against
it would
the discussion (akhbär).
our claim
he spoke
that
have been as widespread of that
will
among
be mentioned
In the same way the doctrine
in the
them
as
in the chapter by which
they
r
object
to
affirmation
the of
Qur an, Idris
as
their
and Noah
argument and
others
93
is
that
in
as prophets
the while
Qu? än, they
there were
is not
or in it
prophets,
(Qu? än) that
God never
sent
revelation
(to any one) except
men and it is not the case, and God said to Christ. "Didst
thou,
(5: 116). "Surely
say unto
While
none
God is poor,
men, of the
take
me and my mother
Christians
and we are rich"
said it.
And
as Gods apart it
(3: 181). and that
is in it "Allah's
that
from Jews
God. " said,
hand is fettered"
(5: 64). And they
said about
it is known will them
be dealt
that with
they
Ezra,
that
never
in (the
he was Son of God, while
it, said
chapter)
in addition of miracles.
now.
94
to other So there
(according similar
to the Jews) matters,
these
is no need to mention
PART
95
TWO
Chapter I Commentary translation
Before
alluded
in
the
of al-Mu. ghni (Vol. v. pp. 80-85)
doctrines, i. e., Trinity two main Christian and criticise tAbd has given a brief summary incarnation, al-Jabbär of the
to discuss
going
and union
of
famous
Christian
Christ.
It is notable
identifying
doctrines
during
that
to indicate these
the person and nature of 4Abd failed the summary, al-Jabbär about
presenting
This adds to the difficulty
the names of the sects. Sometimes
sects.
of various
differences
and their
sects
most of the time of
Doctrines
Christian
on the
ýAbd to by al-Jabbär
he fails
sects,
in
even
to identify
detailed
discussion
he is
whose doctrine
the sects
the
of
discussing.
On the
other
Jabbär,
elaborated
hand,
a particular
Christian
"Christ
prophet,
whom
him
His
Son
by
p. 85/translation,
Both
Christ dignified
1.
about
the sects by
way
(al-Mughni,
of
their
the
As a result, held
which of
works
views
and venerated
adoption
group
the
Oriental
by
not
of Christians,
p. 80/translation,
Mary
they
and was a
for his obedience way
P. 19).
when he says that
(ibt': adaa) through
existence
God honoured
and Ibn Hazm
a righteous
him because
birth by not
it.
naming
to a small
referred
of Trinity.
into
came
to al-Shahristäni
was
to
and named
birth. "
(al-Mughni,
to certain
individuals.
of
P. 25).
al-Shahristäni
According
without
supplemented
information
the
is related
there is a resemblance of the ýAbd It seems that and al-Jabbär.
in identifying
4Abd al-Jabbär
further
al-
sometimes
the same source
has been
the doctrine
that
believed
that
than 'Abd
in Arabic.
writing
admit
he gives
doctrine
al-Sharistäni
from
this
In the beginning
Later
every
has been helpful
and
scholars
who do not
noble
between
work
doctrines
various
in such a way that
It is interesting
are quoting
al-Shahristäni's
I.
the summary
sect.
both scholars
although
later
al-Shahristani
and wording
phrases
(d. 548/1153),
and union.
A1-Shahristäni,
attribute
Butinus man
('abd)
of his obedience 1
Milal
this doctrine
(Photinus) and
was
and Paul created
and called
p. 176.
96
of Samosata but
said that
God honoured
him Son by adoption
and
(tabanni)
According
Western
to
incarnation
Paul
sources,
Christ the incarnated 1 According to Afif b. Mulammil,
Christ.
Ibn
that
Christ
The
first
Christ
Hazm
(d. 456/1064)
described
gives
unbegotten,
because
derived
picture
the begotten
from
"Arius
that,
from
scholar,
in a purely
(c. 319 AD),
there
of
nature
who believed
maintained hand,
that
western
God the Father
Son is in some sense subordinate 5 unity.
the absolute
"2
was also a
human
who
that
the
the prophets.
On the other
believed
from
upon another
Christians
three
Word of God.
man and the
us a clear
absolute
in Alexandria
a priest
Christian
least at 4 of God.
was a man and a messenger
is Arius,
Jesus as one person
believed who
an unfamiliar
was a created
sources
an oriental
"that
maintained
only in one degree
differed
father
al_Masisi, 3
But
of
human the upon
the Word rested
and that
Paul
Samosata
is an
and inferior,
for the creation It does mean that Christ, although created was an instrument 6 {Afif We find the same view attributed b. Muuammil, to Arius by of the world. 7 who was a Melkite. 4Abd
Later
al-Jabbär,
actually
without
naming. it
does attribute
to Arius.
scholars
who
came
claimed
that
Christ
(Istifa)a).
(al Mughni,
The second according simply
Z. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9.
himself
given
the
in Ibn Hazm that
like other
al-Shahristäni al-Jabbär
said,
view of the Arian
word
God
of
and
doctrine
who set out a similar "It
His
view
is said by some of their
God is one and they
that
p. 85/Trans.
to Ibn Hazm,
a prophet
However, 8 ¶Abd
earlier is
gives
detailed a more
name
him
Son through
Father
and
(God's)
will
P. 24).
is also Paul of Samosata Christ
prophets.
(260 AD) whose teaching
was a man and a messenger
of
God and
9
Church. p. 1087. Oxford dictionary of Christian Cheikho, Trois Traites, pp. 87-89. Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal, vol. I, p. 48. V. A. Harvey, A handbook of Theological terms, p. 25 Church, p. 83 Oxford Dictionary of Christian Cheikho, Trois Traites, p. 87 Al-Shahrista i Milal, p. 178, J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian 226-231 Ibn. Hazm, al Fisal, vol. I, p. 48.
97
Doctrines,
pp.
The
is
third
Arianism him
and believed
that
word)
Spirit 10 were created.
Again
'Afif
b. Muuammil
Spirit
were created
is another
There
said that
36Z),
Christ
human prophet a was
there
group from
was a minor
of the Messiah
by al-Näshi
sect mentioned
can see the divine
both
of these
believed
that
al-Akbar
(spirit
of
and
the Son and
He
as al-Musalliyäniyya.
them who alleged and knows it.
nature
version
and man, but considered
However,
Macedonius
that
conforms 11 beings.
a modified
supported
who
God. Word of and
as the Holy
Holy
(d. c.
Macedonius
that
the human nature
They denied that
Christ
is an incarnate deity, by they asserted that he is a human being, not God the l2 (the Almighty. Al-Shahristani Musallin them called and said that worshipper) 13 did not mention they were a group of Nestorians. Al-Shahristäni such doctrine
towards
It is well
them
known
that
as mentioned
such sects
by al-Nishi
declared
were
al-Akbar.
Church
by the Orthodox
to be
heretical.
'Abd
2. power
It
power. 1Adi, the
This
possibly
this
exception
refers Christian
the property
of Holy
reports
"Others
referred
to a sect
who maintained
the Holy
Spirit
that
life
is
P. 19).
p. 80/Trans.
known
well
p. 8Z/Trans.
..
from
seem
Jacobite, Jabbar
al-Jabbär
(al-Mughni,
would
then
that
because
to the Jacobites,
is being according
identified
as
to Yahyä
b.
himself a was who philosopher, and apologist 14 'Abd (qud_). later However Spirit is power al-
maintained
P. Z1). It is not clear
that
whether
the
there
Spirit
is
power"
is any distinction
(al-Mughni,
between
these
two statements.
3.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Then
'Abd
al-Jabbär
describes
three
views
Ibid., p. 4 $ Cheikho, Trois Traites, p. 88 Kitäb al-Awsat, Al-Näshi al-Akbar, p. 79 Milal, p. 176 Al-Shahristäni, Yahya while refuting the philospher, al-Kindi, the property to the Christians, of Holy Spirit De Yahya Ben 'Adi, " edited by A Traite (1920-Zl) XXII, P. 5. Chretien, vol.
98
of the nature
of Christ
that according maintained (qurda) see "Un is power. Revue de L'orient Perier,
their
without
those who hold them.
naming
i.
The Messiah
(al-Mughni,
is the word and body united
ii.
this
to al-Shahristani,
the Word was united
The Messiah
with
each other.
P. ZO)
p. 80/Trans.
According
They are:
is a Melkite
doctrine, 15
the body of Christ.
with
that
namely
is the Word, not the body. (al-Mughni,
P. 80/Trans.
P. ZO).
This
God should birth
to be a Nestorian
appears
doctrine
not be born of woman.
to Divine
Therefore
The human
nature.
because
the Nestorians
they refused
that human
to attribute
of Christ
acts and suffering
insisted
belong
to the
man Christ.
iii. .
Messiah
The
body
created
p. 80/Trans.
This
to
appears
element
it
when
be a Jacobite
flesh and blood.
said, 17
that
4.
'Abd
the Father
and the Son. of
procession Christendom.
al-Jabbär
Spirit
According
was not
in
was
doctrine
the
the
and
womb
alleged
of
that
Word
became
a
(al-Mughni,
Mary.
not
correct,
as the
that
fusion
a third
of fire
with
is a state P. 21).
because
which
proceeds
His statement it
is a western
into
from
about
the
part
of
Eastern Church protested that such 18 in Scripture. However, "(Abd al-J abbär in his
to Harvey,
to be found
maintain
the Word was transferred
the Spirit
p. 81/Trans,
they
just
to Jacobites
(al-Mughni, is
because
and mixture,
according
ý
the
body
created
P. ZO).
fusion of out 16 a live coal.
Al-Shahristäni
15. 16. 17. 18.
the
is produced
coal produce
doctrine
is
the
Milal, p. 173 A1-Shahristani, Ibn Kammüna1 Tani al Abhäth, p. 52 Milal, p. 176 A1-Shahristäni, V. A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological
99
terms,
p. 86
tot
ý
Tathbit, Spirit
while
describing
proceeds
from
Rabb-an
'Abd
Christians
al-Jabbär
i.
Some
(khawäss) Mughni,
Yahyä
'Adi, b.
is not
multiplied
three
khaw äss.
is described
but
b. Mu'ammil
21.
change
the
condemned
the
hypostases
as
(sifät)
this single
among
the
are
actually (al-
attributes.
(Divine) or if
sifät
essence
(dhät),
it is preferred
22
viewpoint.
persons
to the Nestorians term
(ashkhäi),
(al-Mughni,
and
use
by al-Shahristäni (person)
shakhs
the use of shakhs and said that
is distinguishable 24 to the hypostasis.
(1983) P. 173.
Another
oriental
137 p. 23. Z4.
arose
p.
in the external
world,
whole
while
who says, instead
of
person
who
it is different
Tathbit, al-Jabbär, vol. I, p. 94 Melanges d l'Universite Saint Joseph, Al-Tabari, al-Radd=alä al-Nasärä, 36 (1959), p. 136, Hassan b. Ayyu'b, al-Radd, in al Jawäb al-Sahih, Vol. Vol. H. P. 319 'Ammär (d. Cheikho, Vingt Traites, 74. 845) a Nestorian p. al-Basari (khawäss) of God's essential scholar called them essential particularities being. 'Ammär (See, S. H. Griffith, Le Museon, Vol. al-Basar-i's Kitäb al-Burhän,
NC, 22.
is
P. Z1).
could be indicated
19. 20.
which
by three
them
considered
has been attributed
sometimes Z3 hypostasis.
¬Abd
others
said, "that
this is a Jacobite
that
Others
they
regard
way",
21
8Z/Trans
with
it
P. 21).
scholar
in itself
in this
(agänim).
that
maintained and
it
1)n
4Abd than al-Jabbär.
the hypostases
characteristics
a Jacobite
ii.
This doctrine
them
of
P. 82/Trans
This would indicate
Afif
to define
that
differences
the
quoted
when they tried
better
he says that the when 'Ali b. two converts
this
described
also
doctrines
they knew Christian
that
5.
b. Ayyub
and Hassan
al-Tabari
obvious
the Nicene Creed correct/ 19 Along with the Father.
A1-Shahristäni, Cheikho, Trois
scholar
(Assäl Ibn
Milal, p. 176 Traites, p. 76
100
gives
a similar
description.
See Ibid.,
iii.
Others
of
hypostases
wujüh26
(877-940)
Alexandria
he denied
aspects
were
(al-Mughni,
'ihät)
aspects they
that
a Melkite
scholar in the
worshipped
should
these 25 of one God.
essence
of as being
be thought
that
maintained
three
(separate)
(aspects).
The distinctions
hard to follow.
here are rather fails
al Burhin
by Eutychius
seem that
the use of the word
three
(wuju-h)
P. 2-1).
are three
However,
that
thought
p. 82/Trans.
Eutychius
they
hypostases
to define
than a'ihät.
to be a Melkite
doctrine
Watt
'ihat
or translate implies
wu'üh
in his translation
a greater
the more
separate
It
and wu'üh. separation
The use of 'iýhät to describe
whereas
of Kitäb would
between
the hypostases
concept
of wu'üh
the
seems may be
Jacobite.
6.
'Abd
the hypostases
Some
and substantiality.
them
they
Some of them
we do say that fact
as to whether
that
maintained
different
in
they are different,
but
were
and the same in substantiality.
hypostasy
ii.
of
of opinion
or the same in hypostasy
are different
i.
to the differences
then turns
al-Jabbär
that
they
they
"We do not say that said, hypostases
are three
are
only
one substance".
are the same in the
which
(al-Mughni,
p. 82/Trans,
p. 21).
On this matter
one should refer
to the statements
of three
Christian
scholars.
Cl
Timothy
1. Mahdi,
said,
difference
the
through
25. 26. 27. 28.
scholar,
"If
in
among
individually,
In
I, a Nestorvn;
same
we
keep
them.
then there
debate,
hypostases
while the
mind
On the other is distinction
he
also
replying
101
is
no
there
hand, if we look at every 27 " them. among
declared,
al-Burhän,
al-
substance,
"They
and they are the same in nature
Kitäb Eutychius of Alexandria, Ibid., p. 41 Cheikho, Trois Traites, p. 6 Ibid., p. 7
to the Caliph
vol. I, p. Z7
one
distinguished 28 (tabi(a).
are
2.
"Afif
hypostases,
but hypostases
3.
Yahyä
b.
Muuammil
is
the
that
substance claimed 29 are not same as each other.
!.
b. Adi asserted
is different
each hypostasis
that
than the other
the
two in
is a separation
ma'nä30.
In another
(fall)
them on the one hand, and there is no separation among them on 31. is supported hand. by the Thus it can be seen that this doctrine 4Afif in the person of Timothy, in the person of the Melkites and by
treatise
we say that
that
there
among
the other Nestorians
the Jacobites
7.
he said,
for
same
lAbd
with
al-Jabbär
person
of Yahyä.
doctrines
two
attributed
the nature
about
of hypostases
to
the Nestorians.
i.
Some of them and
God.
speaking
each of these hypostases
that
alleged
is
This
doctrine
a
of
is a living of
some
the
Nestorians.
11.
The
rest
said,
individually
8.
is not
P. 82, /tran,
P. 21)
The
doctrines
same
Nestorian eAbd
al-Jabbär
doctrine.
reported
i.
Some
of
them
(al-Mughni,
Al-Shahristäni that
30. 31. 32. 33.
of
the
hypostases
a God nor living
are
reported
on being
(al-Mughni,
nor speaking.
by
mentioned
as being
al-Shahristani
32
the differences
Christians the among
about
of kalima.
the meaning
Z9.
each
maintained
that
the word
is knowledge
itself.
P. 8 2/ tr an, P. Z 1)
attributed
by the kalima
this doctrine
to the Melkites,
they mean the hypostasis
Ibid., P. 79.
'Adi, Magälät, P. 28. Ya.hyä b. Ibid., PZ8. Milal, P. 176. A1-Shahristäni, Milal, P. 176. Al-Shahristäni,
102
when he says
of knowledge.
33
11.
Some of them
(al-Mughni,
A1-Shahristäni Nestorians
iii.
9.
from
different
i.
manifests
itself
through
when he says, then the 34 (nutq) as speech and kalima.
knowledge
hand, the doctrine
is that
of others
(al-Mughni,
speech are not knowledge.
'Abd
it
to the Nestorians
interpreted
This doctrine
is knowledge.
P. 21).
P. 8Z/tran,
attributed
On the other
kalima of
meaning
because
kalima
It was only named speech.
the
said that
the word
and
p. Zl).
p. 8Z. tran.
has not been identified.
al-Jabbär
described
one another
or not?
Some of them
from
reported
are heterogeneous
the hypostases
about
(Father's
and this knowledge
they are
whether
they said, the hypostases
that
them
that
knowledge)
and His
r
life
(al-Mughni,
are different.
p. 8Z, /tran.
p. 22)
ft
In other
of God and life
knowledge
ii.
one can say, the hypostases
words
Some
them
of
substances
has not
However analogy
10. person
Christ of
34.
Ibid., P-175
35.
Ibid.,
to identify
al-Shahristani
with 35
charcoal,
al-Jabbär
reported
Jacobites.
'Abd
both
possible
as
and
an example
the views
P. 82/trap.
first
the
by
of three
and his union.
P. 177, Ibn Kammüna,
Tq,
pp. 5Z and 53
103
of
Kammüna
Ibn
mentioned
themselves
are
of being
is not made regarding
which
(al-Mughni,
ember.
Him.
in terms
though
They illustrated
of substance.
been
Even
else.
from
hypostases
the
is a distinction
there
it becomes when
It
that
and nothing
hypostases, terms
of God are different
reported
than God; the
are other
4Abd
Christian
of charcoal
P. 22).
these
doctrines. the
attributed al-Jabbär
to
the
sects about the
i.
The
Nestorians
claimed
to them in reality
According
is
Christ
that
God
man.
and
is two substances
the Messiah
and
two hypostases.
ii.
believed
The Melkites them is eternal
iii.
(Abd
The
majority
al-Jabbär
union was an event manner
without
identifying
i.
which
in which
Shahristäni 39 Jacobites.
36. 37.
Cheiklio, Vingt 'Abd al-Jabbär,
has one
substances.
these doctrines.
reported
(Jawhar),
while
Paul of Sidon
"nature" al-Jabbär sometimes also 37 It would seem that he regards the two terms labia. 38 as do many Christian scholars.
goes on to say that in time
occurred this
took
union
(kalima)
and
the Christians
(amr hädith).
However
He then
place.
agreed
listed
that
the
they differed five
methods
groups concerned.
united
Ibn
with
that human being
(al-Mughni,
means of intermingling.
Al
Christ
out of two
substance 36 'Abd (tabiýa).
the Christian
The word
one of
P. 22).
he used the word
as synonymous
substances,
that
alleged
he is (formed)
that
has correctly
had two
is created.
Jacobites
P. 82-83/tran,
uses the term
on the
the
(al-Mughni,
used the word
11.
of except
al-Jabbär
Christ
and the other
substance,
However,
(Abd
that
Kammüna
P. 83, /tran,
attributed
this
(i. e. Christ)
by
P. ZZ).
doctrine
to
the
Traites, PP. 28-9 Vol. V, P. 131 al-Mughni,
38.
'Adi, b. Magäldt, Yahyä
39.
Milal, P. 177, Ibn Kammüna, Al-Shahristäni, Tangih, PP. 52-3. Al(See P.175) that is Shahristäni this doctrine to the Melkites also attributed Watt, while translating incorrect. failed to this section by al-Shahristäni discrepancy. this out point
P. 21, Cheikho, Vingt Traites,
104
P. 2 and P. 31.
11.
The
word
Kammdna40
iii.
The word
in him
inhere
(al-Mughni,
body.
Al-Shahristini
seems
by him
and his
is one jawhar
of three
sifit.
It is in accordance clay
(actual)
which
Yahyä
4Z
of Trinity
(by
stamped from
design being removed
A1-Shahristani's
4Adi
b.
has
to explain
used
this
how God
of the design of a seal
the appearance
has been
mirror
P. ZZ).
P83/tran,
the doctrine 43
with
in a polished
appears
to the Jacobites.
because
correct,
in his affirmation
being
(al-Mughni,
this
attributed
attribution
in
this analogy
P. 22).
of human
into looks it. he when
v.
the
Logos as a house and a
was covered
and word
P.83/tran,
It is as a picture
analogy
describe
similarly
has not been identified.
This doctrine
iv.
Fathers
that commented 41 by Saint Paul and John of Damascus.
was applied
as Ibn
to Nestorians
A, J. Wolfson
and a temple.
as
person
P. ZZ).
was attributed
to the incarnate
in its relation
human a
of
P. 83/tran,
the Orthodox
mentioned,
body of Christ tabernacle
(al-Mughni
of temple
the analogy
form
the
adopted
locus. and
temple
Although
(kalima)
the
seal)
the
without
the seal, and the inherence r
(of the design) in the clay.
Al-Shahristäni Nestorians.
12.
lAbd
seems
(al-Mughni,
to attribute
this
P,83/tran,
analogy
for
the union
to the
44
al-Jabbär
reported
differences
among the Christians
Will. of union
40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
PP. 22-23).
Ibn Kam mlina, Tang-ih, P. 53 A. J. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Milal, P. 177 Al-Shahristäni, 'Adi, Magälät, PP. 12-17 b. Yahyä Milal, P. M. Al-Shahristäni,
105
Fathers,
P. 368
about
the
The general
(i. e. nature)
substance
mankind
- sometimes the whole of humanity, (al-Mughni,
all.
There
is no doubt
Melkites
Christ
united
with
may cause the redemption of Satan.
able
because '(Afif
of view.
with of
we see that b. Mulammil,
the Lord Jesus
said that
of view
(tabiýa) of mankind
nature
of the race
If this union was possible
be only
would
point
the general
the Son united
cause the redemption
doctrine
this point
the Melkites
of
P. 23).
it is a Melkite
supported
scholars
describing
while
so that he will
the totality
with
that
they considered
PP.83-84/tran,
that
united
from
of mankind
he
so that
the slavery
a personal nature, then he 45 In this suggesting,, that to save one person. with
when the word took on human nature,
it was the nature
by all
shared
mankind.
Eutychius
of Alexandria
"The hypostasis humanity, that
he
the whole might
According
part
to
Al-Shahristani %ä
Nestorians
and Jacobites 48 was partial.
the nature
i.
the
of the other of
whole
(i. e. Christ)
divinity,
the
he brings
so that
(al-Mughni,
of humanity.
so
..
PP.83-
P. 23).
Abt
'Abd
of mankind for part
the whole
with
salvation
addition
humanity
45. 46. 47. 48.
with
God head, assumed total
the entire
of one mingled
the redemption
84/tran,
about
give
He united about
13.
of the word with
through 46 it to the whole of humanity.
giving
ii.
also said,
al-Jabbär
then
this
al-Warräq,
a
doctrine.
a Jacobites
Muutazilite, to their
referred
deals
is
while
doctrine
refuting that
differences
among
who believe
that
with
47
the
union
In the with
Christians
of Christ.
He points
out
substances
(natures)
that
"Those become
Cheikho, Trios Traites, P. 80 Alexandria, f Kitdb al-Burhän, Eutychius Milal, P.177 A1-Shahristäni, Al-Radd, P. 6. Abü`Isä al-Warräg, 106
in the union
one and the created
val. I, P. 106
(muhdath)
two
became
eternal
ii.
(al-Mughni,
"
is eternal.
Christ
Jacobites
doctrine
Whereas
"those
by
different
union
maintaining
and human".
is divine
This is a Melkite
doctrine.
"Christ
substances,
had two
is also a 49 claimed.
and al-Shahristäni
explain
who
that
maintained
P. Z3). This
P. 84/tran,
as Al-Warräq
Christ
that
(iii)) 10. No cf
(The Jacobites,
is eternal
one of which
belief
the Melkite
In 10(ii) he refers
that
and the
other
created".
14. Christians
Most of the Christian
scholars
'Abd
turned
al-Jabbär
"The
Nestorians
with
the
parts
Mughni, P. 84/tran,
Nestorians
of Christ,
took
place
parts".
(al-
crucifixion divine
the
not
P23).
the
reported
doctrine
same
"because
and added as a reason,
to
the
inhere do not pains
the
with
regard
G1
J1
deity".
In the
"The
Father,
God
died
majority
of
Son of 5z divinity".
ii.
same way we see that
I, a Nestorian
Timothy
The took
place
with
the
among
opinion
of
the
that
maintained
human
A1-Shahristäni
differences
to
of view.
(gatl) death of Christ. and
the crucifixion
concerning
i.
next
this point
also supported
50
believed
Christ
(where)
Mahdi
die?
(i. e. human)
Melkites
the entire
Caliph
can God Himself
in one nature
the
when
ý
that
asked
He replied, in his
but
not
the
crucifixion
Christ
is divine
and
i
human
" (al-Mughni, time. the at same
The same doctrine that
we see that
the Melkite
49. 50. 51. 52. 53.
point
is reported Paul of Sidon, of view,
by al-Shahristäni. a Melkite
said that
Milal, P. 177 Ibid., P. 9, Al-Shahristäni, Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 28, Trois Traites, Milal, P. 176 Al-Shahristäni, Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 17 Milal, PP. 173-4 Al-Shahristäni
107
P. 84/tran,
although
P. 79
scholar,
53
P. Z3).
In addition while
the divine
to
explaining
nature
could
not
in it because
nature body
(of
divine
Ill.
the
nature)
in the hypostasis.
nature)
"The
fact the of
human
death
has
Al-Shahristäni
born in one aspect
of
is also
Christ
sense that
Christ
that
and
is formed
that
of
P. 23).
"the
that,
added
which
formed
is one substance,
(muhdath)
'iha) and unborn
(the
and
crucifixion
(nature)
Christ
it
with
P,84/trap,
and created
in another
in another
by al-Shahristäni
had been
aspect.
some of the
to
the
to explain
formed
from
the
substance divine
and
(natures).
not in reality.
this doctrine
is two
the doctrine
substances
he has one will. " (al-Mughni,
(al-Mughni,
to a sect
called
is also correct.
P. Z4).
Ilyäniyya.
56
identification 57
of
Maronites
who
of a sect called
(natures)
P. 84/tran,
and one hypostasis
in the
P. 24)
54. 55. 56.
Cheikho, Vi nt Traites, P. 40 Milal, PP. 177-8 A1-Shahristani, P. 178, we have introduced this sect in Ibid., P. 89 and in the introduction, PP. 13-14. translation
57.
Ibid., P. 178.
108
P. 84/tran,
4Abd al-Jabbär's
group of the Jacobites
described
and pain were in
death and crucifixion
said, that
means the Julianists.
OAbd a1-Jabbär "that
it
attributed
as a small
that
to be an attempt
after
of phantasy
Al-Shahristäni He clearly
attributed
It seems
united
in by the
P. 23).
P. 84/tran,
Some of them terms
'iha)
with
(nature)
report
believed
aspect,
human substance
maintained
a similar
eternal
doctrine 55 Jacobites.
15.
given
in one aspect
(nature)
alleged
(al-Mughni,
(natures)".
Some of the Jacobites
This
them
Jacobites
if it is for the substance 55 there would be no union.
(al-Mughni,
v.
which 54
say, that
(the two natures)
iv.
is in reality
human
the
(suffered) are
(pains)
that
for one substance
took place
two substances
Jacobites
the
of
majority
it participated
by pain,
in reality
be harmed
the
footnote
of
the
This description instead
of 'aýwhar.
16.
With
doctrine during
without the time
reference naming
b. Muýammil,
of Christ,
to the worship the sect,
which
P.85/trap,
but he used the term
4Abd al-Jabbär
tabila
mentioned
held it, "the word used to enter
the miracles
of performing
(al-Mughni,
his actions".
by 'Afif
is supported 58
from
and depart
a
Christ
him in the rest of
P. Z4).
tAp-
Al-Shahristäni described
reported
it in the context
17.4Abd "that
at the time
crosses the air and water
A1_Shahristäni
attributed Shahristäni
reporting
of
described
it as Maronite
58.
59. 60. 61. 62.
doctrine
without
of the Jacobites,
a1-Jabbär
the word
the context
I same
mentioned
another
the waterpipe".
this
analogy
seems doctrine62
to
be
to
analogy
a group
incorrect,
of
because
CAbd and al-Jabbär
the
P. 24).
Jacobites. al-Näshi
himself
union,
as the arrow
P. 85/tran,
the
he
doctrine.
concerning
the womb of Mary (al-Mughni,
but
sect,
but it is not a Jacobite
of union passed into into
any
naming
This al-Akbar
mentioned
it in
of Maronites.
FAfif
b. Muuammil mention an unknown person called, Awghäliy-us who also (khayäl) not a reality. believed that the body of Christ was a phantasy (Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 88). Ibid., P. 87 Milal, P. 178. Al-Shahristani, Ibid., P. 178. Kitäb al-Awsat, P. 81. Al-Nashi al-Akbar,
109
CHAPTER II
Muslim
Jawhar IAbd
declares
al-Jabbär
is one substance both
the
critique
'awhar)
doctrine
this
it
terms jawhar
term,
are agreed
and to explain
is necessary
"(God)
that
the Creator
(agänim). " In order to understand 'Abd al-Jabbar? and other Muslims
hypostases
in three
of
and Ag nim
the Christians
that
Christian of
Meaning the of views
and Christians
to examine
the use and meaning
of the
and agänim.
Jawhar
has been translated
Jawhar
of philosophical
group thinkers
Substantia and its that
which
It
appears.
of
the Father, They
of itself,
been
God
of
the
with
in substance real
independent
the
is contrasted
inheres
essentially 2
ideas
the substantia,
a
Christian by used
repeatedly
and
this represents
especially
the
of
Trinity.
the Greek word ousia, the abstract noun of the verb 'to be' 1 According to Latz, substance means, use begins with Plato.
stands
is.
attribute
have
which
their
Like
translates
technical
which
notions
formulate
to
"substance".
being
accident as its
or as the
the real being or that subject, 'ard) (Arabic or appearance which
support channel
and only through
the divine
word was declared
' the true
expression
of His being involving
the
relationship
of
three
persons
which
is or
something
to be 'of one substance
At Nicaea
explained
as a further
occurs
no change to
one
with
or diminution.
substance
on
the
that the God of a single species, while also affirming 3 is head is an indivisible In the short, word used to express the unity. 4 being, by which all three persons are one. underlying analogy
For
4Abd
receive
1. 2. 3. 4.
of three
al-Jabbir
accidents.
members
jawhar
implies
This word
being,
the substance physical 'Abd is concerned as far as al-Jabbar
C. Stead, A New Dictionary Theology, P. 554 of Christian J. B. Latz, Encyclopedia of Theology, P. 1649 C. Stead, A New Dictionary Theology. P. 554 of Christian Oxford Dictionary Church, P. 1319 of the Christian
110
which
can
means that
God is created
and temporal.
body (innahü
physical
Christian
the
of
Haramayn,
he attacks
where that
Elias of Nisibis, He
from
translating
into
translated of that
Sidon,
every
we consider
5.
further
has studied
whoever because
(g ini
existent
anything,
is
Syriac
as 'aýwhar. an accident.
God is not jawhar.
"self-existent"
of
The
doctrine
for
word
philosophy
be either
would we shall
the philosophy
or
which
receive
will
"Because 'Abd al-Jabbär's is philosophy tends always to be the expression of a in his doctrine coincides with a physical as composed of separate atoms which are bodies. " to constitute material
substance that
to def end the Christian a matter
of
in Arabic
alGod, has
accidents, 6
position.
confusion
being
self-existent
of which
contaguents.
kiyän
in was
the meaning
of jawhar,
then
is used in the sense of
exists.?
not
deny
(substance)
tAbd
and argued
that
Him 'awhar, calling hard (accident). If or
it is self-existing,
of
by Imäm
receives
God as a jawhar
jawhar
see either
This understanding
means
hand, jawhar
then no difficulty
and logic,
nor
is the interpretation
If that
describing
substance
of the
Now this word carried
justified
Peters while explaining (substance) said,
as that
essentially
If on the other
bi-nafsihi)
is not
is repeated
of theologians
has tried
apologist,
Syriac. Arabic
of
God cannot
that,
difficulty
this
carried
which
certainly
Paul
a Christian that
explained
before
'aýwhar
is defined
substance
but it has been explained
clearly
Christian
the
"God
) lä jism. wa
use
in the language
substance
Alternatively,
extension.
He states
laysa bi-jawhar
ta%lä
misunderstanding
arguing
5
al-Jabbär
that
is jawhar,
on
about the Jawhar
but never purely metaphysical, this discussion physical reality, world view which sees the world in composites brought together
"A from its itself by being He further said, substance, pure materiality, has only a small number to the concept all related of of qualities, "materiality". When it Besides its being a substance, it can be existent. (mutahayyiz). it is is This the most characteristic spatial exists, quality being in space. " of a substance, because this is the meaning of materiality lAbd
al-Jabbar used this phrase in most of his books that God is neither It does mean that God should in that case have the substance nor body. of a body and bodies should have the essential qualities essential qualities for, if God, have two things of one essential quality in common, they must have all essential qualities in common. Peters, 6. 7.
God's Created
A1-Irshäd, A1-Juwayni, Cheikho, Vingt Traites,
Speech, PP. 119-120 PP. 27-28 P. 1Z7
111
depending
for its existence 'Abd
However,
an accident,
al-Jabbär maintaining
im (this which 1 ma
This
is known)
is not acceptable
argument
substances
which
al jawähir
al-latif
do not carry
etc.
accidents
or occupy
Since
jawhar
is a1-Bägilläni,
more
if the quotation
Christians
because
we find
it is self-existent 11 is wrong. "
the expression
being.
carry
the Creator
of
understanding
of
is correct.
that
Al-
God is a single
(between
God is a substance
that
assert
that
of the Christians
no divergence
are
intellect
do not
created
Christian
the
to as
These he calls
by Elias of Nisibis
given
in that
substances
are
which
of
the saying
hypostases,
of three
substance
latifa
understanding
"If says, we scrutinise
Bägilläni
name,
jawähir
or
there
of spirit,
the space,
shows
who
as the substance
example
that
space.
it is even more appropriate 10 has no need of any accident or space.
these substances
Muslim
He maintains
and do not occupy
accident
these
substance
to Paul of Sidon.
a and he gives
and light
A
is neither
which
he which refers 9 nor accident.
can be an entity
there
that
God is not a substance
that
the argument
maintains
is
else, that
on something
8 4ard.
which is unlike
created
is correct,
Thus the meaning
in
us) except
while
r
in Kitäb
However
if
that,
argues
al-Tamlild, admit
we
intelligible
(ma$qüla)
accidents.
If they
disagree,
al-Bägill-ani that
God
substances
accept
it,
and
so they
is a jawhar, from
this world,
in this way, He is not like (other)
substance
Elias
observes
Muslims
8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
nor accident,
He further
has a space and carried
would be created
and God cannot
that
are currently
species their
if jawhar
substances.
argued,
this
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 25 P. 99 A1-Mughni, Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 25 Ibid., P. 127 _ Kitäb al-Tamhid, A1-Bägilläni,
term,
able
like
other
to
carry If
that
they
God is existing,
existing
things
in
There is no difference
when
we see that that
every
such a thing
to be used in the sense in which then
PP. 77-78 112
be
own religion.
it indicate does accidents, 12 be created.
is to continue
employing
that
and
(other)
and He is not like
substance
statements.
their
he
There
view.
must
(our deny statement) when you
we shall ask them,
two
so it
contradicted
but neither
in these
a different
takes
there
will
be no Arabic
term
for
"self-existent".
"self-existent" that
namely
"self-existing". clearly
Muslims
traditions,
jawhar
because
whar, indicate
insisting
existence,
and therefore
jawhar
that
word
which
carries
use dhät as a word for God's subsisting
must
any term
Muslim
essence and being.
carry
the use of
for substance
the Muslim
to
refuse
It may well be that The Greek
accidents.
to
seems
as substance
However, corresponds with the Syriac kiyän "existing". gAbd including al-Jabbär, would still not have accepted of God and anything
insisted and
that can replace 14 its usage. The problem is
be used of God.
cannot
for
term
is no such expression
there
a specific
is not a good translation.
substance
has argued,
they have to allow them 'Abd terminology and al-Jabbar
of
its
acknowledge
for
should
to use the Syriac
epistle
Otherwise
a problem
accidents
would
God as
to call
be best
Elias in another
kiyän613
if it is incorrect
in Islamic
case it
In that
ousia
theologians,
which
was used
do, in fact,
theologians 15
1.0
Agä-nim (Hypostases)
Aq nim, the
singular
Greek
hypostasis.
controversies
out
meaning
became
1.
which
That
ugnüm,
is the Arabic The
defines
that
doctrine
the
of which fixed,
term
of the Syriac
transliteration played
of the Trinity
it seems to have been capable
something
important
an
as belonging
words in
the
Before
its
role
emerged.
for
interpretations.
of three
to a class, hence
being
essential
(ousia). 2. That
which
3. A particular
embodiment
The ambiguity theologians, whether
13. 14. 15.
of meaning but raised
to translate
of certain
qualities,
hence individual
was not only a source of confusion
further
the term
problems
for
as substantia
the Latins, or persona.
being.
16
to Greek speaking
who could
not be sure
17
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 128 Ibid., PP. 30-31 There are occasions theologians when Christian appear to adopt almost 4Adi (subsisting identical Thus Yahyä b. terminology. dhät uses entity) as (substance). for jawhar This brings to mind earlier Christian a synonym Christian discussions where hypostases had been used to mean theological the same as ousia (substance) See Yahyä
16. 17.
stands under a set of properties.
4Adi, b. Maqýlät,
Harvey, A Handbook Ibid., P. 106
PP. 21-22,
of Theological
113
and Cheikho,
terms,
P. 106
Vingt
Traites,
P.
13.
Eventually, between
with
by
substance
individual
formula
Latin
of the 18 hypostases.
It
was
mainly
terminology removed. "three
was
and
Council
the
hypostases
that
They
there
as the heresy maintained
mere
and
18. 19. 20.
of
the
standardized
the
that
therefore
term
three the
accepted
Father,
of the Trinity them
Young, New Dictionary Theology, P. 237 of Christian Church, P. 685 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 310
114
the
formula,
as heretic
or attributes
members
the
ambiguities
Son and Holy
and Sabellius.
between
that
on an epitome
were declared
Noetus
distinction
Fathers
theological
persons' and three
one ousia
are only names or predicates
of Praxeas, that
the
three
of 381 onwards
sects which
divine
the common
Cappadocian and
distinction
a clear
substance
equivalent
Constantinaple
of
are certain
maintained
the apologists names zo nominal.
Greek
'one
came to be everywhere 19 of the Trinity.
is described head whichtGod... any reality,
the
in one ousia" doctrine
It must be noted
influence
the
ousia expressing
Thus
has its
tradition
clarified
From
Church.
hypostases.
under
of the orthodox
the
in the east,
ousia was established
homoousion
of the Nicene
the acceptance
Spirit
by by
without
On the other
hand
are real beings not is
real
and
not
III
CHAPTER
In
to
order
necessary
IAbd
study
the background
relationship
with
Theology
to his view
it
hypostases,
the
against
arguments
al-Jabbär's
to understand
God and their
and Christian
in Islamic
The ýifät
is
(sifät)
of the attribute
of
the hypostases.
The problem
of the sifät deals with the question, whether the terms applied to God in the Qu? än, such as living, knowing and powerful, imply the independent of life,
existence
of God can be distinct
from
God in comparison
which
although
inseparable
from
the entity
Him.
also involves
The problem of
knowledge
power,
the question
with
the
of the meaning
meaning
of
same
of the terms
terms
predicated
predicated
of
other
things.
The Orthodox
Doctrines
The orthodox
theory
the divine
attributes
beginning)
and abadi
God but also His names,
living, the -
azaii
to Him
from
and the
different
presented special
attention
school
of thought.
Mu'tazilites Ibn
Kullab
proper
1. 2. 3.
in the full sense of the term 1 Not only the qualities end). of
(without
the almighty
etc are confessed
He said, that
and the
their
Kullabiyya,
joined
as representatives
to the problem
to Ibn Kullab
concerning
later
Ashharites,
arguments
school of thought
His followers
is that
to belong
eternity.
Kulläbiyya
The
by Wensinck,
as expressed
to be eternal
are admitted
qualities
(without
of the divine
by writing they
denial
of
a special
took
of
iýf ät.
about
on the responsibility of God. that
maintained
theology, has given him
and his the
of refuting With reference Ibn
Kulläb
to
had
its own doctrine.
and a group with
the Ash4arites.
Al-JuwaynT
chapter
of the attributes
al-Juwayni
orthodox
3
According
A. J. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, P. 202 Ibid., P. 206 _ fi-Usül Al-Shämil Al-Juwayni, al-Din, PP. 54-5
115
to al-Juwayni
Ibn Kullab's
a
doctrines
were
very
to the doctrines
similar
for this goes to Ibn Kulläb
credit Juwayni
has presented
Ashlari
in
many
places.
'knowing',
'eternal',
According
to him,
there
God is knowing
41m... ) and is subsistent He is said to be knowing.
Ibn Kullab
justified
is impossible huwa
that
attribute
wa 19 hiya from
different
his position
This
but
not
common
features
followers
never
but
also they
are
(without
beginning).?
Perhaps
God as gadim
is the word,
traditionally
theologians
In
as a synonym
to
attempt
an
Kullabiyya
but
this is an attempt associated
with
Him;
only
entirely
they
Kullab said,
to distinguish
it
that
(lä hiya
God.
Ibn
they
of which
are not
with
(lahü
to Him
share
and
his
they
wera
them
from
God and is even used by
for God.
the
explain
and Ashýarites
aqdim
were
they
Al-
by Al-
phrase,
than
6
interchangeable.
not
the sifat
that
identical
completely
said that
azali
it by his famous
to mean
seems
4
and eternity.
by virtue
be other
The
'powerful',
of
belongs
i. e., knowledge
Him
be God and will
ghayruhü).
Him
knowledge
and interpreted
will
each
knowledge
of power,
means that
(äq ýhn. within --) 5
for
that
asserted
was an attribute
manner.
as it has been recorded
Kullab Ibn of
Kullab
Ibn
in a proper
them
who arranged
the doctrine
and Sunni's.
of Traditionlists
between
relationship
seem to have involved
ät sif
the
the doctrine
and
God,
the
of ma an-1. Ma a
in this
the Divine Entity context seems to mean elements within which carry 8 However, the sifat. they also seem sometime to be used as sifät according to 9 'Abd by They argue that these ma%i an argument al-Jabbär. are presented characterised
neither
to the Mu'tazilite
were equivalent
This doctrine
aroused
contradictions
in ' it
Ash'arites sifät
by existence
presented
the indignation
they
of
and unsystematic eAbd it. al-Jabbär
as maeäni, when they
same time,
ahwäl.
called
characterised
ýAbd
al-Jabbär
and he tried
in which
the
way said,
that
them knowledge,
them
as attributes.
at first power
they
Ibid., P. 55
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Ibid., P. 55, a1-Ashtfari magälät, PP. 169-170, P. 546 Ibid., P. 546-7., E. I. (S), P. 391 4Uthmazi, Na: ýriyya al-Taklik, P. 176 A. K. For details see, Peters, God's Created Speech, PP. 156-157 'Abd al-Jabbär, Sharh, PP. 183-4
10.
Ibid., P. 184
and
the
characterised
and life.
And finally
they
to show the
Kulläbiyya
4.
116
that
and suggest
non-existence 10
nor
they
Then at the maintained
that
All
they
could not be characterised. ll contradictory and incomprehensible.
He did concede
if they
that
by a4w-al, then he would
As
far
God,
of
former.
them
is no difference
followed
he
differentiated with
between
of opinion
in
did.
and
the
not
there
attributes
His entity
to the
pertaining
the
and he
that
about
from
are extra
attributes
latter
It is to be noted
the
negative
like Ibn Kulläb
and Ashoarites
they
meant
in affirming
positive
in God's entity
because about
Kulläb
Mu'tazilites
the
Mu'tazilites
(sif ät al-fi1), is only
Ibn
to be totally
the Mu'tazilite
what
between
seven attributes
The difference
created.
magi 12
in the same way as Ibn Kulläb
to action
pertaining
he
agreement
He also affirmed
interpreted
doctrine.
accept
but
He is in
attributes.
that
is concerned,
as al-Ashlari
attributes
meant
by these
be found
these
and
subsisting
entity.
Finally,
there
is the question
of the exact
position
of these attributes
according
to Ash'arites.
term, are to it, or in a technical entity or additional with_the CAA isiafsi not itself by describes the they nafsi or mAnav . entity and means which (element in it additional to the existing a ma'nä which bears an attribute)
Are
they identical
entity. '/ manav 13 in it.
His entity,
and Kulläbiyya
maintained,
means,
The AsWarites additional
what
is attributed
knowing
by knowledge,
is the case in the phenomenal
The Development
When
the
anthropomorphism. Wäsil b. Atä'
11. 1 2. 13.
doctrine
denied
This
led
these attributes by life
is additional
Doctrines
became
are ma'nawJand
which
is additional
to His entity.
and Christian
up to time
exaggerated,
to a reaction.
the existence
Ibid., P. 184 Ibid., P. 184 Islam Sweetman,
which
a ma'nä subsisting
to
The same
world.
of the Mu'tazilite
orthodox
that
So they say, God is living
to the entity.
from
to the entity
of
led
it
al-Jabbär
to
a
form
Thus it has been suggested
of any attributes
Theology, 117
'Abd
including
vol. II, Part
knowledge,
Z, P. 110
of that
power
and will
on the
affirmed
matäni
(sifa),
(elements
which
carry
he said,
when
polythism,
and
attributes)
an eternal
attribute
two deities. "14 - It is also possible to assume that it was in in such a themselves that the Muslims should not get involved Christian
as the
The followers has neither
knowledge because
thus
first
problem
the death
After
he
that
theory
interpreted
denied
all terms
(li-nafsihi).
are predicated
towards
of Him by virtue
Consequently,
Dirär
it
seems
interpretation
Mu'tazilites
multiplicity
all
is that
that
nor
semantic
by his two
Najjar
the
and Dirar
were
have
or essence
and powerless.
that
He had a
as being predicated
the first
to introduce
as
being
(tabifa,
independent
an
dhat).
the
14. 15.
16.
A1-Ash'ari,
17.
Philosophical implications A. H. Wolfson, of the Problem in the Kaläm, J. A. 0. S, vol. LXXIX, (1959) P. 75 Attributes Al-Ash ari, Magälät, P. 284, Shahristani, Milal, P. 62 Magälät, P. 281 A1-Ash'ari,
existence
Qädi his see a1-Qu4ät,
element They
'Uthmän A. K. A1-Shahristäni,
pointed out this view, Milal, PP. 31-32
of Himself
theology.
attributes
any
He
of the statement
these
not
God.
his
positive 18 in meaning.
that
attributes
from
in which
as being negative
into Islamic
divine
in
by virtue
of the Creator
attributes 19 (li-nafsihi).
contemporaries,
attributes
meaning
was
of the
aspect
one can conclude
real
He is not ignorant
of God's nature did
knowing 16 Jahm than Him.
propositions
the
the other
of attributes
in the unity
any
affirmative
maintained
regarded
the
is concerned,
God are to be taken
that
God
He is neither
to other
was modified
of
that
to God as being predicated
that
of Himself
they called
that
theology
existence
attributed
or powerful
attitude
negative
the
about
hand,
God is knowing similar
his theory
He suggested
On the other
Islamic
As far as Najjär
and Dirär.
Al-Najjär
into
of Jahm,
belong
would
permanent 15 hypostases.
of Wäsil maintained
They believed
such attributes
three
affirming
which
a contemporary
nor power.
to introduce 17 of attributes.
by
before, and life
knowledge
of Jahm b. Safwän,
powerful the
done
had
i. e., existence,
attributes,
18. 19.
"Whoever
has affirmed
doctrine
The
implying
of
grounds
his subconscious
terms
their
but
of
alleged were
P. 153
A1-Ibäna, P. 54
118
of
Divine
merged
in the Unity
Among
the
seeing knowing,
living life
power,
mighty,
described
by virtue
Abü
(d.
849),
rest
two
of
views
the
are
is also reported
report,
knowledge
is other predicated
One has reason attribute
than God.
to believe,
formula,
and
recognise
as al-Nazzäm's
Abü
another
Häshim
as terms
attributes
seem to mean
that
thereby
God is knowing On the other
that
not
predicated
each of these
reporting he
which
theory) modes
hand, al-Na;
contradicted
of Himself
means that
zäm affirmed
to these Mu'tazilite
a positive
while
by virtue
which
that
any
to Him only.
according
have
formula
called
a doctrine
as maintaining
of Him belongs
Al-Shahristani
negatively.
that
namely
of God could
by virtue of a life 23 When both al-
of God.
a property
al-Hudhayl
and He is living
the divine
(hü) and He is
is Himself
the rest of the attributes.
described they
(li-nafsihi).
which
God is
by which ZZ
attributes
of Himself
is Himself
which
of Himself,
the earlier
later
of knowledge, the
to
regard
and other
of a knowledge
and Abü al-Hudhayl
indicate
property
by virtue
and the same with
God by virtue
terms
with
al-Hudhayl
and greatness
of power
is Himself
Nazzäm
Abd
God is continuously
that
but not by virtue
case
of Him by virtue
are predicated
powerful
of
splendour
God is knowing
which
Mu'tazilite,
the
the
was
same
hearing,
power,
to hire.
Glory,
2.
(Ii-nafsihi)
of Himself
etc
regard
attributed
1.
by virtue
knowledge,
denied
and maintain
attributes
essential
to
(d. 845),
al-Nazzäm
and the 21 attributes.
essential
With
of God's being.
Mu'tazila,
and other
Z°
is that
meaning the
details
the former or
must
the
same
20. 21. 22.
Watt, Islamic Philosophy and theology, P. 49 T, Maq lät, PP. 884-6 Al-Ash Ibid., P. 177, see also R. M. Frank. The Divine Attributes A1-4A1llf, Le Museon, vol'. Teaching of Al;, aPP. 459-467
23.
Ibid., P. 165 119
al-Hudhayl's (but
one
is an affirmation as
any
be interpreted
Abu
of
anonymously
quoted
(ahwäl),
but
theologians,
the
can
of what Christians
according LXXXII,
to the (1969),
24
Abu denial is the latter hypostases. Whereas the alof modes. a as Hudhayl was also the first to divide the attributes of God into two categories.
claim
1. Sifät 16-
al-dhät,
2. Sift
al-M,
The first
(essential
(attributes
category
ignorant,
pertaining
to the action).
of knowledge,
consists
be characterised
cannot
attributes
or attributes
powerless
by
their
God can be Characterised 25 etc. unwilling
by their
opposite
Mu'tazilites
Ash'arites
also
Later
Christian
Even oriental
hikma
nutq and 26
differences
scholars
categorised
were
in
functions,
first
would
as His being
attributes
the
number
and
be
not
to second category and
willing
into of
these
attributes.
God and asserted of
the attributes
category
He
the
about
God
and seeing.
i. e.,
hand, according
divided
have
they
although
categories,
dhät,
and
hearing
functions,
On the other
and so on.
life,
power,
opposite
to the entity)
pertaining
in
others
the
second
category. Because
of this
Al-Baghdädi knowledge
forced
is Allah. knowledge
performed
of unbelief
Abü
somewhat
with
faced following
if he said that
is His power,
Abi
al-Hudhayl
by His power.
by His power
" leads it is like it. to and what
al-Hudhayl different
there views.
were bbd
two
because
He should
other
b. sulaymän
it Z7
be
is Allah,
of Allah
His knowledge
is power,
must conclude
that
The being of God therefore
because
is
Allah
and powerful
knowledge that
to saying
AslArites. "If
argument.
be powerful.
cannot
and power
from
criticism
He should be knowing
This amounts
to Him is performed
be something
After
the
the same conclusion
and His power
form
his theory
be knowing
cannot
and if Allah's
al-Hudhayl,
it is not that
and power,
to draw
is known
new
countered
knowledge
Abü
theory,
is known
Mu'tazilite (d. about
by Him.
scholars 250/864)
what would
This
who
is a
have
maintained
26.
Milal, P. 34. Al-Shahristäni, Al-Int-isär, P. 75, see also R. M. Frank, The Divine Attributes Al-Khyyat, Teaching the to AljAllaf, Le Museon, vol. of Abü al-Hudhayl according (1969), PP. 469-473 LXXXII, Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 57, PP. 126-7
Z7.
Al-Boghdädi,
24. Z5.
Muslim Schism and Sects, PP. 130-131 iao
God is knowing,
that and
power.
interpretation
is
He (d.
-Mutammar
knowing
850),
is through
(an element a maýnä
created.
He further
added that
Thus God is knowing
In the third
phase of the debate
Abü Häshim
of
both
although
scholars
described
virtue
His
"by
expression
of
this
bears
the
that
in this
of
Abi
any end.
'Ali
and his son
However
they
by al-Shahristänf, God
to
attributes they
He
that
without
As reported
relation
occurs
arguments.
(li-dhätihi),
entity"
a new
is due to a ma'nä,
Mu'tazilites
matter.
powerful
an attribute)
and His knowledge 28
developed
more
in
opinion
change
and
life
introduced
are continuous
the renowned
introduced
al-Jubbäli
a difference
had
any end.
without
every
which
ma'änf
a knowledge
through
and this malnä to another
these
other
hand,
the
for this issue when he said, that
universe,
knowledge
without
on
any knowledge,
affirming
without
and powerful
Consequently
power.
without
living
by
the
interpreted
each
that
differently.
Abi
4Ali
denies
al-Jubbä"i or living
knowing
by virtue
is
There
is His entity.
which
by which knowing
another
that
God is
His being knowing
is not
(4ä1) that
requires Abu
that
al-Ah'ari
that
maintained
and having
the fact
i. e., God is knowing
al-Hudhayl,
But he approved
Ali
with
He simply
the distinction
between
and *ifät
al-fi'l
His being al-Jubbä'i
a knowledge
is no knowledge,
there
in reality.
power
to the entity)
pertaining
by
report
Al-Jubb .i
He is knowing 30 by His entity.
(attributes
that
or as a mode or state
of Abü
the theory
rejected
indicates
of His entity
as knowledge
an attribute Z9 knowing.
he when says that
the attributes
(attributes
no power said God is
sifat
al-dhät
pertaining
to the
action).
Al-Ashtari Allah derive
and al-Baghdädi
a name
for Him
from
considerations.
are rational
in replying
argued
This heresy
His entity. calling
to the regular
are subject
Al-Ash'ari
have criticised
God
the
Magälät,
of grammar.
rules
deed which $agliyya). (iýibärät every
that,
of yours
Father
al-Jubbä? i's claim,
of
"There is worse Christ
P. 228
28.
Al-Ash4ari,
Z9. 30.
Milal, PP. 55-56 A1-Shahristäni, A1-Ashi ari, Magälät, P. 524
121
Therefore
that
the heresy
although
they
the names of
it is possible Consequently
He performs.
is nothing than
that
we call of the do
not
it extra Christians hold,
to they
from in that
He produced pregnancy On the
hand,
other
names
were
mere
Mu'tazilites
is another
about
the
attributes
According
to
hearing,
While
hearing.
Unfortunately,
First
1.
Abi
of
generic
Abü
Hishim between
atmosphere
the state
that
or unknown,
"God knows"
the
among
attributes
neither
God nor other
neither
opinion of
a bitter
the
is the case with and same
nor temporal,
i,
there
are
and
number
existent
on both
of
to
regard
than God.
theologians
ai-Husayn
al-Basri
essential
i. e., knowledge,
seven,
Al-Jubbä'i
(universility).
Doctrines
own
teachers,
only denied
accepted
i. e.,
two
all attributes
The majority
attributes,
nor 32
sides
self-pertaining
will,
i. e., knowledge except
he
maintained life,
power,
and
one, which
of the Mu'tazilites
knowledge,
life,
power,
will
and
of Sif at
views
although the first
the problem
of all
there
of attributes
attributes
attributes
were
two volumes
Abd al-Jabbär
God's essential
the
about
and Sharh, he has provided
Muhi
caused
known
are neither
and speech.
al-Jabbar's
discussed
corresponded.
that
33
al-Jabbär
earlier
reality
He suggested
of knowing
(kaifiyya)
al-Ash
five
least
maintained
that
Muslims.
difference
'älamiyya al
called
which
Häshim
al-dhät).
seeing
power.
the
or attributes
eternal
nature (sifit
4Abd
words
neither
son, Abü
to
States
attributes.
There
4Abd
Abu
He is in a state
non-existent,
at
'Ali's
and orthodox
that
means other
in Mary-"
the word quality
avoided
31
some
a fairly
similar
are missing
to his
developments.
and
in which
but in his two other
works,
he had i. e., al-
clear picture.
the attributes
or attributes
God were
differences
of al-Mughni
in detail,
has divided
of
pertaining
into two categories.
to subsisting
entity.
(sif it
al-dhät).
31. 32.
33.
Muslim Schism and Sects, PP. 188-9 A1-Baghdädi, Milal, P. 58. See also R. M. Frank, Abi Hishim's Al-Shahristäni, Congress "States", Do Acts, IV De Estudos Arabs E. Islamicos of PP. 85-100 'Abd Al-=Aql wa al-I urriya, PP. 254-5 Al-Räwi, al-Sattär,
122
Theory (1971),
2.
His functional
'Abd
al-Jabbär
existence
attributes
'^PV works
pertaining
division
and said that
this
explained from
of an act
or attributes
Him,
whereas
i. e., Sharh and al-Muhit
others
declared
(sifät
to action.
al-fi'l).
follow the some attributes 34 'Abd do not. in his al-Jabbär
that
there
four
are only
essential
attributes.
(cädir)
1. powerful
('älim)
Z. knowing
(h. yy)
3. living
4.
(ac dim)
eternal
He accepted
(attributes
as essential
in agreement
entity) being
them
with
attributes 'Ali Abü and other follows
to the subsisting
pertaining
Such attributes
scholars.
as His
the divine
names and qualities on His 35 4Abd being mighty, powerful and great refer to His attribute al-Jabbar gädir. 1älim 4ilm (knowing) (knowledge) it and made clear that are not two separate willing,
They
things.
are actually
Christians
the
and what
non-willing
and the
On this point he considered the dualists, one thing. sts (including Kulläbiyya in the attrib iu and AsWarites)
same category.
In his opposition
to the Kulläbiyya
if we admit
God is knowing
that
it
be existing
would
it would
existing, categories because
'Abd
attributes matter
34. 35. 36.
or created.
invalid. are
So there
of His subsisting
entity.
al-Jabbär
further
by arguing fact, of
life
'Abd al-Jabbär, (Abd al-Jabbäx, Shard, P. 183
It
or non-existing.
be eternal
a knowledge,
through
would 36
criticised
who
if we admit
that
cannot
be perceived
except
Sharh, P. 130 vol. I, P. 100
123
be either
that
known
If it is known,
then
be non-existing. In case of 'Abd According to al-Jabbär all such
be only one aspect
those
argued
cannot
that
al-Muhit,
it would
is impossible.
its affirmation
In case of latter,
or unknown.
and the Ash'arites
'Abd al-Jabbär
maintained
He is living as a result
that
He is knowing
the
doctrine
through
life,
of
the
and as a
of its application
through
location
(mahall),
same way, power a location. 'Abd
The first
cannot
gave two
was that
knowledge. every
knowing
which
is invisible.
The second knowing,
These
every
knowing
that
was no evidence
present
analogy
(shähid),
who is absent.
through
would be knowing
everyone
was invalid.
is anybody
is who present,
maintained
have to maintain
that
body was moving.
separate regard
Whereas
at least
to eternal
is
which
it
Therefore
a knowledge.
he maintained
when
through if
that
that
a knowledge.
everyone
who is
because
movement
a body can be movable
seven
then they have to
was a cause for a knowing is cause of body.
movement
has mentioned
section
the discussion
that
was unacceptable
Christians
entity
aspects.
has who a heart,
knowledge
the
its
remarked
If they
a1-Jabbär
a subsisting
through
on the one who is absent.
tAbd
that
evidence
the same is the case for that
all
make the same decision
analogy
is one who has
is the case of one then, who is knowing has a knowledge, 'Abd In According to they relied upon mere existence. al-Jabbär
this way, if there
this
He
that
required
person
of us was knowing
He further
them.
refuted
we see through
CAbd by al-Jabbär
attacked
were
that
Therefore,
be studied
must
and then
a knowing
is a cause for being
knowledge
and a cause
Thus their
argument
person has a knowledge.
arguments
there
their
In the
through 37 of the accidents.
He is knowing,
that
because
knowledge,
supported
was that
that
affirmed
through
They
of his opponents
the fact
'ism).
of its application
as a result
except
explanations
they
be knowing
requires
ultimately
be applied
be a body
God would
In this case, God would be a body and a location
al-Jabbär
would
then
the Kulläbiyya times
in his
person, they would tAbd According to al-Jabbär could
only
and unmovable.
exist 38
when
discussion during the against sect, 39 al-Mughni and there is also a
in al-Mughni vol. VII, for the refutation of Kulläbiyya 40 In the same way he criticised the Kulläbiyya speech.
about the Christians
three
times
37. 38.
Ibid., PP. 200-201 Ibid., PP. 205-6
39. 40. 41.
Al-Mughni, vol. V, PP. 86,87,88,93,95,97,142 Al-Mughni, vol. VII, PP. 95-179 Shan 9 PP. 294,295
1Z4
the
in his Sharb41
with during
and once in his al-
dý
--
--Mishit.
'"
In all these twelve
concerned
with
Kulläbiyya
are more perverted
increased
the
Kulläbiyya
the
difference
The Sif
between
conceded
Even
the the
in
their
the
same
way of expression.
they
declared
al-Jabbir
his criticism,
During are
there
doctrine majority
is great of
because
that
they have
he has declared
that is no
There
category. 43
the
precise,
at one level
similarity
attributes,
of the
of a limited
the possibility
to be more
and the
Mu'tazilites,
number
attributes
of sifat, pertaining
in the Islamic
Christian
doctrine
IAbd
including
the essential to the
of
al-Jabbär,
attributes
subsisting
or
entity
ý
(sifät
li.. dhätihi).
It is noticeable Christians that
seems
Christians the Trinity.
45.
except
that
clear
ät, of sif
hypostases.
42. 43. 44.
them
'Abd once
that
t and Hypostases:
doctrines
It
Christians
the
than
and worse than the Christians
of the eternal.
and
It has become
rather
More
attributes.
the number
against
attacks
it is evident
Kullabiyya,
has
that
these
to describe this
already
the hypostases,
is, in
as Christians 45
been
attributes
fact
not
are very similar e. g. knowledge,
so much
using the Muslim
observed
that
a result attributes
Christians
did
to the attributes power
used by
and life.
of Muslim to define
occasionally
borrowing
Yet
from
the hypostases
use the
it
of
word
Al-Muhit, vol. I, P. 222 _ Abd al-Jabbär, al-Mughni, vol. V, P. 88 "that Wolfson has remarked, Muslims began to discuss the divine He attributes under the influence of a discussion about the Trinity". pointed out that the Mu'tazilites chose such attributes, as he especially suggested were already used by the Christians as knowledge, power, life Consequently this idea and etc. one can say that the Muslims borrowed their own doctrine of God. applied it in elaborating Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, PP. 126-127 Wolfson's by S. H. Griffith, theory has been criticised who pointed out initial is that the Muslims have borrowed that his mistaken assumption these lists from Christians. He also remarked against the theory of Wolfson, that he is missing the Christian the that apologists were taking their cue from the Muslim point and not vice versa. mutakallimun Habib ibn Hidmah Abi Rä'itah, Oriens Christians, Sidney H. Griffith, vol. LXIV, (1980), P. 188
125
dhät46
for
as a synonym
theologians.
jawhar,
this does happen
Where
under
probably that
influence
the
the hypostases
describe also
they
Muslim
of
as
ät. sif
The Nestorian
Christian at sif
doctrine
of
referring
to the ma'ani,
Kulläbiyya However,
apologist
life
and etc,
it
when
is
been pointed
(h"ayy)
to the Islamic
close
as
(This use of the word seems to involve
the
to
and
speaking
because
sifät47)
(binyya)
of the constitution use of jawhar
the
out
comes
(nätiq)
equivalent
he then adds, because
has already
al Basri
living
describes
he
when
usage
4Ammär
dhat.
the
of
of the 'awha_r.
As
to Muslim
was unacceptable
theologians.
The Christian
doctrine
bishop of Nisibis
"The names essence (dhätiyya) actions
the
(filliyya),
which
in the writings
to two categories
that
which
are gifät
the actions
of God.
to
pertaining
such things
life
as Him
the
entity to His
refer
being
Creator,
in the
and very
fi'liyya
and life.
Creator
with
Him
and to those to whom
with
regard
from
Thus
and the creature.
He showed
from
verbs
the epithet generosity
are not
Rather
life
and inseparable
nature,
to action)
is derived
are derived
Godhead
like creation,
pertaining
khalaga
For example,
the
to other
(being)
(attributes
fi'liyya
and wise, it is as affirmation
and wisdom
hand, the attributes
both
46. 47.
and
and those which
God is living
of God's essence
and etc.
are
refer
as they are in men's wisdom
powers,
these sifät
generosity,
and are related
khalaga
will to
yakhluqu
and they
..... are related to
"generous"
is concerned
and the same is the case
attributes.
he concluded) from
from
is that
All
derived
attributes
wise and living,
are derived
On the other
and mercy
(Finally,
or
attributes
The point
are part
His being.
to His being
He says:
When we say that
composite
and wisdom
the
merciful
as dää.
additional
of Elias,
Thus to say to that. etc .... and what is similar and wise is the equivalent of saying that He is self-existent
providing,
(gä im bi_nafsihi).
from
form
essential
God is living
of Him
in its
as we say self-existing,
generous, that
(d. 1049).
of God belong
i. e.,
fullest
appears
dhät
Thänawý, Dictionary Sidney H. Griffith, IVC, (1983), P. 170
that
the same
(essence)
would
i. e.
being,
be applied wisdom
in all such names and
Terms, vol. I, P. 519 of Technical "Ammar al Basri's Kitäb al-Burhän,
126
life.
Since
Le Museon,
that dhät
vol.
(essence)
wisdom
generosity,
hypostases named
From
(essence) and will,
jawhar
khawäss
quotation
also
although
heavily
unsatisfactory
shows
sift
that
he used
influenced
definition
li-dhätihi
arguments
48. 49.
like
has practically
adopted
that
and
would be
by
to
explain
about
the
need
the for
4Abd al-Jabbär
hypostases.
of
dhät
as equivalent
Muslim
theology,
Christian
traditional
Trinity,
each
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, PP. 126-7 P. 91, see also Chapter A1-Mughni,
to we
theology As a result
they
hypostasis. are
left
the Thus, the
with
have
would have applied of using Muslim opened
to be living 49 presses home.
II, PP. 110-114.
127
However
of
and substance.
hypostasis
ruthlessly
the Muslim
he has used dhät as an equivalent
that
to each of the hypostases.
sifät
which
and what is similar
of dhät as both hypostasis
the sifät
arguments
characteristics
as equivalent
and
it is the case that
the
as
Elias
It also appears
However
about
and mercy
we can see that
of sifät.
and
and
wisdom
(khawäss)
"48
quotation,
classification
life
will,
So they
to actions.
pertaining
are attributes
and
characteristics
pertaining
self
are
generosity
as attributes.
this
life
like the and
mercy
dhät
called
and
themselves
and knowing
all
ideas to etc,
CHAPTER W
A Comparative
Analysis
almost
It
of Christian
doctrines result
it is difficult
there
has been
general ýAbd
to differentiate
of Christian
first
that
maintains
and as a
Whenever he
statement in Arabic
writing
if
possible to
attributes
and other
to concede
which
without
He is therefore
exclude
from
it
problem
that
has concerned
any idea
of some
entities
self-subsisting
more
no longer
really
they
associated
to compare
opportunity maintained
that
and not other
attributes
than God.
al-Jabbär,
an independent
However, The
subsisting
Thus they can
subsisting
entity.
l
entity,
which
would
This
was a
up to the time himself
al-Jabbär of dhawät
had been possible
that
merely
of the is guilty
as independently for hypostases
in
discussion
that
attributes, the Christian
It was of the doctrine of the Trinity. `Abd is concerned he As far as al-Jabbär
the hypostases
independently are
they
of polytheism.
are guilty
doctrine
such as power,
vol. V. P. 86 128
with
knowledge
Thus by implication
al-Mughni,
'Abd
meaning
as being
of hypostasis
right
He
oneness of God.
(sifät).
subsisting
of the
(agänim)".
independently
attributes
theologians
translation.
do insist
with
with
doctrine
argument
"hypostases"
a definition
Christian
days of the Christian
if
hypostases
of an independently
the early
that,
by
was a meaning
a possible
of three
some of their
demanding
terminology.
exaggerated
Christian
predicating
of this doctrine.
acceptance
general
mean
accepted
of God or absolute
can be associated
God as knowing
knowledge.
'awhar)
the unity
do not
they
(dhawit)
describe
to the generally
destroy
is prepared
terminological entities
objects
this will
al-Jabbär
1.4Abd
the
Trinitarian
of
systemisation
his arguments.
scholars
"God is one substance
that
entities
criticism
rigorous
substantiate
doctrines.
works.
al-Jabbär
argued
between
to
concentrates
and Christological
lacks
his own presentation
an attempt
a1-Jabbär
4Abd al-Jabbär's
to categorise
in the light
Trinity,
4Abd
in al-Mughni,
doctrines
necessary
because
Christians
'Abd
on two areas, i. e., Trinitarian
exclusively
has been
Doctrines
of Trinitarian
critique
In his study
'Abd of al-Jabbar
accusing
that
subsisting He uses this
of the Kulläbiyya
and eternity
who
were not God
the Kulläbiyya
of making
the attributes
(sifät)
the word dhawät, of
ma'äni
describe
elements
attributes, 'Abd the
within
Kulläbiyya
the
which
Christians,
they
eternal
distinguish
the one from
presented,
it seems to involve hypostases
3
the other.
Although
the implication
would
is little
He then argues that
if the Son is identical
he would
in His self-subsisting
be similar
has a Son who is called
and
the
sifät,
that
by anything
were
in speaking
point
substance
identical,
(essence).
of God
inseparable
of His Father,
This means that
(Kalima), Word and
His knowledge
would
of them as three.
and shares the eternity entity
which
is not effectively
the eternal
they
to
are, according
the argument
that
necessitate
Thus there
and undifferentiated.
the Father
since the hypostases
be characterised
cannot
ma'äni
to
to dhawät.
to them the equivalent
then goes on to argue that
al-Jabbär
the
that
doctrine
He seems
attributes.
carry
indicating
by
view
are according
in the three
deity
By using
the Kulläbiyya
distorting
he seems to be deliberately the
hypostases.
to the Christian
of God equivalent
2
as
the Son in
also another Son that would be called his knowledge 4 in an infinite The same is the case with the Spirit. series.
the same way would require and word This
(kalima) is
argument
one
for scoring
discussion,
except
He follows
this with
the hypostases argument, refer
(i. e.
the
they
and the
A second
difficulty
nothing
to
the
of argument.
kind.
'awhar)
requires
of God.
out the fact
He points
Therefore
same. being
adds
really
Nor
that,
that
as in the previous
Fatherhood can the
and Sonship terminology
of
from God Son, the Father the exclude when used of 5 him back to a This again brings these attributes.
Word,
God),
one
the doctrine
must be a separate
raised deity
the Father
is a deity,
hypostases
and another
P. P. P. P. P.
be the
each
and
of a similar
to the subsistent
with
Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,
neat points
an argument
must
comparison
Z. 3. 4. 5. 6.
casuistry
are of one substance
inevitably
knowledge
logical
of
of the Kullabiyya
by the since
then like infinite
they
earlier
on God's attributes.
theologians
are identical
is that
through
hypostases 6 series is established. Him
the other
86 87 86-87 86-87 87
129
being
each
hypostasis
eternal.
must have their
Thus own
Again
he accuses
involved
for unity
subsisting
that
hypostases 8 Kulllbiyya.
but
(in reality)
Even though
'Abd
in this way, they
by separate
the
to the set to which these
it belongs,
in their
He has repeated
the same argument
intention
our statement
behind
of the group of the people. in contrast in
reality
confirmed.
to what of 11
that
objection
that
must admit 9
or of a man being
Similarly,
they are saying
three
someone
things
7. 8. 9. 10.
Ibid., P. 88 Ibid., PP. 88-89 Al-Mughni, vol. V, P. 89 Ibid., P. 89-90
11.
Shan , P. 293
in
are three
is illogical
reality.
of
130
the
If
the distinct
one thing
composed the
he argued
as
of many Christian
that
the
he is a member
They are making
Therefore
he is
attributes.
that
to him,
in which
the
is one and
in reality
is one man is that
God.
that
like
when we say one house or one group, about
three
of a set of ten and
Arabs can speak
in his Sharh,
they
of Trinity
by his own
According 10 doctrine.
the
three
speech,
are mode of expression.
escape the contradiction
cannot
attributes.
that
are just
to say that
in general
total
the
with
who maintain
man may be part
doctrine
removed
that
in substance
he is characterised
are characterised
because
the implication
since
total,
to their
refer
al-Jabbär
identical parts
the
the
with
God is
to take on this argument
To him the doctrine
a single
that
and one substance
that
so
he accuses
position
the Christians
different
not
is irrational.
one man may be identified from
with
by maintaining
the argument
and inconceivable.
hypostases
(sif ät) that
of their
He proceeds
He goes on to show that
are different
He then pursues
Christians
hypostases
are three
there
and use of language
entities.
the
separate
defence
the Christian
as logically
he becomes
discussion,
be one when it has been demonstrated
cannot
is three one
in his
point
of God on one substance.
of meaning
hypostases
which
dispute
then presents
one by declaring
in terms
this
are to him
about the attribute 7 of being worse than the Christians.
al-Jabbar
stress
tendencies
of
At
in the inter-Islamic
the Kulläbiyya
'Abd
Christians.
as the
erroneous
Kulläbiyya
the
it is
Him one thing
contradiction
is
He goes on to declare is
thing
existing is white
substance
that
argues
subsisting
entities
but subsisting entities 4Abd intends al-Jabbär
to elements by this
hypostasis
as a dhät to which
knowledge
and therefore
have
they
to apply
other
attributes
are
applies
to
specific
in their
living
knowing
living
knowing
are in fact
Father.
Similarly,
according
to
Abd
define
to him,
at the same time their
are not
which
being
have
knowing
al-Jabbär
three
all
is a
the Son is a
that
Therefore
spirit.
is that
to
the Father
that
to admit
specific
of all such
applied
own doctrine
each
is Son the e. g.
in the contradiction
would
is a living
Son and the Spirit
saying,
they
not
their
when
hypostases
each
do
in
same
(sifa) applies,
to the hypostases
would
the
Christians
specially
be involved
are
them
attribute
a particular
Thus they have to admit
hypostases.
is that
a
refer, -- to the 13 What to attributes.
which
entitle
argument
sifät
attributes.
attributes
which
"Knowing"
In this way they which
in
different
hypostases
the
say that
cannot
but
According 12 it.
at the same time.
that
as saying
that a or claiming 4Abd to al-Jabär this is
time,
same
is no need to refute
there
they
the
at
non-existent
black or
that
so unreasonable
He
and
is as contradictory
the doctrine
that
they
what
the hypostases
are the
same and different.
In another that
argument
if the substance
substance.
In his
Shard
must
with
one hypostasis.
suggests
substance
12. 13. 14. 15.
he argued
the
could
that
same
in another
to
is to say that
So that
say
the
because
attributes,
in this
that
in terms and This
Father
each could sometimes
P. 90 A1-Mughni, Ibid., P. 91 Ibid., P. 95 Shark, P. 295
131
require
be said that
and
each
have
same
they
case they
of what
would
it could
it means that
the
refers that
the
must
confine
share in eternity,
these hypostases
where
by maintaining
objection
is one substance,
way,
because
be the other.
the rest. is
a similar
made
hypostases
one another
resemble
one of them
He
to
to one hypostasis,
themselves
dispense
al-Jabbar
of three
is entitled 14
hypostasis
they
4Abd
to their
entities
one of them
could
God is one substance
Son are
different
be one substance
but
and other
and
of
one
times
'Abd To
not be of it. they
would
reason irrational.
He
have
as they 16
further
because their
to
al-Jabbir admit the
were
entities
entities
must
Again
same.
if
that
explained
of their
that
they
their
would
same
different
is the same, be different
and it is totally
in hypostasy
as they are different 17 of Melkites and Jacobites.
are
substance
the hypostases
Otherwise
also in substantiality the doctrine
if
then,
the
that
is logically
this
hypostases
the
that
argue
and substances,
be the same.
were ýAbd al-Jabbär
to
for
different
hypostases
the
he argues
Consequently
this is nonsense.
against
'Abd
doctrine be deliberately distorting to the al-Jabbär seems of aspect 'Adi that they were the same as put forward by Yahyä b. when he maintained 18 1Abd from one aspect and different from another to al-Jabbär chooses . "aspect" here and referring He to either substantiality understand or hypostasy. Here
further
argued,
that,
the Son can become the
is
substance
when the substance a Father.
common.
affirmation attribute
God and one of
Consequently, be
would Christian
must
further
He
is necessary of
So they
because
of the Son is same as the Father,
things
his
extended to
according
the
the Son as a Father
affirm
which
them must
that
charge,
because such
an
is
an
Fatherhood
the
imperfection.
be without
the Son who is God the Son must be called as Father, otherwise 19 (Abd incomplete. has again misrepresented Here al-Jabbar The doctrine
doctrine.
is that,
the Father
is perfect
God, the Son is
God and the Holy Spirit is perfect but they are not reference, 20 1Abd interprets Gods but one. However this as the statement al-Jabbar
perfect
"Fatherhood perhaps Fatherhood
tAbd
is one of the
anticipating
yet
this is a series at the beginning
16. 17. 18. 19. Z0. 21.
an
then
things argument
turns
must
which that
to the Melkites
the substance
he
be without will
present
imperfection. about
the
"
three that, He is
idea
of
its meaning.
a Son to complete
requiring
al-Jabbär
substance
so
is different
the hypostases are the Zl To him again the hypostases.
doctrine from
that
forward this Melkite doctrine In putting contradictions. LAbd of the section, al-Jabbär stated that they claimed there
of total
PP. 95-96 A1-Mughni, Ibid., P. 96 ýAdi, Magälät, P. 28 b. Yahyä Ibid., P. 96 Cheikho, Vingt Traites P. 56 See translation, cf. P. 21.
132
was no fourth they
(entity)
that
say
automatically
If they
tried
hypostases,
own belief,
that
the substance
then they
of declaring
be guilty
would
when
they
are
was one
that
one thing
by virtue that the substance was of their doctrine 23 CAbd has been constructed from the hypostases. by This argument tAbd It is a good example of and is not held by the Christians. al-
was different different al-Jabbär Jabbär's
to their
contrary
hypostases,
of the three
the
different substance 22 involving four (entities).
to argue,
that
from
is
the
to demonstrate
He now proceeds
involved.
from
polemical
fact
adds nothing
'Abd
al-Jabbär
undermine
itself
style
of setting
to rebut
It in
them.
to the discussions.
Christianity
presents
the basis of the doctrine
Elaborating
in order
up arguments
this
with
three
each
of
which
of the Trinity.
he goes on to declare
argument,
options,
if
that
God is a substance
has three hypostases, then these would be things added to God which 24 He does not present this argument clearly but it seems that he were not God.
which
is
trying
to
that
argued,
hypostases,
substance
for
that
for
three
the Melkites,
the hypostases
al-Jabbär
switches
his
presented
in the logic
that
an argument
God is one substance
three
substances
which
is not
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. V.
which
to
attack
with
of arithmetic.
he repeats in three
can exist
Ibid., P. 96-97 Ibid., P. 96 Ibid., P. 97 P. 97 A1-Mughni, P. 97 A1-Mughni, P. 104, tran, A1-Mughni,
are identical
numbers
later,
27
hypostases,
of one hypostasis.
a substance
make
them
Especially by itself.
0
P. 47
133
and Z6
this
is either
four.
from
since it is distinct
that
deity
the true
cannot
they
since
substance
Using
one
plus
separate
arguments
hypostases
of attributes,
the Kulläbiyya
the
the
that
admit
for he goes on to suggest 25 who hold this view.
manifestations
He further
Christians
make
are
eternal
would
be like
substance
There
presents
the
us with
that
the reverse
is possible
Therefore
if they
maintain if
a
and a 4Abd
substances.
he demands
as they
be
must
the substance two
making
or
same
maintain that
that
He is
nothing
the hypostases
are
independently
existing
is an eternal
there kind
dualism
of
Perhaps
In an argument
is that
Jubbä i, he argues
Knowledge for
framework
and the Spirit
each of the If
that
attributes deny
they
seeing
etc.
Living
Knowing and
has Power
as Life,
these Him?
with
and the other
by saying
Life Lif e.
is Knowledge 29
Life
that
they
and Knowledge? hearing,
He is
Son as
the
many hypostases
they
maintain
hearing, associate that
of His subsisting
part
If they try
seeing
al-
whom he
God, e. g. Power,
hand, if
as an integral
and thus limit
as well
the Kulläbiyya, By describing
with
to
All
attributes.
to God, why should
On the other
is Power,
concept
understanding
have to affirm
associate
why should the same not apply to Life attributes
would
a
effective.
the Christian
being of
Christians.
attributes
attributes
really
or at least based upon, Abü in terms
they
they
seem
rejects
is and attacking
as the
as much
not
the substance,
does not give proper
from,
taken
Thus if
own substance.
for one and
totally
the hypostases
Mu'tazilite
their
does
argument
and therefore
against
specifically
must
al-Jabbär
directly
either
using a rigidly
This 'Abd
have
the hypostases
for
emerges.
a substance, 28 view.
the Christian
mentions
entities,
substance
the reason
of God being
they
God to two hypostases,
entity,
limit and
then
etc,
God
the
why not say
the Father
and
############
The Christian
on the inter
bears
also
doctrine
to
of the Son as the eternal
Islamic
some
debate
in arguing
Therefore,
uncreated. is
identification
extent
of the eternal
be a substance.
against
Muslim
So God
cannot
theologians
Word of God.
i. e. sound (sawt)
the genus of accident
the Word of God is eternal and 'Abd Christian doctrine, the al-Jabbar
of whether
attacking uncreated
Word of God immediately
In his view
is an accident
be called
who
speaking
speech belongs
and consequently from
the
maintained
eternity,
to
cannot because
speech is created.
identify
When Christians and
Speech,
created,
they
namely
must be created be a Speaker,
28. 29. 30.
are
in
speech.
effect, If
speech.
which
A1-Mughni, A1-Mughni, A1-Mughni,
the Son, who is according identifying
God the Father
However
must involve
Him
to them with
God, as the Word
something
is the Speaker,
then
which
is
God the Son
if the Son is God, He must also 30 him also in having another who is speech. paradoxically
P. 104 PP. 91-92 P. 98 134
In stating into
because
three
ýAbd
created, Christianity 'Abd
the
logically
to
he refers
this,
and then
also denies the eternity
In his hostility doctrine
is,
requires
which
doctrine
and not
suggesting hypostases
know
in identifying
as life
identified
what
by which
is no cause for God's existence,
there
for that.
If they
refuse
In the last
part
be
himself
to
allusion
to that dealing
with
he begins
theory,
il. theory However,
31. 32.
Ibid., Ibid.,
that
matters
so involved
adoption
allusions
against have
sonship expated
has he became
to sweep their
is possible
but
for
a
the
because
al-Jabbär by
of an
they
to be
seems the
which
three
live,
the
equivalent
to
hypostases
as almost
then
cannot
claim
for
P. 95 P. 95 135
those
to the
he does not
of the Trinity.
He allows
Although
to the Holy
in terms him
of
there
Ghost,
This becomes
he is not
clear the
are
when we
adoptionist
to have some sympathy
in his polemic
arguments
turns
the Trinity,
refutation.
to the Trinity.
one would
not
which
accuses
4Abd al-Jabbär
or hypostasis
and brief
related
must
then why do they need the Son and the 3Z
Trinitarion
his argument that
he also attempts
argued
his
kind of sonship
see that
He
for
of
must also be a cause or ma'nä
there
is he discussing as
Surprisingly
diverted
this
of the Trinity,
God the Son as second person
discuss
really
and living.
of his discussion
of Son of God.
concept
that
to accept
for God to be knowing
Spirit
In doing
body
this is a Kulläbiyya
the three
the Son and the Spirit
ät the and of the Kulläbiyya. sif
He
We know that
Son as Knowledge
the
and the Spirit
have in fact
Christians
However,
but
Christians
and living
'Abd
that
to division,
subject
the
out,
Father
the
Kulläbiyya.
is knowing
(ma'nä)".
an attribute
being
against
discussion
emerges
to attack
the
of
"the Eternal
that
a doctrine
him,
of Him
a doctrine
anything
that
argument
he proceeds
a Christian.
is that
that
fact,
in
of maintaining
element
ini ma
Kulläbiyya,
to the
that
Christians
for.
Thus for
of God, by virtue 31 of God.
Unity
the
been pointed
as implying
of the Trinity
and is
change
arguments
as being
substance
to add the
proceeds
his
of
It has already
to concept
to
subject
two
together
understand
cause the Son to exist.
denies
He is body
way.
confused
refused
substance
that
is bringing
to division
God is subject
that
to admit
that
maintain
in a rather
using
only
they
al-Jabbar
al-Jabbär
'ism)
forced are
Christians
that
against
Christianity
away as linguistically
unsound.
who
must
be from
the
same
and Christ
species
have
could
someone
from
the same status
for God.
teachers
agree
between
beings
brotherhood that
the
who
different
essentially
in this sense, then both
But since it is inconceivable
both
then
is no difference
there
and since
be
can from
His creature,
between
calling
make anyone His 33 His to be used of him.
in
naturally
related
prophet
are theoretically
father son and
between
every
He should
that
are not
and sonship
relationship
Otherwise
of God.
the species
him brother
son and calling
possible equal,
is not
this
is only
possible God
Since
way.
in any
is impossible
so the relationship
is
sense.
Through CAbd
reference
like his early
al-Jabbär
such
to the New Testament,
is
verse
accordance
with
it
Jabbär
language
in
Arabic,
of
be
in
taken
CAbd to al-
according
it
a son to god, even though
to attribute
acceptable
another
In classical
interpretation must
passages
scriptural
since
principles.
the literal
that
argued
scholars34
permitted,
rational
is not in
possible
not
where
Son of God,
is called
Christ
different
have
metaphers
which
may be meaning.
by experts
and of translation must be carried out with great sensitivity 35 gAbd idea Christ the in language. of also argued against al-Jabbär
as Son of
God through
Therefore
the work
and Your
Father
the
reference
Christians
all
preference 37 God. of
Christ
are
In this
saying
God would way
is used by Ibn Hazm Children
therefore
have over them,
"I am ascending
Gospel,
(John 20: 17), and Christ
Father"
(Matt 12: 49) brother" are my . 36 dcSciples. A similar argument that
to the
of
to his desciples be Father
about
God,
to my "You
or uncle
of
the verse of John,
then
he
asked
what
if he is the Son of God and they are also Sons
r
In his Tathbit, of
(in fact
Christ
servant father Epistle
he further
or
out,
was Aramaic), friend
a sincere
is used as lord,
master
to the Romans,
33.4Abd al-Jabbär, 'Abd 34. al-Jabbär 'Ali 35. 36. 37.
it
pointed
where
(al-wall
that
for
is applied son
which
language the was
a noble
and obedient
In the same way t (mudabir). By referring
al-mukhlis).
and organiser there
in Hebrew,
is the statement,
al-Mughni, vol. V, PP. 105-6 meant his Mu"tazilite scholars
Al-Mughni, vol. V, P. 111 Ibid., P. 110 Ibn Hazm, a1-Fisal, vol. II, P. 67
136
"For
especially
the
word
to Paul's
all who are led by
al-Jähiz
and Abü
the that
Spirit
of God are Sons of God. "
God is a man, human
in reality three that
through
birth
(Melkites,
sects Christ
of Christ
view
when they
and Jacobites)
or metaphor.
of respect
theory
the adoptionist
among the
is no one who believed 39
orthodox
Christian
both ideas at the same time.
his arguments
bit more systematic,
out that
the more
with
as the Son of God and attacking
he had been a little
there
of believing a Son to Him
attributed
He pointed
and sexual reproduction.
is Son of God in terms
the Christians
He accused
being and person
Nestorians
Thus he is confusing
38
If
have been clearer
would
and had more force.
to, he in his al-Majmii
In addition
to describe
that
saying
in expression.
mistake
of Word is irrational.
the Eternal In classical
criticised
as Father
as eternal
again,
by
a Son, is a
to Him
and attribute
father
Arabic
this doctrine
and the son in terms
of the father is that which gives birth 40 So Christ cannot be Son of God in of his sperm.
The real
and he is product
to a child
fi al-Muhit,
meaning
any sense.
Here
we are getting
be concerned
should really
of God the Father
with
He further
pointed
birth
generation,
or
anthropomorphic this
is not a view
the term al-Ghazäli
closer
to some kind is discussing
with
Word of God.
on
the
hand
other
from
elements
as generation
shared
by all Muslims.
Father
and Son as applied 42 has done.
as the Christians
that
What he
of the Hypostasis
the relationship
God the Son who is also termed
in his Tathbit, out
discussion.
of Trinitarian
praise
God through
Muslims
the
the concept
Some of them
to God and Christ
eliminate such 41 However of deity.
are prepared
in a metaphorical
to accept sense as
************ As has already
been pointed accidents.
substance
and
acceptable
to Muslim
38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
out Christian On
theologians
the
other
theologians hand
to use of God.
divide
neither For
all existence of
these
the Muslim
into
terms
is
theologians
(Rom 8: 14) In fact 'Abd al-Jabbär slightly misquotes Paul as he says, "The Holy Spirit itself witnessed to our spirits that we are Sons of God". 'Abd al-Jabbär, Tathbit, PP. 120-1 fi al-Mubit, Al-Majmü' vol. I, P. 222 Tathbit, vol. I, P. 96 _ ä1i, al-Radd al-Jamil, PP. 242-3,287 A
137
substance
'awhar)
Christians
understood
implies the
takes
up the Christians
claim
that
then
all
Christians
to admit
maintains,
for
left
his argument
is characterised
life
the concept
by life
if
God would
add further
must
like
that,
argued
'Abd
it
as moving, a living
to their
that
writer
be
to
to
applied
Father
the
of the Son and Spirit
categories
would be nine because
that
with
substantiality, be
numbers.
43. 44.
only
incomplete, He criticised
because
if
who
of number
God because
and speaking
individually.
these
He is living
person
must
be
they can speak.
He
that
because
in this
could way
The same
138
would
would
would
have
apply
to
to the
of hypostases
to three.
in its
God is not
So according
to this
argument,
He
two
categories
of
not
include
God would
al-Kindi,
this
to them,
He is incomplete.
(Abd RisWa A1-Kindi, a1-Masiti PP. 98-103 A1-Mughni,
because
was perfect,
be a
would
Then the number
according
it
categories
is wrong
that
(i. e. 3).
in His hypostasy.
that
both
of them is entitled
everyone
he charged
but
He further
to a Christian also by argument which is presented 43 (3) is The that the al-Kindi. consists argument number
hypostases
Eternal
every
He
turns
encompass
must
living
they
otherwise
etc,
body who has not such qualities. He became
that
characteristics,
drinking and
eating
every
Then he
characteristic.
these
without
then
have to admit
they
for a third
argument,
both
Along
it is a substance,
Consequently
that.
includes even and odd. So whatever gAbd al-Jabbär argued that number.
perfect
be
would
if substance
that
maintaining
because
only,
be incomplete
does indicate
then
al-Jabbär
of both
the
as the Muslim
Christians
the
Then the angels and human being would be God, because
the Christian
have
like
according
and speaking, God.
He wants
or accident,
substance
characteristic
attributes
be incomplete,
would
he then argues that if that
of one substance,
and speech
be something
must
that
which
and speaking.
back to the attributes
and speech have become
argues
is living
Gods.
He then shifts
substance
be living
God is neither
that
a substance
of substance,
must
substances
without
three
with
which
and their
and accidents
substance
is not a body,
Using his own definition
case,
into
of things
God is a substance
and speaking. is the
division
the
of
meaning
be The used of God. cannot 'Abd term differently. al-Jabbär
and body
'ism)
body
P. 30
the
be created
three
and not
as an
tAbd
turns
al-Jabbär
the oneness of God while in its
given
most
reason
of man,
admit
that
fire,
the light
there
there
are three
of the fire
hypostases.
The comparison
(Similarly)
men.
we do not have
of man,,
"the
we say,
when
" fire, the we do not have of
and heat
is
"When we say the
by Paul of Sidon who say:
flame
to
of the
to admit
that
"the light the the orb of say sun, we when
(Similarly)
fires.
three
of man and the spirit
the speech
are three
analogies
used to demonstrate
Christian
being
still
form
complete
there
known
to the well
of
sun and the heat of the sun, " we do not have to admit there are three 45 This analogy is also used by Christians to describe the generation suns. of the the
Son from the light
al-Jabbär
Father derating
First
points.
can produce
words by
that
like
Son being
is
necessary
knowledge
muktasab).
Necessary
knowledge
is reason
is produced
tAbd
by reason,
comes
knowledge,
by
al-Jabbär
to acquired tAbd reason,
and
which
contradicts
of
and
two
(film
knowledge
that
in the mind
if the Christians
and what they are saying
defined
this
neat
kinds
the
up
argues
is generally
of
is
is nonsense.
which
the
When the defence
is established
which
al-Jabbär
from
of
relationship
acquired
it is the same as reason
kind of knowledge, that
darüri)
is knowledge
by the subject.
no effort
mean that
((ilm
brings
he
of the fire
and
is not true because ignorant
involved.
being
by reason
by a series
words,
this statement
knowledge,
meant
knowledge,
through
producing
any reasoning
the
of
comparison
reason
he shows that
without
word
speech being produced
the orb of the sun and the heat
Christian
the
answers
and the
made
from
of sun coming 46
the fire. (Abd
Where they describe
the Father.
at
However,
when
as knowledge this
point
he
produced is
clearly
inconsistent.
As far as the heat and fire
analogy
the same substance,
heat
then
are concerned,
is produced
from
he points its
own
out that substance,
they are of which
is
nonsense.
His rejection physics.
and sun comparison
He seems to regard
but is reflected
45. 46. 47.
of the light
by the surface
light
is based on his understanding
as being a body that 47 of the sun.
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, PP. 21-22 Ibid., PP. 2,5,14 PP. 102-103 A1-Mughni,
139
is independent
of
of theSun
He made
it
in
Father
of
from
it is also confirm
reason,
in
if they affirm Him
bodies and God is beyond
only in created
Christians
that
aware
because
offspring,
'Abd to al-Jabbär,
According word
that
clear terms
he was fully
this
He
way
be
would
created.
as the production
Him Father
as created, 48 that.
because
Christ
as Word
Using
avoid
always
of the
such things
occur
************ In objecting
to the
has
Jabbär because
insist
to
Christ
description
Christian
this
that
of
description
Word of God (Kalimat
is also called
is also used by Ibn Hazm.
This argument
It
is
interesting
Damascus Muslims,
assert
to
that
note
that
is uncreated
Christ
some
is exactly
apologists
God and Word the
same
Qu?
49 än.
non-Mu'tazilite
50
and uncreated.
Christian
is Word of
and this
he believes
OAbd al-
metaphorically in the
-Allah)
However
"Word of God" i. e. the Quroän, to be eternal
of
be used
only
can
God,
of
as the
as John
such God,
according
Christian
of to
faith
in
version
of
Christ.
However,
the Mu'tazilite
the uncreated
(Abd
al-Jabbär
accept
neither
Ibn Hazm's
"Word of God", nor that of John of Damascus. c
A1-Mughni, vol. V, PP. 98-103 48.4Abd al-Jabbär, 49. Ibid., PP. 11 Z-113 50. Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal, vol. II, P. 9
140
CHAPTER
V
The Theology of the Incarnation
The second
main
controversial and it
issue of incarnation problem
and status
person
survey
general order
to give
Christian much
a clear
more
Christian
doctrine.
or inherence
is often
Christianity
described
This
assuming
the form
is applied
point,
inevitably
will
will
faith,
as an incarnational
of the
to
examine
involve
make the views
for, If
is only the relation and manhood
to the act of a divine
of a man or animal
1
incarnation.
the
without
and it is to be found in the union of the Godhead
'incarnation'
this
a in
However,
or misunderstanding at
the
with
to this thesis,
was given.
this section
the key to the salvation
The term
and the
some with
clearer.
has no meaning
is to be true,
with
is necessary,
it
but in the main, it is hoped that
Christianity some,
al-Jabbär
Union
concerned
In the introduction dealt
is the
and Christianity
It is mainly
of his understanding
picture
that
to incarnation
regard
'Abd
of incarnation,
closely
in Christ.
in Christianity.
of the sects
doctrine
repetition
faith
Christ of
Islam
such issues as the hypostatic
covers
and two wills
of two natures
between
problem
the Christian
of God to man, in Christ.
or supernatural
being
to live in the form
and continuing
to
according
in
upon
the earth.
The Christian took human
doctrine
for their
in any salvation
is held to be the incarnate
1. 2. 3. 4. S.
that
the eternal
Son of God
from his human mother and historical Christ is at once fully 4 In other words, God, in one of the modes of His triune man.
and without
mankind
affirms
flesh
God and fully being
of the incarnation
way
to be
ceasing
by coming
amongst
word or Son of God.
God,
has revealed
them
as a man.
Himself
to
The man Christ
5
(ed), incarnation", in M. Wiles, "Christianity John Hick The Myth without God 1. Incarnat¢ P. of (ed), Essays on the in A. F. J. Rawlinson L. Hodgson, "The Incarnation", Trinity P. 363. and the Incarnation, E. R. E., Vol. VII, P. 183. Oxford Dictionary Church, P. 696. of the Christian N. D. C. T., P. 289. B. Hebblethwaite,
L41
It
that
seems
gradual human
being
within
Christianity
Bef ore going better
this mystery
to describe
doctrine
the entire
dilemma.
held that
theologians
acting
According
to
before
that
Wolfson,
the time
the
early
of both an irrational
consisting
the existence
which
They
and rational
it
not
will
not of
of the problem
the soul of Christ,
But when Appollinarius
the Orthodox
seems
of wills.
Godhead,
conscious
mentioned
soul.
has
it make
a duality
entailed
was an act of the whole
soul in Christ,
of a rational
of natures
(d. 390).
of Appollinarius
of them
and argumentation,
were
in
of view.
of the incarnation,
Fathers
of
and discussion
and everyone
to his point
the duality
incarnation 6 independently.
They also emphasised
of debates
Fathers,
controversy
the orthodox
easier to understand
one person
whole
of a process
God incarnated
easy to say that
Church
according
the
is a result
is a long series
There
the early
among
to present
Orthodox
is all.
and that
to interpret
tried
It is not
and thought.
revelation
of incarnation
doctrine
Christian
the
Fathers
as
denied
came out openly
him,
that there was in Christ a rational maintaining soul in addition to 7 However there were some other sects who held that Christ an irrational soul. 8 him as the son of Joseph and Mary They represented was a mere man. against
to the ordinary
according
Christ
held that
This study
discussion
God with because nature
man?
condemned
it as
of incarnation
and apologists
and latter
was understood on the eastern
(Jacobites), because Monophysites and CAbd to know about al-Jabbär's criticism of
relation
doctrines.
theological
the nature
Fathers
But any opinion which 9 by the Church.
generation.
such as Nestorians
the Father,
of
with
has direct
the Christological
The critical
the doctrine
by the Church
sects of the Church this
of human
was a mere man, was always
is concerned
and interpreted
course
question so partake
is, how could of our flesh
of God was something In
trying
to
answer
as to become
entirely this
the eternal
man as we are man,
alien to and remote
question
two
6. 7. 8.
Church, P. 696. Oxford Dictionary of Christian A. H. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Father, Theology, P. 341. A. C. Headlam, Christian
9.
Ibid., P. 343. 14Z
Son, who is equally
different
P. 365.
from
the
forms
of
teaching
unorthodox denial
other,
arose.
of humanity
(354-430)
Augustine
One was the denial
of the divinity
of Christ
and the
of Christ.
has expressed
his views
on the incarnation
in the following
words:
"Just
as soul is united
in the
same
Christ.
to the body in uniting
God united
way,
In the former is a mixture
there
Regarding
that
explains
of God and man. "
of nature
have been joined 11 "God the Logos".
every
to express
apologists same
knowledge.
of
is the
case
with
searched
for
Aristotle
and other
at least
three
become
united
1. - Union union
remain
a union
two
kinds
original That
of reciprocally
H. A. Wolfson, Ibid., P. 3 7 2. H. A. Wolfson,
and the barley
and
their
and passive
The Philosophy Philosophy
changes
143
discussed
union
Their
there objects
by are may
to a grain
"composition".
bodies from
Fathers,
which
of
of the other.
In
species 12
P. 374.
or natures
are easily
P. M.
only
in mixture
its own nature
Father,
In such a being
unity
are called
respective
of the Church
of Church
and apologists
and passive.
unchanged.
kind of union is called
each of the constituents
The
individual
active
of the one is juxtdposed
active
manner.
object.
remain
as the wheat
that is
and
of Aristotle
different
two
theologians
Fathers
of physical
are not reciprocally
individual
the
In the philosophy
union by which
elements
each grain
unchanged.
In this union
10. 11. 12.
constituent
for
Church
the various
these
as it affected
in a philosophical
The
one individual
which
and logic
necessary
theology.
of physical
of Chalcedon
and one hypostasis
philosophy
views
Greek philosophers.
so as to form
In fact
2. - Union
from
of two things
an aggregate
such
kinds
theological
Islamic
an analogy
of two things
the two
the two.
their
constitute
and that
natures",
in one person
became
It
the Creed
of person,
by Greek
man,
of soul and body, in the latter
is in "two
to one another
was influenced
theology
phase
and unity
so as to
of person
is a mixture 10
one and the same Christ
natures
Christian
there
person
duality
the
man in unity
to
so as to constitute
of person
divisible.
towards
the
Both became
other.
constituent There
i.
intermediate
changes,
been mixed.
while
destroyed.
This
being
without
the nature
of each of the
is called
union
mixture.
for this union.
are two examples
out of the four
are formed
As the bodies
and common,
The qualities
of the mixed
insofar
elements, 'corrupt'
elements
as these
have
the essence of each
other.
ii.
Honey and water
3.
Third
kind
one, is that
of union,
active
A drop
of
wine
of
two
treats
of the second
as a subdivision
bodies,
and passive
of action
power
are four examples
There
Aristotle
which
of reciprocally
but are of unequal
i.
are such a mixture.
divisible,
are easily
which
and passion.
for this kind.
into
thrown
ten
thousand
gallons
It
of water.
is not
a
one
is
mixture.
ii.
Union
exclusively
bodies
solid
or superlatively
as 'tin'
such but
passive,
the
'bronze'
and
is passive
other
of
which
in a very
slight
degree.
iii.
Mixture
iv.
As fire
changed
into
of wine with
fire.
penetrating
The Orthodox
13. 14.
kind by
the
one another
Fathers
H. A. Wolfson, Ibid., P. 384.
of
burning,
already
in a very slight 13
union,
which
corruption
of
at every point.
examined
the
all 14
degree.
Stoics the
The Philosophy
of the Church
144
be
He speaks
For the sake of clarity,
call
original
all these categories
the wood will
to this kind.
name is given by Aristotle
or a mixture
is another about
No special
"predominance".
it can be called
brought
water.
fire if to and wood, one adds wood
of it as a mixture
There
a little
"confusion"
which
distinctive
qualities
for their
Fathers,
analogies
P. 377.
is
in their
discussion
of the union of incarnation.
analogy,
of the union
analogy
based
suitable
for
further
that
the
gave
composition..
term 15
there
it
predominance,
al-Jabbär
Orthodox
1.
major
loosely
the
to them
one that
for
was most Wolfson
for
the union
described
was an
he
which
as a mixture
or
as
of the sects discussed
by
are used in the sense of predominance.
theologians
place,
they could use an
of predominance.
term
and Fathers
of the Christological
take
can
the
of
outline
was
So all these terms
any examination
'Abd
to be the union
was no special
Orthodox
Before
However,
confusion.
seemed
purpose
suggested
of
union
to Wolfson, and less useful
or mixture
of composion
on the
their
According
it
would
theological
doctrines appear
contribution
appropriate the
of
early
to give
a brief
Fathers
to
the
position.
Tertullian,
the
of the Latin
earliest
Fathers.
His writings
between
the years
190 and 225.
He developed
Christ.
According
to him,
are two substances
there
were produced
the idea of the two natures in one person.
in
The divine
is real,
the human nature is real, and the conjunction of the two in one 16 flesh and spirit, is real. He means by two substances, as a kind of
nature person
it and said that, "We see plainly the twofold explained IVIbut coloined in one person - Jesus God and man. " In other state not confounded 17 (muw ara in Arabic). words this analogy is called conjunction. He further
mixture.
In another With
a certain with
to the question
the term According sense of
to such a kind whether
and being
virgin
after
Answering the union,
mixture to him,
formed another
X.A replied
question,
in her womb, whether
insnegative.
"predominance".
So that
"conjunction" after
the union,
is born
he
man mixed
the flesh was considered
Wolfson
has suggested
in an Aristotelian
"mixture" and the Logos
H. A. Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 385-6. theology, P. 354-5. Headlam, Christian Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 388-9.
145
union?
in the past, came down into
could have been used by him literally he uses the term
before
was a person
foretold
flesh
into
'association'.
of union by the term
the flesh
'This Ray of God, as was always
the Father.
a person
15. 16. 17.
place,
regard
answered,
he referred
loosely
that sense. in the
is both a nature
and a person, whereas the flesh is only a nature. Z. Origen,
the great
an answer
to a question,
he must
be eternal,
in time
the
since
in time.
is as eternal
the sun.
It is not possible
possible
to
think
the union,
explained that
their
mixing
union
and
up,
of course,
with
Wolfson,
the
He gave
kept
in the
of admitting but rather
from
communion the
receive
all excellent
term
fire,
it
would In other
cold.
despite
18. 19. 20.
a predominance.
of Nazianzus
the duality
(329-389).
of natures,
Him,
with
origen
become words,
where
wholly
and
after
already
was superior
is in
to all
the union of fire
When dealing in several
with places
the
sense
if a mass of iron into
converted
Origen
fire,
of was and
and iron is not a compounded,
the unity
of persön
upon the analogy
H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, PP. 387-392. Theology, P. 353. Headlam, Christian H. A. Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 392-6.
146
but by
The soul of Christ
used by origen
from
he draws
His
qualities.
mixture
an example
of
body and human
powers,
to a body which
was
It is not
a beginning
mortal
highest
from
There
the Father.
merely
into God.
His
to it.
assume 19
to Christ's
regard
by their they
eternity,
generation.
which is produced
with
or
and
also used the term 20 but it is also seen to be in the sense of predominance.
3. - Gregory
and comes
a relationship
eternal
of relationship
wisdom
were changed
with
predominance. constantly
a time
the Logos, was united
bodies and invested
to
of the
as the brilliance
His
with
only
not
in His divinity,
participating
'mixture'
be
God, but if so
from
fundamentally
doctrine
is a process lasting
since that
soul by asserting
incapable
could
In
is to be eternal.
derived
The Son is co-eternal
God without
of
implies
to predicate
when the Son was not.
According
a son is necessarily
and everlasting
no time
other
of incarnation
of the Godhead
essence
is the
This
generation
united,
very
the idea of Sonship
that
not succession
He further
A. D. 185 to 254.
than the Father.
He answered
begetting
from
The Son of God must be in his essence
can he be a son, since
How then
lived who
theologian
he was asked how the union
to the Godhead?
applied
later
Alexandrian
'8
of
"commixture"
or "mixture".
he had become
after
4. - Gregory
even the body
that
assert
the
divine
nature,
assuming
nature
is
with
Here
the
unequal
term
being
....
the stronger
the term
"predominance".
generally the
"nature"
"natural
other
who used highest
the
Like
for
"two and
person
"without in is Jesus the and man
he explained term
"mixture"
merely
meant
" of
the stronger,
in
"natural
is
what
he used
sometimes
property"
and
He maintained Contrary
confusion".
by it
the
which
he believed
"commixture"
the union without
mixed
elements
into
for nature.
of existence"
"we
also seem to come under
like
expressions
by being
of two
though
natures",
were
and incorruptible.
changed
Fathers,
orthodox
which
to be that
sense of a union
It would
God
and said that
is divine
what
is said to have
and the
that to the
and he said that
that
he
was of the
the union
kind.
it by an example,
soul and body,
which
the other
that
of the soul.
Regarding
the union after
is correct,
to composition,
the incarnation
to
after
Wolfson,
"predominance", and wood, "composition"
he
because fire
which
the
term
So all these
in the sense of predominance.
21. Ibid., PP. 376-7. 22. Ibid., P. 397. Wolfson, Philosophy 23.
only which
man consists
which
"composition"
of the Church
Father,
147
examples 23
P. 409.
"one"
are simple
are conjoined
of soul and body.
the union of incarnation
he explained
of the body and
the use of the word
to those things
manner,
of
to union or composition.
to those things
reference
we are composed
the one that
he said that
reference
used
and iron.
that
man is one according
but also with
according
he explained
as two natures,
Yet
when used not with to nature
According
in which
we consider
according
term
into
the
other
He illustrated
of fire
"permixtion"
unchanged.
remained zz
"one as person"
the union of Logos Fathers
the passion,
transformed
and "the quality
quality"
he underwent
the weaker
(315-386). spoken
the union
by that
became
of that
He explained
is used in
of which
whereas
S. - Cyril,
in which
was made
mixture
power
term
(330-395).
of Nyssa.
man below
as the
God and by the victory
with
commixed 21 he became one,
more potent
it
He explained
in
the
sense
of
by the analogies
show that
he used the
6. - Leontius of
a twofold
hypostases,
Regarding of
four
Some
meaning.
is a union
it is to be called
one to call essential
even
when
illustrated
united
by him
preserve
by the
and "wick"
in a lamp,
or mixture,
and
in
of these
four
simple
of the
four
simple
it pleases
or whatever
things.
proper
as that in which principle
of
the constituent It
subsistence.
is
of soul and body in man, of
of the union
"fire" of
divided
a union can be either
composed
by Leontius
examples
are
in hypostases.
composed
already
their
species
to say that
of hetergeneous
kind of union is described
The other
"flame"
of things
in
and united
already
as "interwining"
cohesions
to him, union and division
united
in species
things
or of
elements
When it
elements
are
kind of union he proceeds
the latter simple
According
things
are divided
things
other
elements.
part
(6th cent).
of Byzantium
and "wood"
in a torch.
No special
name
is given by him to this kind of union.
According
to the Leontius,
for the explanation to be found union
described sometimes
kind
described
thing
cannot
he illustrates
just
Accordingly,
(675-740).
as the
25
He has explained from
different
whole and to make a complete of soul and body.
Neither
are enhypostatos,
but
Concerning
that
it
by the
union
of
of the Logos
in substance
which
results
analogy
for it is
example
in order hypostasis.
from
the two
of the
and body
is
and the flesh
is
soul
is compounded
to produce
used with
something
Thus man is composed
soul alone nor body alone is called which
as an analogy
the union, John of Damascus
it as that
and composite
serve
The proper
so also the union 24 by him as "pre-mixture".
enhypostatos.
another
which
"mixture", as
7. - John of Damascus a term
of union
and body.
by him
of confusion
of the union of the incarnation.
in that
of soul
the union
hypostasis.
is a hypostasis
They of the
two.
He further
24. 25.
says that
enhypostatos
could be said to be a nature
which
is assumed
Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 409-415. is a technical Enhypostasis the relation term for a theory concerning They maintained between the divine and human natures in Christ. that human personality there is no independent of Christ but that he became fully personal with the incarnation. V. A. Harvey, A Handbook of theological terms, P. 68.
148
by another
hypostasis
and which
the flesh of the Lord, a hypostasis
but
having never
rather
hypostasis
of
hypostasis
of God the
God
the
union
the
only
which
by
word,
it
which
has
It
Whence
indeed,
subsisted
has been
is not
assumed,
in
it
and
is a hypostasis,
Logos
whereas
flesh
the
the
is this 26 The
it had and still has as its hypostasis. WV" in Christ( described by John of Damascus
that
word
subsisted
hypostasis.
even for a moment,
by itself
enhypostatos.
flesh the and
union of the Logos in
an
in that
has its existence
as a
is only
an
enhypostatos.
to the Orthodox
Finally,
according
divine
and human,
are held to be distinct
its own properties,, Christ
is spoken
Still
of as a divine
described
by his divine
This interchangeability distinct
1. - That
between
Z. - That
the
natures
"total a or
of the divine
"mixture" a
refer
to Christ divine
nations; attribute
26. 27.
he can still
be described
so that
when
by his human he can still
being,
of as/human
despite
by the Fathers
be
being
their
of two
properties
in two ways.
from
distinct
though
the properties,
underlying
the two distinct them
each other,
and human
as it were, "the
nature
there
is what
nature
and to penetrate
and similarly,
and describe
if you refer
to him the properties
call
him
to him
nature
union
may be said to so that,
if you
to him the properties
as sitting
of the human
at all
It means/the
one another,
attribute
"the as
into
a pericharesis27
the two natures into
the two
is "a penetration
penetration".
in Christ,
son of man" you may still in him
they
of pericharesis
"thorough or a
penetration"
as well as between
sets of properties
translation
accurate
nature
form
the
each of them having
properties.
underlying
The
other.
points"
each other,
the
one in person.
are still
distinct
being,
of the properties,
the natures
in Christ,
the two natures
are said to interchange;
when he is spoken
is explained
natures,
though from
these properties
and conversely
properties;
Father,
lord
in judgement of Glory"
over
of the
you may still
in him and describe
him as
Ibid., P. 415-16. is the term used in the doctrine of the Trinity Pericharesis, to refer to the interpenetration Godhead, the the of persons so that although of mutual is distinct in to the others, nevertheless, relation each person each fully in the Being of the other. The being of the Godhead is participates thus one and indivisible. Terms, P. 155. V. A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological
149
Zg
crucified.
All
Fathers
that
warned
is no exact
example
incarnation
one contains
each
would be something
always
The Christological
controversies
The
Christological
two
great
Nestorianism
in the history
dealing
Before thought
incarnation.
of Antionch
on the human
Alexandria
tended
emphasise
particular
established
by the Orthodox
fifth
the
of
i. e.,
century,
permanent
for
places
the
aspects
divinity
of
the
of Christ. of
Out Christ,
school of
doctrine
the
of
On the other
nature
the great
its beginning
traced
which
that
undertaking
of Christ.
nature
to stress
to understand
on their
emphasis
The school
stress
greater
as heretical
controversies
it is necessary
different
placed
The
expression.
of the Church.
them,
with
There
and a mystery.
are regarded
have
too literally.
inappropriate
some unique
that
Monophysitism
and
themselves
should not be taken
such analogies
of laid
to Lucian
hand, the school these
tendencies
these
two
of to
heresies
emerged.
1. - Nestorianism:
As it has been said, that because
of Nestorianism,
On the other
hand the orthodox
Mary was truly Mother forth
Nestorius
but not that
the virgin,
the
Christ
was a man who grew up as other
lived
three
a child on
knowledge
the
earth
is God?
drew a distinction
Z8.
Wolfson,
months
natures
the divine
The Philosophy
she was the
to say that
She brought
God came forth
led to a controversy further
Nestorius
believe you
body,
with
that
human
of the Church
150
Fathers,
P. 418-421.
on the that
believe
the man who limitation
in a God who was dead and buried? logos and the man Christ.
a man
argued
He asked: could you really
Could
a growing
Could you believe between
men.
old was God?
as a child,
This
in Christ.
question
to say that
it was true
Logos.
whole
that
of
two
who was born of the virgin
it was correct
he was born of her.
by the divine
who was accompanied
as Christ
that
maintained
Theotokos.
the title
that
argued
the Son of God, therefore
of God. from
of his condemning
is said to be the founder
Nestorius
of So he
in Christ.
dual personality was a
Nestorius
taught
The divine
the man Christ was not in the man Christ and therefore 29 God bearing. Fathers, Unlike the orthodox to whom, after the
God,
Nestorius
that
maintained
there
are merged
persons
is a person
and two natures,
and the union
in a new person,
results
flesh
the
the union
whereas
other
the Logos and the man in him.
is another
According Christ of
to them,
divinity
in him. together
nature
exists
Christ
are two natures in their
two persons Christ
with
in him.
of the divinity not only 30 in him.
humanity
Finally,
according
natures
before
continued
component
one person. Since five
with
the union
were
parts, 31
kinds
after
the union, in
the two
of physical
Headlam, Christian Wolfson, Philosophy Ibid., P. 461.
there
and these
united
but
were
two with
one
two
persons
natures
remained
union
were known
of
151
in
that
every
that
in
these
The humanity
in
persons with
which
their
with
their
being that
the from
two
natures while
persons
one another
four
of the
respective
respective
to the Fathers,
P. 457.
may be said to
the person
also with
distinct
Theology, PP. 370-71. of the Church Father,
Fathers.
in the person
argued
in him
the only difference
person,
up of two
its own person but also with
the divinity
own person
in a
and the divinity
of Christ.
not only with Similarly
its
to Nestorius,
to exist
persons
together
made
maintained
He further
in the one person
two
and the humanity
the humanity
so that
the
the original
can be said to exist
as two persons.
union result
between
and Orthodox
hand Nestorius
other
Still,
union.
does not result
a person
without
a nature,
of two persons
of which
Nestorius
in Christ
a person
as well
together
exist
29. 30. 31.
On the
may be said to exist
the person
two
the humanity
the
is one person
between
can be a nature
there
is only a nature,
the
to Nestorius
of difference
point
after
The union
of Christ
Christ
Accordingly
There
is only
of the two natures
new nature. persons,
flesh
is a difference
there
of the natures.
the person
namely,
the
and nature,
person
even
are two persons
of the persons
union
is both
the Logos
while
though
there
Logos dwelt
but
union,
that
the were
in that
are rejected
by Nestorius, of
for his purpose
as unsuitable
incarnation.
He
terms
other
all
rejected
of providing
of the union
an analogy
and
the
preferred
term,
conjunction.
(Jacobites)
Monaphysites
This sect was later
than the Nestorians.
against
the background
heresy
of Appollinarius,
heresy.
of an earlier
its doctrine
Perhaps
who believed
Its beginning
should be seemed
can be traced
by the
flesh or the body was not a complete
that
man.
He maintained which
of that
denial
soul possessing
with
Appollinarius
has described
"commixture"
"composite as a or
fathers
of Logos and the man, man as the weaker
irrationally without
body,
animated its being either
One has reason Alexandrian
According
to
that
the
century
the same century.
However
century
The new kind
32.
Wolfson,
as the
under
to prove
is a nature
"mixture"
or
that
in the union a person.
without
is only
a property
are already
found
member,
weaker
tendencies
in Appollinarius`
monophysitism
of
Entyches
Appollinarius
only to decline
(d. 454) and Severus from
differed
of the Church
Fathers,
15Z
in
theology.
a new kind of Monophysitism
of Monophysitism
Philosophy
of God
nature
in the union of Logos and the
that
Monophysite
and flourished,
fourth in the arose
in the fifth
was in him only
there
by the term
tried
member
maintained
and certainly
Wolfson,
of
a person or a nature.
to believe
theology
body
the existence
nature".
the orthodox
hand Appollinarius
it.
was one incarnate
incarnation of
soul,
from
inseparable
was
He said that
and that Christ
the union
In the face of this heresy,
and
irrational an
only
soul, he not only denied
but also two natures.
(substance) one nature or ousia 3Z the Logos.
On the other
body
the
of the rational
in Christ,
two persons
a rational
together
conceived
was
Because
it lacked
that
Appollinarius
P. 433-4.
and his
followers
and disappear made its (early
fifth
during
appearance century).
and accepted
the
orthodox Christ
point
of view
was between
the Orthodox
the Logos and complete
Fathers
the weaker
on the question
in such a union
that
the man in Christ
So like
the weaker
interesting
dialogue
questioned
them,
"Explain
they between
to us, however
The Monophysites
the Godhead
that they
words
There
and the Monophysites.
both,
is an
The orthodox
one nature
or that
that
argued
the union.
after
one nature
after
remains
and the manhood
remains the
accepted
analogy
of
by it. "
was absorbed
"predominance"
which
they
as "absorption".
described
The
they
view
answered:
"We maintained other
from
from
Appollinarius'
in Christ.
one nature
sense do you assert
derived
in
" the of other?
the destruction
In
only
the orthodox
in what
Do you mean one nature
Adopting
was only a property, 33 and not a nature.
of
departed
they
member
spoke
the union
in a union of "predominance"
of whether
was only a property
Appollinarius
However,
man.
or a property.
was a nature
member
i. e., that soul
had a rational
Christ
that
orthodox
find
it
absolute
nature
difficult and
and
unapproachable
to understand
and asked
uncompounded,
uncircumscribable,
the
comprehending have
absorbed
How
again.
the
could
a
universe;
nature
which
it
assumed?
The
Monaphysites
illustrated
a drop of honey 34 vanishes.
receiving water
The
orthodox
refused
between
two
between
the incorporeal
examples without
33. 34.
that
to
corporeal
there
their
for straight
divinity
being confounded
and remain
while
such as honey
instances
of
153
the sea's
is possible
They illustrated
substances
Fathers,
the sea
it is not possible
which
unimpaired.
of the Church
with
absorption
and water,
humanity.
and corporeal
several
Ibid., P. 444-5. Wolfson, The Philosophy
analogy,
like
example,
way the drop as it mixes
this
accept
substances,
are
point
by a concrete
PP. 445-6.
are
it by mixed
The orthodox
produced two analogies.
1. - At the rising
light the the sun, all of
This penetration for
mixture, "illuminated
of all the light the
mixture
in the air,
present
the
that
it can be moist
light
the air afterwards
air still
its
whole
iron
remains
three
were
on the
a
Jacobites
Eutychius presented
faith
orthodox
guardedly
of the
with
is
of the
first
part
Its
a
totally
the iron continues
a hammer 35 the fire.
during
but
the
world
himself
the
of
"mixture
to
and the
with
trends
al Burhän,
refutations
penetrates
I Scholars during the Isa-mic period
orthodox
who
is
still
with
in the Islamic
scholars
Muslims.
of fire,
and is smitten
the
in his Kitäb
his viewpoint
power
and the fire
it
though
theological
(877-940)
Alexandria
the
by the fact
the departure
after
it is fired,
by its contact
represented
also had prominent
of
fire, yet,
anvil
Christian
Melkites
The
period.
is as evidenced
nature,
argued by Christian
main
Now,
And yet when the light
light.
Similarly,
with And
substance.
Doctrines
Christological
the
in contact
and is put
to be called
is mixed.
that
all
all the air.
alone by itself.
of the iron was not damaged
nature
There
retains
and the iron has the active
penetrating" be called
its
hot or cold.
or dry,
2. - When iron is brought through
through
and is called
is seen as light
air"
is, therefore, the air all
through
penetrates
through
seems to penetrate
which
the
early
Nestorians during
is devoted
Nestorians, with
Christian
God
with
His
pateriarch
to exposition
Jacobites
deals
and the
this period.
a Melkite
was
Islamic
and
doctrine
of
more of the
incarnation.
He started "Then
his argument
came
immovable incarnate
the
hypostasis, from
the indwelling
35. 36.
down
Mary
he said, as creative
who has never the virgin
ceased
- so that
of the consubstantial
Wolfson, The Philosophy Eutychius of Alexandria,
of
word
cease to be.
nor will
(the Holy
abiding,
Spirit)
word of God within
her. "36
and
He became
made her worthy
of the Church Fathers, PP. 446-7. Kit-ab al-Burhän, Vol. I, P. 68.
154
eternal
of
He goes on to argue, "The creative
word
Himself
with
the concurrence
creation
without
human
seed. - He was perfect
and his rational,
logical
spirit
The spirit
became God of
for veiling
God's creation for it,
as a veil
"37
He further
explained
According
to him,
God with
the mystery
became
humanity
was not
created
nor
word
of
God who
created
it
thing
in the
seed from
beginning which
substance
of man which Him
one with
the creative
later
(Christ) word
soul acted (alt of )
was more tenuous
it
out
the substance
with
spirit.
humanity
out
of a cause
of the
The word of
whose substance it.
of God constituting
except
by the hypostasis
of the
of no previously through
The
existing it
which
had
the hypostasis
of the creative
and known
among men through
without
enumerated
(God) joined by the unity
of God, which
the Father
time
He then
and not
else, except 38 Trinity.
and one in mankind
one with
was anything
is a hypostasis
hypostasis
divinity
of
a
word
on to express his views,
He carries "That
of the word
anything
is one of the divine
of that
and constituted
of Mary,
womb
it was the worthiest
logical
and rational,
a hypostasis
by the hypostasis
complete
up His abode
of union.
its body and blood,
His hypostasis
for what
God of word mingled
the creative
with
for God's taking
for him, the animal a as veil
It acted
soul
of God in man.
and likeness
Therefore -
and the solid body was a veil
than itself.
man complete
God.
Himself.
as a new
man in his body, his animal
of God's creation
and His veiling
Spirit
and the Holy
is the image
which
was the most worthy
in it, His indwelling
became
of God the Father
for
man who He created
a created
one with
separation
37. 38.
Ibid., PP-68-69Ibid., P. 69.
39.
Ibid.,
it
of that
by two
from
hypostasis,
is one in the Trinity
the Father
examples
P. 69-70.
155
to try
begotten or from
and made
the hypostasis
by the substance
of his humanity.
is likewise He -
for Him
and created
single
by the substance
and Spirit
illustrated
to (Christ)
of
of His
He is not two but
of Mary
the virgin 39 the Holy Spirit. "
to explain
the
the problems
at a
of the
incarnation,
specially
and earth,
enters
house
same
without because
it has not been cut off
likewise
the son of God dwells
He
truly
example
in humanity
intellect
from
intellect
is known
in the intellect
which
"The indwelling
one
the
transformed
two
substances
from
being
the
it
what
into
from
from
of the
it; the
it and all of
itself
he said,
or change is;
divine
the
the substance
or transformation
from
of of
is not
substance
nor the human
human
being
fully
neither
wine
nor
water,
is accompanied
mixture
for
and corruption. each
by corruption,
state.
Kitäb a1-Burhän, Ibid., P. 71.
example,
the
of silver
The mixture
and they
Vol. I, P. 70.
156
only in three
of two different
is transformed
of them
Nestorians
and accused
comes about
of gold and silver,
before
of the union of incarnation.
the nature
by the mingling
and corruption,
is a transformation
(as it has been mentioned
and then he criticised
union)
and honey,
kinds
three
of Alexandria,
like and
40. 41.
on a sheet
is in it and all the word is
about incarnation,
and creative,
(may be produced)
of vinegar
original
(the intellect)
For
Spirit.
separated
it, and all of it is within
of not understanding
transformation
mingling
is written
so
the Father.
and Holy
nor is the intellect
from
divine
mixture
to Eytychius
1. - Amixture
water,
from
it is not separated
yet
by transference
about
types of physical
and Jacobites
their
the illumination;
word of God and His union with
of the creative
He categorised
According
originated,
"41
and created.
different
on the paper,
any doubt
does not come
of
his intellect,
and warmth,
really
separating Father
the
heaven
"40 it is which united.
to try to remove
humanity
from
has generated
whence
without
with
by the word, because
is on the paper with
In order
and truly
it was generated
which
by light it
is
sun which
is between
the sun's disc or from
in humanity
generated
word
as the
what
there
truly
sun's disc
the
from
all of it is really
so that
paper,
separating
a man's
and become
from
however
was
fills
the sun's disc whose illumination
from
generated
He says "just
Christians.
to none
mixture
elements
and
of
wine
and
All
this
and copper. of wine from
its
ways.
and water nature,
have been changed
from
is
their their
2. - It
is a mixture so that
separate
different
two
where
the two natures,
and appearance,
be can recognised
in a single
and linen
with
lamp,
two natures
are never
In respect
to Eutychius
of
nature
hypostasis divine
a divine
natures,
of two intertwined a lining
strands,
whose outside
to
believe
necklaces, two Christs, intertwined
in
is silk and its inside
one
and the garment are divine necklace
human like
that
with
a lining
by his nature and like
the copper
strand
Kitäb
al-Burhän,
Vol. I, P. 73.
157
and
they
the
made a
neither
copper,
different
and a human.
the necklace
made
or the garment
with
involve
Christ and
like the golden
is likewise
strand
garment,
and the cotton
them
compels
necklaces
of the lined
of the
no mixture
necessity
is two garments,
of
mixture
had two
divine a
intertwined
outside
the
of)
because
is cotton,
in the necklace
garment.
42.
idea
hypostases,
and hypostasis
the silken
transformed,
and made Christ
to this belief,
because
the
natures,
doctrine,
the one Christ
one gold and the other
Christ,
had been
(the
to
adhered
According
different
of gold and copper.
(one of) separateness,
or hypostasis.
two in nature
and death,
and two known
and a human
they
the divine he had one
so that
to his blashemous
and asserted
he made the mixture
Hence
other
hand,
and severance,
separateness
union
to (the idea
that
and asserted
of two
to accidents
other
error).
(composed),
According
is
and
associates
Jacob adhered
mingled
their
of the
and oil there
and his
in one Christ,
ingot like just the man,
the
on
(into
and corruption,
Through
of God subject
true God nor a true
Nestorius,
fell
nature
is corruption.
transformation
not
nature
human.
and the
ribbed
these two kinds of mixture 4Z things. solid, material
Nestorius
mixture)
became
and one mingled
the nature
(of
kinds
and his partisans
and the human
regard
in the case of corporeal,
of transformation
of) the mixture
linen,
of the separateness to the water
According
(Baradaeus)
Jacob
mixtures,
of two.
two
from
woven
because
with
these
oil and water
is head gold. whose
Likewise,
found except
for example,
garment
remain
by its hypostasis
the other
mixture,
and hypostases. together
no mixture
in that
be to called not
ought
from
in a single and silk
silk and an idol of copper
Such things
natures
distinct each
hypostases
and their
inside
two is
in the and the of the
Eutychius both
these
accused
of not
sects
mixtures and then 43 for this analogy.
the nature
to understand
able
he mentioned
these
suitable
being
kind
another
of mixture
of is
which
He argued, This is the third transformation
corporeal
and corruption
Yet there
is no transformation
and severance,
nature
penetrates
spread
out through
material
into
of
it is a mixture
in
the
and
material
the whole
and mingles
the hypostasis
(consisting)
hypostasis
(or confusion)
of its strength red-hot
conveyed
of its blackness
Then he concluded
Mary
son of
hypostasis, divine
human
with
and human.
natures,
a divine,
and with
which
of the divine
virgin,
hypostasis
the
that
is always
and the human
Ibid., PP. 74-75. Kitäb al-Burhän,
of iron
the
and pervading and without fire
The
the
has spread
to the iron some
the iron
has glowed
iron's feebleness, 44 to the fire. "
the creative
begotten
of the
He became
are
the
of
He is one Christ,
unique
He is one Christ which
Examples
mass, one in the
of severance
until
and
it
and has
by saying that,
nature.
the
because
it
its solid
and the piece
it all, and has conveyed
and coldness
to this kind of mixture
His mixture is the
his theory
yet
with
and corruption.
and has heated heat
the
with
nothing
"According
and invested
and brilliancy,
united
the separation
without
of them.
of the fire
fire
of
nature
of transformation
the iron
all through
become
in either
and spiritual
from
mass, it is a glowing
glowing
the
of
of iron,
of the piece
mingling itself
of a single
its immaterial
and corporeal
of soul and body, and the mingling
the mingling
nature
of the material
nor any change or corruption
nature,
from
of the spiritual
nor any transformation
nature,
43. 44.
it becomes
the mixings
one, without
all of it.
with
into
is the true
or of separation
and spiritual
so that
nature
that
of mixture
immaterial
the
which
kind
united nature,
of
word
the son of God.
her
at
a later
Son of God, combining
by one pre-eternal
God and a human through
Mary
combining
Vol. I. PP. 75-76.
158
of God has arranged
which
the virgin
He, it is who
time,
with
both
hypostasis
with
them both without
that
natures, with
He created
one
two
for him
hypostasis
any mixing
as
transformation
that,
"If the two natures become
or separation
or corruption
He explained
had been mixed
one nature,
Christ
would
Father
and the Holy
Spirit
after
Father
and the Holy Spirit no compounding
which
be counted
been have part not
is an immaterial
in the confusion
for him to be one God with come upon His substance?
"that
the
particular.
Everything
everything
the Son wills the Father
Holy Spirit
wills
them. "
From
all
he argued,
will,
Father
the
the Father 47
this..
after
Spirit
the will
belongs
and the Holy
and the Son will.
(in this way he used the Qu? änic expression) the acts examples
Christ
from
He created (Knower
hguyüb
He is Creator
of divinity.
will raise
to life
through
Then he made another
to the human
by an example, sunlight, Therefore
as the
because
being
the tree
45.
Ibid., P. 77.
46. 47. 48.
Kitäb al-Burhän, Ibid., P. 89. Ibid., P. 91.
suffering cut
down
the death
being
doe's not
(khäliq
or division
Christ
that,
lima
yashä)u) falläm He is
man.
(forgiver
and pain
cut
with
belong
to
the
al
on the day "48
"that
suffering
and
He illustrated
axe does not
the
for
of sins).
of Christ,
because
essence.
may be cut down by the axe, whilst
159
the
God by His performing
a blind
not to the divine
Vol. I, P. 86.
and everything
concluded
were by his humanity,
of
and
(Lord of the Day of Judgement).
concerning
essence,
will,
all those in the tomb
His own power
and death
Spirit
li_dhrdhunüb
and ghffär
has
confusion
is no difference
He wills
for
eyes
yawmidýdin
analogy
crucifixion
death belong
hidden)
He is Malik
of Resurrection.
his suffering,
clay
things
of
two
that
Holy will,
is perfect
of what
substance,
to the genus not to the
he finally
and discussion
argumentation
seeing
Spirit
There
son to
or how would it be said
Son and
the
their
in
light
a creative
He had left
the
of the
for the incarnate
and Holy
wills,
of
the substance
substance,
of compoundness;
the Father 46 "
Concerning
of the substance
it be right
Spirit
they had
till
mixture
because
simple
How would
and Holy
the Father
with
in a confused
together
His incarnation,
appears.
seeing He was invalid
between
"45 of severance.
sunlight's
the sunlight
it
affect
essence. is resting
upon it,
but
cutting
ibn 'Adi,
a tenth
had a close relation 'Adi's In Ibn
tract
of the basic
doctrine
fact
The
metaphysical According
of Christ
nature
bore the babe possessing
Ibn
'Adi
in
maintaining
a single
nature.
in his divinity
the word is of composite
that
the Jacobites
nature
it is united
of God, they but
that
necessarily
mean divine
experiences
of
the
being
to
Christ
49. 50. 51.
Word.
that
by
However
Perir
be
to
of his day say that Ya yya maintains
is the
mother
nature
when they
human
nature.
growth.
Pain
to Mary
as
the substance
of
refer
who is God. 4Adi Ibn contends
does not
have
Physical in the
and privation 4Adi Ibn wishes to attribute He insisted
cannot
of Christ
of Christ.
the
arrived
Mary
that
affirm
she has begotten
embryo,
who is God.
and Mary
the human nature
The Jacobites
to the
Yet
judged
birth
and
nature, when they affirm 51 'Adi Ibn and human. maintained
united
like
increases
Mary
constitutive
though
successive
before
in his humanity.
conception
do not mean by this that
rather
nature
divine
to the word.
death
of a single
of the creator.
is one of the two
born,
by that
understand
God, the substance
the divine
and created
nature,
is
Melkites. the divine
that
crucifixion,
and Monaphysites
do not deny the doctrine
that
the Creator,
thesis
Yet Ibn 'Adi
the Jacobites
mother
suffering,
certain
the
believed
sects
and
from
that
Monophysite
the
that
at the moment,
Christian
to the defence
natures,
Jacobites
the
to his birth,
two
of
relation
of three
believe
and
to the mode of incarnation.
regard
the union occurred 50 the two natures.
discussing
the word is eternal
beget
the
was subjected
They rather
atonement.
with
distinguish
considerations 'Adi to Ibn none
in Baghdad
he seems to be dedicated
of the Jacobites incarnation,
has lived
scholar
friends.
incarnation, the on
the
of
Muslim
with
Jacobite
century
because the iron's
the tree,
"49 sunlight.
but does not affect wood
affects
Z. - Yahyä
down with cut
is not
the sunlight
on the
that
to go through
growth body
credal
This
does may
not
not
be
all actions,
even
statement
"He
de
The
Ibid., P. 101.
Yaiyä b. IAdi, Magalät, PP. 96-97. YahYä, by Robert PP. 192-193, Perier, cited 4Adi, Yahyä b. PP. 78-79. Apologatic of writings (unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to the faculty 1973). foundation,
160
Henry
of Hertford
Vale,
Seminary
died".
He
accused
alleged
that
since Christ
true that
Ibn'Adi
Fakhry,
LAdi's
the
fire as
essence, to other
things,
or just
of that
entity
or appropriates
Yet Ibn 'Adi
Jacobite
century
different
totally
four
wrote
his
elements
in Christ,
treatise,
that his
to communicate their
communicate
assumes the form
an entity,
identified
becomes
it.
with
forsaking
thereby
without
essences
his
identified
his unity. "53
the divine
a single
like
nature
in which
nature
to mention
Christian), from
or dies.
suffers the
4Adi's famous Ibn toward
approach
whose
his teacher. to affirm
treatises
from
has
century,
The two
is substantial
union
soul and body.
I would
In this respect,
tenth
as the son of man has become
to say that
making
to that between
similar
form
in
was driven
and in so doing
and Christ,
is reluctant in
it
He
he lives. Yet it is 52 and he died.
quoted
goodness
active
the human
destroying
concur
natures
views.
as the mind, in apprehending
or his Godhead,
God without
He
died".
Therefore,
differences
philosophical
and the other
Thus God has assumed
with
die.
"He
phrase
that he was crucified
polemical
just
the
omitting
he cannot
"God in His infinite
to him,
identity
sects
is divine,
discussing
Ibn
according
other
wishes to affirm
while
evaluated
two
for
Like
his teacher
Christian
the
Ibn Zur4a (tenth
pupil
union
of
incarnation
is
he was a Jacobite
doctrines
against
the
and
Jews
and
Muslims.
According is like He
to Ibn Zur'a,
an intermediate
described
intelligence symbolic
three (lägil)
substance
with
nature,
which
members
of
and the object
expressions
him, the original
of the divine
the unity
of the Father,
substance an attribute.
become 54
essence with
is neither the
trinity
of the act
purely
divine
as intellect intellect of
the Son and the Holy united
to man, because
the human
essence
or purely
human.
(aql)
act
(ma'qül), Spirit.
the
of
as they
are
According
to
the hypostasis
is the
52.
Ibid., P. 92.
53. 54.
P. 225. Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, _ qsä Thomson, ibn Zur'a, Jr, Four Treaties H. Fergus PP. 123-4. of (Unpublished Phi, thesis submitted 1952). to Columbia University,
161
I, he was a Nestorian
3. - Timothy
There was a debate between discussion on
days, later
patriarch
I which
Mahdi and Timothy
for two
took place
form by the Christian
down in its present
was written
(775-785).
of Mahdi
in the time
protagonist.
two sons, but Son and Christ
"clothed 56 expression.
itself"
The expression
but
relations,
mutual
He illustrated
Son.
in his one
his soul
between latter
visible
Christ,
he put
which
and not two, although
on from
fact that
he is also two.
confessed
fact the as one, and
The very
the known
that
same
one Christ
and
he is two:
in reality
found
distinction
and the
of God, together is one and the
with same
between
the
he is one does not preclude
the
Christ
difference
is indeed Son and
known
does not imply
confusion
he is also two
are kept
of his natures
attributes
nor their
and spiritual,
Mary,
is in him the natural
there
and the f act that
word God and his humanity;
mixture
is invisible
with
as a semi
of natures
the
In the same way the word
and corporeal.
because
and
former
the
in
two
itself
clothed
constitute
a man is one, while
- nor
one of which
translator
the
of them
individuality,
and his body;
of humanity
the clothings
by
out
both
that
it by an example, and
Mary,
"we do not deny the duality
we profess
composition
is from
one which
is pointed
goes on to argue,
The patriarch
is not two beings
Christ
that
are in him two natures,
are one; there
and the other
belongs to the word 55 the Word God.
Nestorian
he argued
Christ, of
the nature
In discussing
in one person
and or of
the Christ. "57
Then he explained word are one with
this
mystery
the voice
with
by another which
word God.
and in them
one does not expel
He is one with
his invisibility
and his
they
his humanity
visibility
are clothed,
but one word,
are not two words nor two tongues, the voice,
example,
two.
while
A. Mingana, Wood Brook Study, 1. Ibid., P. 155. Footnote
57.
Ibid., P. 155.
tongue
and the
in a way that
the two
the tongue
and
This is also the case with
the
together
preserving
and between
55. 56.
"as the
his
with
the distinction
between
and his
humanity.
divinity
B. J. R. L., Vol. XI (19Z8), P. 155.
16Z
Timothy
the
used
illustration
but he is said to be living this living .
and rational
by the nature
us in union with
When Timothy
that but
our nature, its mortality created
58. 59. 60.
of all this, however,
of word
not
the Jacobites
the Nestorians but
that
of Christ,
in his divinity.
Refuting
and Melkites not only
immortality, His and
being is capable
Jacobites
the
say that
God suffered that
the possibility
his Creator.
Ibid., P. 156. Ibid., P. 156. Ibid., P. M.
163
"60
with
one living
nature, that
and on he took
Son of God died in he
and Melkites,
and died in the
God suffered
and died
of our human
nature,
and He made it to resemble
of resembling
God,
and is, Christ's
of his humanity
he said, "the
do not assert
He even removed
from
he is called
our human
God with
His God by the nature 59 the word God.
the death
and
its association
through
In the same way God is called,
of the union
considered
but
our nature,
flesh,
soul.
is living
has indeed been received
in his body,
In spite
Man
and soul.
hand He is called
the other
argued
man
and rational
man and not two.
and rational Father
of
body as
of his soul which
only by the nature
rational
from
"58 his natures. of
is one in his sonship and two in the attributes
Christ
divinity
in and
that
a
VI
CHAPTER
Analysis
A Comparative
doctrine
has devoted
outlines his
within
the different
assessment
However,
them.
of
He sets out
refutation.
was in fact it
doctrines
these
a term
seems
used to try
and thereby
that
section
It is taken
although the fact
not alter
the
wills
are
in his empire.
the one will that
was acceptable
the Melkites
separate,
is on the basis of rational the topic about
It had not,
they
he is dealing
with.
have
would
unacceptable, which
He develops
of knowledge.
the attribute be
knowledge,
then
how can he have His attribute
1.
al-Jabbär,
al-Mughni,
concur though
with
'aýwhar
If
man
can
never
for jawhar
in the outline. desire
to deal
by Heraclius much
to try support
it still
did
of two natures.
to
according his argument ignores by using then their
have
of will.
Vol. V, PP. 114-116.
164
terminology,
gained
completely
If they are separate,
will
separate.
to
his argument
knowledge
tAbd
while
to the Monophysites,
held the doctrine
still
probability
however,
it as
in the
a synonym
had been put forward
In
Also at this
English
strained
to refute
incorrect
that,
about/which/mentioned 'Abd may indicate al-Jabbär's
He finds this to be totally
Jabbär.
fact
it takes and as about
theory
rational
incarnation) or
or incarnation.
to the
attention
come
confusion.
This is clearly
dhät in rather
and this
The one will
because
of
up the argument
out of place
the dispute
guilty
(inherence
inherence
of
capable
he did not use dhät as in any way synonymous
takes
to solve
la,
to explain
one to translate
this problem.
the term
is
(mujäwara).
he now uses dhät to mean "essence" 1 "substance".
His next
he
to draw
appropriate
forced
out
that
to his attempt
as a prelude
them
setting
therefore
and
rational
of conjunction
on the Trinity
section
being
in
even
the doctrine
excludes
If
the
and criticising
doctrines
of the Christological
aspects
he seems to suggest
particular
with
to discussing
sections
about eight
of union of incarnation.
He first
point,
Doctrines
Christological of
Critique
4Abd al-Jabbär
of "ýkbd a1-Jabb7ar
God's
In this
'Abd
alit
against
the nature
of
the argument attributes
of
attribute
of
argument
'Abd
al-Jabbär
completely
so strenuously
the Mu'tazilite
ignores
He
elsewhere.
advocated
theology
of attributes
should
which has
as he
know,
he has it
said
r
frequently
enough in al-Mughni,
is a sifat
Mu'tazilite
His whole
the doctrine
to attack
enthusiasm
he does present
However,
there
union, then Z prophets. this
seems
God could not be the will he mentioned
Sharh3
of will
aspect
(mashila).
that
He first
argued
However,
a false
of will
interpretation
such a union of wills
all
the
to al-Radd
is often
attributed
doctrine.
for his will
of
but in his
through
union
of their 4
the
the will
the sect,
which
He also
whereas
of God would
the will
occurred,
from
in his preface
R. Shadyaq,
the union
of his over-
that
in the
believed
God does not need any location
that
by being located
accident
that
alleged
a union
by claiming
will
they used to say that in the beginning.
admitted
does.
Father
is in fact
to the Nestorians,
Nestorians
A
by al-Ghazäli,
al-Jamil
the
such
He does not indicate
of mankind.
attribute.
is to the basis of
if will
that
exclude
through
of union
that
to
and a created
will
will.
argument
no need
whereas
down because
crumbling
of union through
a reasonable
on his discussion
He carries
to knowledge
has come
structure
is a sifa li-dhätihi
knowledge
is secondary
Thus will
al-M.
that
become
man an
in Christ. j
He
then
from
distinction argument value
He
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
God
and
between
As a result from
Christ
is a rather
to the discussion.
further
doctrine
that /that
to all creatures.
applied wills
suggests
contradicted
could
all mankind
one
another.
and the
rest
ineffective 6
the
be
applied could
Consequently,
of mankind argument
of
by
wills
three
evil
there
concerning
debating
union
will
not
and
it
Christ,
of
the
could
be
and differ
in
union.
contributes
more
be 5
would
little
arguments.
no This of
He
Ibid., PP. 117-118. 'Abd
Sharh, P. 296. al-Jabbär, R. Shadyaq, preface of al-Radd al-Jamil, P. 217. Vol. V, PP. 119-120. Idem, al-Mughni, has repeated Here Abd al-Jabbär the same argument,. Vol. V, PP. 117-18. before in section 4. See al-Mughni,
165
he has applied as
suggests that a union of wills implies any facet of the doctrine of incarnation.
ýAbd To al-Jabbär
this would involve
is impossible. him God's. For this becoming Christ simply of
all the attributes
A more
does as of course
God in Christ,
locating
critical
based on will
argument
and crucial
God is willing
is that,
from
do He In to the so, same way will continue act of will. eternity 7 How then can God's will be located because there is no change in his nature. tAbd incarnation, three in Christ's? While criticising the union of al-Jabbir's ¶isä in Abu to the the of union of will are very similar reference arguments with by an unlocated
of his al-Radd8
the second part
and contain
of arguments which were between tAbd al-Jabbär
a number
is in difference But the there earlier a applied works. qsä. tsä find in his Abi Abü tries to out contradiction and CAbd depends mostly upon pre-established al-Jabbar arguments, while
opponent's principles
laid down by his predecessors. ************ By referring
to
illustrative
doctrine
Nestorian
the
Christ's
of
example
body
of
conjunction
being
aware of the theological
basis of this argument.
Wolfson
that
and
has suggested9
was
accepted
generally
by
the
of
most
a temple,
is found
such language
(mujäwara) fAbd
al-Jabb.
in the writings
Orthodox
with
its
r seems
of St. Paul
and particularly
the
Nestorians.
For
4Abd
al-Jabbär (jawhar)
substance
Mu'tazilite
this
relaxes dhät.
However,
bodies one
have
essential
common.
doctrine
quality
According
by admitting
he emphasises
mean that
would should
here
is
and therefore
sense corporeal doctrine
impossible as he maintained 10 have We body. already noticed or this
that
"aýwhar
of God.
qualities
in
they
common, (Abd to al-Jabbar
must both
have
that,
at
was
not
times,
he
can be equivalent
to
to God.
to be applied
God should have the essential
the essential
God
qualities
Because all
conjunction
To accept
essential
things qualities
and also mixture
Vol. V, PP. 121-ZZ.
Al-Mughni,
8. 9. 10.
PP. 43-48. Abii al-Radd'alä al-Firaq alThaläth, sa al-warraq. H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, P. 367. 'Abd al-Jabbär, Vol. V, P. M. al-Mughni,
this
of a body and
if two
7.
166
as in some
of jawhar
his understanding
impossible
that
have in are
only possible
"awähir
among substances
not presumably
dhat) and bodies.
ll
************ He rejects
any attempt
According
to
formula
must
miracles
Abd
be taken
argued,
these occurred 13 any location.
through
He again
that,
criticised
dead body,
or healing
of miracles because
if the appearance
only one of them. God consisted
person,
during
The former
of many parts.
If it was only some atoms, be characterised CAbd by al-Jabbär,
discussed union,
and
concerning
the
Bakr a1-Bägillani.
other
also
prophets
by Christ
does not affirm
of Christ's
could
miracles by other
without
such as raising without
uniting
the union God has conjoined him in all his atoms because
was unacceptable, To Abd al-Jabbär
it would
union would
Christian
based on divine
inherence the
the
God is able to do that
be affected 14 God, then the same can apply to Christ.
He then asked whether
but
l2
conjunction
blind
because
al-Jabbar,
God is everywhere.
that phrase,
for
argument
the performance
that
of
Any
IAbd to
that
creed
is a metaphorical
literally.
such kinds of miracles.
He further
with
it
al-Jabbär
is unacceptable
performed
the Muslim
to exploit
indicate
that
it would
was obviously
require
or
that
impossible.
such atoms which took part in is The nature of union and Son of God.
as Christ
that
is based on the materialistic explanation of the act lb ý Such analogies similarities s7a's al-Radd. with Abu
has union
of incarnation
can also be seen in al-Tamhid17
Al-Bagilläni's
argumentation
than
Abd al-Jabbär's
and more comprehensive
is not extensive
by Abü
but it is clearer
criticism.
************
11. 12. 13.
Ibid., P. 123Ibid., PP. 123-24. Ibid., P. 124.
14.
in does believe McDermoft that al-Jabbär miracles, subject confirms They must be professed by the prophets. to certain conditions. For detail, The Theology of al-Shaik al-Mufid, see M. J. McDermoft, PP-84-86Vol. V, PP. 124-5. Al-Mughni, qsä 4alä 6., P. Para 10, P. 30., Abu al-Radd al-Warräq, al-Firaq a1Thaläth,
15. 16.
tAbd
Para 6. 17.
Al-Bägill-ani,
al-Tamhid,
PP. 87-88.
167
'Abd
In a long discussion, the verb 'haha' Jacobites,
al-Jabbär
is
indicates
he argued
it can be applied
If
combine.
disprove
the
of
createdness
this
circumstances.
He maintained instance it
applies
interpreted
(that
halla
spatial Him
make
would
other
that
God
that
limitation
1 alla
in its
that
and substances
can
it
demand
the
polemic
to
will
in
body
physical
is said to inhere
literal 20
or interpretation.
explanation
al-Jabbär
alleges
a long
devoted in
to the
On the basis of that
Christ,
inhere
of
any
in first
in the other)
upon Him and He would be like a substance or 4Abd has being. In this argument al-Jabbär
a created
the verb
in
al-Jabbar
one thing
According
al-dhät) 'Abd al-Jabbar
how accidents
inhere
cannot
in him.
of a thing.
qualities
to describe
of the meaning
tAbd as
in Arabic,
God can 'Abd So
that
divinity.
theory 19
essence
(ittihid
materialistic
admits
one
to inhere
Ordinarily
the word ýalla that
in Christ
the
through 18 it in his Sharh.
described
examines
i. e., God's coming
union
the implications
is and sense not
ready
to accept
any
4Abd
in the mouth of opponent an argument that according to al-Jabbär puts Abü 'Ali speech (kaläm) comes to exist on a writing tablet, sound or tongue 21 from In order to moving one place to another for its existence. without
understand (sawt)
and its
limbs". which
this
argument, relation
it
it would
cause great Human
subject.
the
meaning
of the
five
acts, but they are produced
the sound. - Sound is an accident
generates
perceptable
to examine
Sound is the last
to speech.
Sounds are not direct
remains,
is necessary
for
difficulties beings
and other
that
does not remain. subject.
exist
it. - Like the other "act of the limbs" 22 (ur location in. inhere to only needs a all)
Abii
'Ali
movement. that
18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
that
sound
To explain
if we knock
could
the latter
exist
in
every
location,
it
gives
tAbd
a1-Jabbär, Sharh, P. 296. P. 126. Idem, al-Mughni, P. 126. Al-Mughni, Ibid., PP. 126-7. Peaters, God's Created Speech, P. 139.
168
a- sound,
If it
Sound is a
sound in order
but
always
if
we stop
its
to
needed
he gave the illustration
half of this statement,
on a brass basin,
the
of
beings need the instrument
of the ear to perceive
held
"act
sound
by means of a cause
the hearing living
of
movement,
sound ceases also.
No one can say that
as according
Although said that
al-Jabbär
such analogy
Consequently Z3 inconceivable.
The Christian
as it is described
by their
by his own logical
these
in mirror
that
of man's reflection 24 in clay or wax. (Abd
al-Jabbär
actually
him and the mirror.
al-Jabbär's
As far
On the other He insisted
of the sun. different
to recognise
views
of the physical
must 'Abd
indicated Z5 accident.
assume al-Jabbär
substances, occupy
that
His
reflection to it,
that
that
replied
that
23. 24.
in Christ
without
even though
a1-Jabbär, Ibid., P. 129.
25.
Ibid., P. 132.
al-Mughni,
attempted
to refute
for
inherence
was
of the seal
is no connection
and not
entity
between
changes and is affected
is an instrument
like
seems to be concerned
'Abd
an eye gAbd with
P. 127.
169
al-Jabbar
alleged
that
If it is so, then God would
God is existing
in Christ.
'Abd
analogies
there
impression.
accidental
without
any inherence
we admit
He would have to obey the natural
a place
two famous
a physical
the mirror
in which
in a non-materialistic
analogy
hand, such reflection
he
world.
if we admit
existence
a location
is not
of the seal was concerned,
such an analogy
To the argument
it requires
The first
This explanation
things.
as the engraving
an inhering
since
in
viewpoint,
and the second was the engraving
by the man, looking
produced
by the light
that
asserted
with
viewpoint with 4Abd but al-Jabbär
argumentation.
'All's
Abü
their
apologists,
location
as sound.
(inheres
to use the verb balla
had supported
scholars
agree
apply here, because
cannot
it inheres. thing)is
does not
himself
in every
sound can exist
in Christ
and inhering
the same way God is existing gAbd
'Ali Abt to
that
any location,
be
we
and conjunction,
God is not like
physical
laws if he was going to inhere
or
He again repeated his previous argument that Christ would have to follow a new be God has would and ultimately occurred, characteristic after the union 26 death through such as and so on. the qualities of contagents affected Repeating
arguments
argument
about
inherence
in Christ 27
be possible.
in one atom or many atoms,
inherence God's about
in polemical
he then goes on to suggest
miracles,
so would
was possible,
this inherence
style
and the if
that
in any inorganic
being
tAbd by by early Muslim The two analogies mentioned al-Jabbär, are criticised 28 ýsä discussed in for his They by Abü are also al-Radd. example polemicists, 29 in his al-Tamhid. by al-Bägilläni
Christian
From
take place,
of Nisibis
Elias
side,
by arguing
accident
was it completely dignity,
this inherence
that
in the substance,
nor
nor partial.
conciliation
and
in Christ
not
in one person,
the heaven
earth,
and chosen people.
In order
to explain
the
Nisibis
claimed
applied
to everywhere,
beings,
even to the earth,
even though prophets
Christ
26. 27. 28. 29. 30.
the noun of existence
cannot
application
as the noun of existence
of inherence
was through
union.
etc.
in them.
the inherence
of
and
of Christ
hand,
in one
His inherence
of worship,
and the prophets, that
noun
is applicable
in
in the
Elias
of
can
be
to God, human approach
God
for him,,
in the same way, other
through
Mary,
But the difference
On the other
substance
He can inhere
As a human being cannot
is applicable
the position
nor
essence
is a common
inherence
of an
body,
For example
Christ
between
fire soul,
of
in the places
inherence
of
is like
equal.
not the other.
or His 30
noun
just
achieve
are everywhere
difference
the
that
inherence
the
could
the inherence
His inherence
will,
prophets
like
was neither
of the body in another
place not the other, the
how the incarnation
to explain
the inherence
because His essence and substance
not
tried
in the
is that prophets,
through
such an
the inherence there
was no
Ibid., P. 132.
«Abd has repeated Ibid., 135. al-Jabbär Sit Para 10. Abü al-Radd, PP-R-35, PP-87-88Al-Bigilläniý, al-Tamhid, Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 37.
170
this argument
in section
in
7, P. 124.
union
incarnation
of
disciples
or
Elias differentiated
prophet
Z. - He was born without
4. - God has raised
al-Jabbär
repeats
section.
based his critical volume
the
in this
However
any kind of sin.
with
ý
of al-Mughni
on the
where
one and in the same way one cannot
He went substances in it
if
on that become
(resulting
that
introduced Jacobites
31.
he repeats
as being but
accidental
All
these
forms).
change
All
P. 137.
171
refer
although
He
in earlier
cannot
it will
become
entail
nature
two
inhering
these options
the physical
arguments
in general,
teaching
Ibid., P. 37.
32. Ibid., PP. 38-39" 33.4Abd al-Mughni, al-Jabbär, 34. Ibid., 137.
previous
discussion.
entities
which have already
the arguments
to the Christian
the
may have more than one accident
of many
material.
for
used
of the Jacobites,
gAbd for to accept as this would al-Jabbär 34 CAbd it. as al-Jabbar world understands
In his discussion
did not have.
he had maintained
two distinct 33 become two.
one, or substance
never had intercourse.
wide-ranging
that
the doctrine
we admit
in possibility
as he had
principle
he argued
of his union.
there.
is a more
there
section
position
prophets
is no
There
32
heading
same
with
It was only because
and he is living
him to heaven
5. - He was unfamiliar
the other
which
are
So he is one
Him.
Word of God.
and he himself
sexual relation,
3. - He had signs and miracles
(Abd
Word of God.
can be called
that
they
reasons.
and you call him
We call him the Messiah
Messiah.
because
prophethood,
of God, united
is the Word
Son that
1. - The eternal
other
for certain union
Christ's
Christ's
then
that,
we concede
in his
to participate 31 prophets.
to be called
entitled
union.
complete
be able
would
If
toare
of the
been analysed
and
to
the
not
only
he himself
put this
a
heading
the
under
Trinitarian then
4Abd
discussion
united
and this
to be relying
seems
al-Jabbär
by Abii 'Ali
made earlier
to be independent
appear 35 Gods.
implicit
issues
Jacobites
If only one hypostasis
would
independent
the
of
deity. the of
two
other
three
In this
of
conception
the
entail
a discussion
in
the
Christ,
with
seem
would
to
had been
on statements
i.
al-Jubba
a
Christian
From
I explained
side Timothy
to al-Mahdi,
the king clothes
itself
his mind
cannot
be said to do the same,
separated
from
themselves
his
it
word,
cannot
on our human
Father
and the Spirit, 36 on our human body.
problem
ceased to be united was discussed
which
only the humanity
The Melkites
unaffected. fact
of Christ
limit
death
contradiction
only
in their
to
problem maintain
that
The
hand, while
all the suffering-
been
separated
from
the
be said to have put
Nestorians
on the other
of
them,
and death
saying that
the
Thus were
Julianists,
of Christ
that
maintained of Christ
the divinity
Christ.
The Monophysites of
clothe
died. He points out that 37 death. This was indeed a
and died while
sect
they
not
when Christ
man or suffered
humanity
that
said
cannot
suffered
the
his soul and
while
the Word of God, because
having
by Christians.
doctrine.
and an extremist
be
and the Spirit
of deity
with
as the word of
and as his soul and his mind while
without
the Father
yet
it is written,
nevertheless
body
He moves on to discuss the nature God either
on which
So also is the case with
the papyrus.
with He put
although
the papyrus
with
the caliph,
was
God died, they in
there
seems
by this
also troubled went
so far
were only apparent
some
as to and not
real.
This criticism
of
4Abd
al-Jabbär
has some similarities
with
Abu
isa
s al-Radd.
38
************ 5Abd
al-Jabbär
Gospels
then
and their
turns
procedure
his attention
to the sources
of transmission.
35. 36.
of Christianity
He attempts
to subject
Ibid., P. 140. Trois Traites. Wood Brooke Cheikho, P. 7, A. Mingana, Vol. XII (1928) PP. 162-163. 37.4Abd a1-J abbär, a1-Mughni, P-139. isä, 1-9, PP. Paras I-VI and XXVI. 38. Abü al-Radd,
17Z
studies
i. e., the this to an
B. J. R. L,
analysis
basis
the
on
of
('aql)
reason
feature
is a distinctive
which
the
of
Mu'tazilites.
4Abd al-Jabbär
argued
revelation
4Abd What al-Jabbär say anything
here is that
is saying God which
about
does say anything
revelation
interpreted
by reason.
God, which
about
in accordance
for true revelation
it is impossible
be supported
cannot
for
of knowledge
a source
of being
it is capable 39 of reason.
the requirements
so called
(same) is not
of God unless
the attributes with
that
if any
Therefore
contradict
to
that
reason,
for be This the opens an attack on the Gospels, way must rejected. revelation CAbd for putting forward the have been responsible al-Jabbär, who according to irrational not
doctrines
be established
hand,
did not contradict
On the
basis
concept
of
have
been
after
the
of
him
is one
that
limited
of the
books
their
facts.
by a large
was transmitted
could
them
of 40
number
and forged
they altered
revelation
mentioned
in their
distorts
He
and
majority
and
features
other
as
resemblance
time
victim, that
and it
they
that
crucifixion
is surely
(4: 157) well-established was
and the
He of the prophet. 41 Qu? 5n. This interpretation by most
of the
because
possible,
a miracle
could
a confusion
caused
(i. e. Christ)
of a prophet
by the
such possibility
of
He claimed
person.
in the
the
that
He argued
of event.
Christian
the
attacked
demonstrate
to
sought
understanding
the
he further
argument,
Christ.
of
occurred
about
position
above
and the
Christ's
that
that
the sense or reason.
confused
such incident took
Muslim
crucifixion
killing
between
indications
He argued
accept. because
as authentic
because of the clear
On the other
Christians
that
substitute his
supported of the
verse
in such
commentators
a
way.
However, crucified. Christian had
not
4Abd
al-Jabbär
The crucifixion faith been
fails
of Christ
and connected universally
'Abd
39. 40.
al-Jabbär, Ibid., P. 143
41.
Ibid., P. 143.
to investigate
with
recognised
al-Mughni,
why the substitute
is a central
and perminent
the doctrine
of Redemption.
and
PP. 14Z-143.
173
it
may
well
be
of Christ feature
that
of the
However, the
was
it
Muslim
of it was influenced
understanding 'Abd
al-Jabbär
the Christians
accused
as Nestorius
and Jacob
and so on.
Gospels are far away from with
that
In this way he quoted
"That
answered,
knowledge
now he must of firm is feminine
about
life
their
of a rational
one of his companions
in gender. "
as the
such
Along 4Z thinking.
asked a Christian,
(h"ayät) ". The Christian
as Son not the life
it is a daughter
that
sources
blindly
and incarnation.
as the Trinity
His follower
argued
of God, because
quality
be inferior
to God.
or inferior,
be superior
form be could not a
that
1}ayät (life)
have a wife,
Theodore Cheikho,
because
Qurra
such an argument
there
over Christ. but
there
excellent
some
procession
there
Arabic
work
in applying He argued
qualities
and mastery.
This
so it could
since
the father's
object not
the mastery
authority
over
would be like Him.
in this way God must 43 and effective mastery. that
by edited and published äsa) (ra in the reference the mastery that
that
is no comparison by
as Him,
and argued
would be complete
in his
God must have
an object.
His mastery,
so it must be like
He must have a Son, that
in some qualities, are
and have
Since He has to express
involved be to seems
of God's mastery
be eternal
of subjugation,
mocked
Abü
must
(d. 8Z0) the Melkites,
Son on the basis that
it must be the same nature
Consequently
IAbd al-Jabbär
Abü Qurra
of Theodore
God must have an eternal
So this
mastery.
generation,
original
is masculine
an explanation
that
who claimed
the son.
While
leaders
religious
in gender.
He also reported
cannot
their
the requirements
a dialogue that Film (knowledge)
"Why do you explain
of following
such doctrines do not fulfil
doctrines
their
by Docetis-w,.
was
Adam
and God seem to be equal
between
which
As Adam
them.
Adam was born
In the same way
resembles
God,
and proceeded
i. e., from
42.
Ibid., P. 144
43.
Ibid., PP. 144-145 in Abü Qurra's own words is given in G. The full version of the argument Graf, ed., Die Arabischen des Theodore Abu Qurra, Poderborn, Schriften 1910, Mimar VII, PP. 184-188. CF. PG, Vol. 97, Col 1557D -1561D. Cited by S. H. Griffith, The Controversial theology of Abü Qurra, PP. 17ZPh. D thesis, submitted 176. (Unpublished University to the Catholic of 1978). America,
174
Him,
'Abd
He too became
al-Jabbär's
involved are his Ris i a.
a Father
in blind 45
of the
criticism
reason leaders
and consequently
four
is incritical
faith
their
early
the
criticised
behind
his argument and
evangelists
of their
initiation
Al-Jähiz
from born those who were of
and Master
leaders,
is taken
acceptance
Him.
Christians
that
1 iz in al-J
from
the
of
the
that
and asserted
evangelists
44
doctrines
their
of
in anthropomorphism.
belief
************ 1Abd al-Jabbär
then
to
turns
the
criticism
He maintained that Christ worship of Christ. 4Abd to show tried al-Jabbär worshipped. the different
among and
therefore
debating Christ
points
be
Christian worshipped?
being
that
point
something
nature
like human being.
out that
He died and suffered
Christ
himself
pain.
Such a person
must
restrict
say that
themselves
they worship
those who alleged
Christ that
44. 45. 46. 47. 48.
other
that
action
trivial
such
that
him to
entitles
he seems to be using the who maintained
then Eternal
that
cannot
that
God would be
God and called
worshipped
in Christ
be an adored
to worshipping
according
others
to
one as it
Christ
They cannot subject. 4Abd criticised al-Jabbär
should be worshipped, for
good
(ed) Mayrnar li-Tadärus Cheikho, PP. 825-26. Risäla, PP. 24-25. Al-Jähiz, 'Abd al-Jabbär, P. 146. al-Mughni, Ibid., P. 146. Ibid., PP. 146-47.
human
Abü
175
CAbd to al-Jabbär,
the divine
as he is in both natures.
and all who had done prophets 48 worship and adoration.
divine are
and contradiction.
two natures only
existed
which
of Christ
Julianists
He argues
God and
he goes on to argue
Again
as God.
and
adoration
to become
seen
any divine
to that.
was God. 47
would lead to an anthropomorphism
Those sects who maintained
already
systematically,
perform
the
inconsistency
the
We have
Christ
regard
is not entitled
He asked what parts
God is entitled
the Christians
He goes on to point do so.
used.
Only
in his human
Christ
More
body cannot
as a corporeal
be worshipped.
sects. 46
of
possibility
Qurra,
beings
by arguing would
Al-Machriq,
that
be entitled
other to
Vol. XV (1912)
humanity), of
His Son praised eternity
like
person.
That
In this
the worship
is discussed
by Timothy
our human
He answers
as God, because
like
the
similar
argument
4Abd to
further He -
as such he is the receiver
and terrestrial
but he worshipped
as a man, son of
for
our sake,
(or inherence)
is totally
and prayed 50 , and prayer.
of
in conjunction
being,
and prayed
worshipped
was in no need of worship
himself
adored
and
worshipping 49 to be used about the Eternal God.
of both the celestial
and the Spirit,
kind.
I.
that
alleged
way.
and worship
and prayer
the Father
way
the
made
earlier
the Son is equal in divinity
while
impossible as an
was regarded
did not pray
they
(on the grounds
the Christians
that
argued
Him
and worshipped
in the following
al-Jabbär's
with
Him God.
This problem
"Christ
Qäsim b. Ibrahim
as Imäm
been applied
has already and
This is not a new criticism
because
he
************ 4Abd
al-Jabbär's
by his Mu'tazilite
it is clear
Christian
oriental put into
Jabbär
that
realise
particular, characterises
that
behind
the philosophy that
background. to use trivial
quite prepared
However,
their
the doctrine
to defend
formula
Him both mortal
real union between in Asia was
did
as Mu'tazilite
not
of
and immortal,
who especially
arguments
of incarnation.
But one must
is
possible
discussed
to understand
was unable
is obvious 4Abd alwhich
in general
incarnation
It
(Abd al-Jabbär and to self
and impossible.
the presetation
of the oriental the understancL
doctrines, has accused them /not 51 God and man. He also pointed out the reason an old myth
soul coming
down
and said, to earth,
'alä Qäsim b. Ibrähim, in R. D. Studi Orientali, al-Radd al-Nasärä, (1921-3), P. 312. Wood Brake Studies, B. J. R. L, Vol. XII, (1928), A. Mingana, Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 9. in Asia, P. 72. L. E. Brown, The Eclipse of Christianity
176
in It
contradictory.
of their
of the divine
he is
as ridiculous,
incarnation. of
use the
the union
polemists
influenced
it.
of the union
apologists
Christian
scholars
51.
al-Jabbär
to Muslim
Christian
50.
4Abd
the doctrine
to ridicule
arguments
according
L. E. Brown,
49.
As he regards
mouth
However,
"There
of the incarnation
critique
and
Vol. IX, P. 167.,
being
clothed
the garment
with
the Creator
in the absolute
same
believe
in the unity
way,
Damascus
of
of Christ,
(the Nestorians)
days of His sojourn they
for oriental
gap between in
to believe
writers
God and man. "53
John
In the
actions
it was very difficult
and creature,
a real union between
"They
itself from 52 home. -
said,
this sort of idea in the air, and also the belief
"With
freeing
and eventually
its way back again to its heavenly
finding and
this encumberance
He further
humanity, of
the humbler
things
to
by the Lord in the
wrought
to His manhood;
us solely
to God the Word,
attribute
failing
when he said,
attribute
with
for
the Nestorians
criticised
the loftier
while
and they do not attribute
and divine
both together
to one and the same person. "54
L. E. Brown "We find
in many
of these
the perfect
express
his criticism
concludes
in Arabic
writing
were
who were
this
have
may
scholars that
In
believe
to
Christians
been
facing
that
up under
incarnation, presentations
understand it
might of
that
had
they
in pure unity
is true
that
the Muslim discuss
to
their
ideas to their
in
scholars fellow
One of the reasons doctrines
their
of God without
they
and some to Him as
Christian
rule.
to
of actions
oriental
to present
tried
in Christ,
two sets
were
they
attributing
with anything
for
Muslim to God
like His creatures.
ýAbd be
human
and the
there
much
to Him as divine,
difficulties
may make Him something
to
it
that
brought
who believed
order
the idea that
could be attributed
some of which 55 human. "
has reasons
divine
the
however
that,
writers
between
union
Christ,
One
oriental
get away from
could scarcely
by saying,
al-Jabbär's
useful
doctrine
to
which
look gAbd
52. 53.
Ibid., P. 70. Ibid., P. 70-
54.
Migne, P. G. XCN, "De Haeresibus", in Asia, P. 72. Eclipse of Christianity
55.
Ibid., P. 72.
177
and
critique at
the
al-Jabbär
Col.
740,
understanding
of
the
some of the Christian may have been familiar
cited
by Brown
in his
with. discussed
It
is
It
noticeable
seem
incarnation
appropriate
al-Jabbär
while
Christians
held
necessary
for
Qurra,
According
to them
there
this family
family.
his
incarnation
union of 'Abd that
philosophy.
believed
it
that
are few
was
reasons
from
towards
Abü Qurra
to
example
heaven
within
and manifested
person
him
handicapped
and he himself
a signal
come again with
"that
through
for does the deaf. man
his hands.
Cheikho, Vingt Ibid., P. 113.
for
Himself
in our substance
and
within
for many years us
and
our speech
PP. 110-111.
178
His humanity
Then He raised 56 His blessing.
Himself,
we may be
so that
He illustrated who was deaf
In this
way
organised,
did He what one of us and
Traites,
them
it by an and dumb.
he benefited
the
anything.
who is well
nature. "57
and
was suitable
to serve a person
So He characterised
he mixed
honoured
and affection.
was not losing
us through
us and addressed
of his kingdom,
the
God incarnated
willing
God Almighty
of a man like
an
made
us through
lived and
and His love
So he gave
the image
a king
us in a way that
the laws of goodness.
explained,
His Trinity
In the same way,
way,
friends, sons and
of a rational
He
suppose
Creator
the
the person in which
to his house and finally the
lived us,
and He will
further
to know
same
Himself
the heaven
that
behind
philosophy
us through
example,
be moved
with
from
us as brothers,
demonstrated
an
the
for his son to one of the families
the
and mingled
that
maintained
by
would
In
He came down
called
it
for marriage
that
wished
56. 57.
its
to
refer they
of God to honour
illustrated
He
engagement
like
not
because
scholar
it is will
is that
inhered.
able
did
the
is surprising
It
of incarnation
salvation.
a Melkite
incarnation
us.
their
scholars
in the union of incarnation.
believe
with
criticising
behind
philosophy
scholars.
doctrine
this
the doctrine
the
examine
by oriental
is described
as it
oriental
less detail.
with
to
Trinity,
the
with
compared
the union of incarnation
would
Abü
that
in
we used to do and struggled
and showed Himself
manifested
Himself
with
a signal,
as a rational
what
was not in His
Qurra
Abi
further
said,
the human being from living.
"that
from keep away and
slavery
it by an illustration,
He expressed
become
instead
Abix Qurra
He described
over adam.
from him as being, an enemy,
a sheep's fleece as
sheep
one
a long strength
sheep
Such is the wisdom Qurra
pointed
the
birth
wolf
Abi
Qurra
with
humanity,
it never
the crucifixion
Ibid., P. 114.
59.
Cheikho,
Vingt
"that
power
of His people
was near to them
vanished
the
the
sheep
wolf
the wolf
our Lord
him
saw what
the
had changed turned
faith
their "
to flight.
the people
up as a man and participated
and disappeared.
that
Abü without a
and then among
life. "
since
divinity
united
In the same way, it was in
and in the grave up to the time
179
and drove
a pregnancy
for the rest of the world
PP. 116-117.
came,
did not come through
It was through
Christian
of the
wolf
and God is wiser and craftier.
of that
a
The man took
the
on the wolf
Satan used to regard
and brought
it is the
till
When
Therefore
birth.
sleeping
Traites,
his
absolute
who gained
the sheep.
them,
that
supposed
Because
"that
concluded,
58.
flock.
the
of the creature
and drinking,
heart
our
Satan
and seized
sheep jumped
and craft
the virgin
by
curse
and the delivery
from
powerful
out the philosophy
Mary
them in eating
the womb,
from
or by an extraordinary
born through
his servants
and put it on, and then stood in the midst
like wolves.
and determination.
stability great
him
showed,
and became
nature
them
The disguised
separating
way,
and
in
creates
of Satan,
indistinguishable
them,
he
to work,
with
slavery
and saves us from
tore
his flock
to its custom.
according
compassionate from
them
the conquest
who continually
of
the
the day, then
he was unable
like a man who had some sheep and there
from
from
and gave him full wages.
incarnation
His
death
after
out himself
only during
work
they were
any sin. "58
"that
life
about
is to free
the curse in which
saw that
who is very freed
and
was without
maintained,
knowledge
wolf,
them
of
which
crucifixion
Christ
our Lord
In the same way, worked
When his master
tired.
the incarnation
a man hired
could
for him the rest of the time of
instead
worked
that
The person
end of the day up to the night. he would
behind
the philosophy
with
"59 end.
Yahyä
b. IcAdi was not
philosopher
(incarnation)
ta'anns
there
image
and Him
comprehend
God is without Consequently,
is a possibility His
His essence
would
essence
describing
While
Christ
actions
and clear
without
sexual
complete one thing, separate
Again
There
that
there
through
(ha " ä), so His image
is a possibility
distinction
Christ,
of
from
So we distinguish is a union,
one.
expression
incarnate
without
transferring
human
"that
there
existence
through
when our
nature
a discordant
is no other the divine
with
was conceived
the characteristic
would be two combined
there
one, cannot
4Adi Ibn seeks to prove
leave
of
things
as
its parts
or
divinity
that,
that
infinite
can unite
by Paul of Sidon, a famous
and explanation
as a complete from
that
When they are not one, they will not be united. "62
He maintained
become
Him
when it is continuously
4Abd to al-Jabbär 63
scholar
be His essence.
would
and
his early
of fact,
As a matter
impossible
he said,
and
one can say that
In the same way, nobody
signs and miracles.
Almighty
of union between
is not
It
reason.
When there
is another
is affirmed,
"60 Him. with
the other
with the finite.
God
His image.
in which
of God through
His essence, it must be united
relation.
contrary
know
can
about CAbd Like
of view,
That requires
and one thing from
One When that
who was characterised
union.
his point
also a
arguing
a man.
be in our reason.
the
except
it.
can illustrate
matter
to become
to establish
his reason. Him)
While
al-Färäbi.
means
but
polemist,
of one being able to conceive
with
primordial
he concluded
God's and 61 theory.
union
knowing
reason comprehends
it
that
a long argument
through
(while
his reason
philosopher
he explained
he said, "that
Finally,
famous of
he presented
al-Jabbär
human
only
and disciple
and Christian
a theologian
"the
human being
Son that
Eternal through
and separating
is the
the Holy Spirit
from
His
Melkite Word
has
and Mary,
essence,
as the
word
60. 61. 6Z. 63.
4Adi, Yahyä b. Mag .1t, ed A. Perier, PP. 74-75. Ibid., P-75. Ibid., PP. 84-85. _ 'Adi, Yahyä b. The Apologatic Henry, Robert of writings (Unpublished 1973). Ph. D. thesis of Hertford Seminary Foundation,
180
P. 90.
from his intellect becomes is letter, being and produced human a or speech of a In terms ink, it is of paper then city. and to taken can be torn, which another or burnt,
but in terms
is intellect from
there
of word or speech,
is the source of production
which
is no interence
being any separation
there
without
It
of accidents.
it.
In this way, we can say that and in
is Eternal,
terms through
miracles
performed
his human nature.
Both
hot through
it becomes
of
the Lord son of
Jesus Christ Mary,
His divine
is created
in terms
of fire,
of the Word of God
and temporal.
So He
and showed his weakness
nature
acts are by one Christ. fire,
in terms
Similarly
a piece
it can burn and light,
through
of iron
when
and in terms
of iron, it can be broken, fold up and cut. Nothing can enter the nature of fire. C, So such/piece is one that consists of two natures, i. e. simple nature, where is no interence
of any accident
and the other
is physical
nature
which
is able to carry
the accidents.
Our doctrine, substance
unites
It dominates but only Creator
64.
that
fire.
the Lord
with physical
the physical Since
this
Vingt
dominates
is applicable
Traites,
being
divine when
(latif)
nature.
fire as
is more appropriate
Cheikho,
Jesus is God, comes into
ý
wood.
to the union
to be called
P. 14.
181
something
Nobody
fire says
of the created 64 like that.
and wood, things,
the
CONCLUSION
This were the
works
of earlier works
such
Such scholars
naturally
fully
was
polemicist
by
the
of
to
able
rely
in terms
from
their
Christian
doctrines
The authors
Muslim
their
that
theology. theological
own
that
approach
two
a considerable
scholars.
of
of
on these
on
of
which
hypostases
three
development
subjects
doctrines
treatise
by Muslim
written
clear
such
of
been
gradual
these
it seems
aware
has
the
major
In his polemical
mostly
addressed
However,
of thought.
school
influenced
were
Christ.
Christian
doctrine
the
al-Jabbär
in Arabic
the
of
namely of
(Abd
Christianity,
of
number
Muslims,
incarnation
and the
Trinity
concerned
to the
unacceptable
aspects
of
has been
thesis
two
with
Muslim
every
may
his
contradict
basic belief.
This
attitude
belief
that
Christian
late
the
writers
third
They
differences
less
literature
attitude
Unity
of
their
criticism.
it they
also
who in their
the
longer and no
Muslim
general
the
reflected
between
arguments presentation
of
further of similar
the
for
Abi
`A1i's
approach
in a more
has also followed
true
doctrine
the
They
theologians
the Unity
of
This also
and
discussion.
arguments 1Ali Abu
arguments
Kulläbiyya by used
and
`:\bd
and
method.
doctrines in
rigid
is their
Trinity
is an even
it
priority
first
In their
attack
in
upon
and Ash'arites,
Kulläbiyya
the
of God.
in attacking and God.
give
God. of
to the Unity like
the
of
systematic
their
more
even
were
century
doctrines
Christian
towards
Christianity. and
contrary
of Christian
a summary
they
them
doctrines
attributes
their
because
Muslim
Trinitarian
century/tenth
of Mu'tazilites
had also compromised
views,
about
as totally
fourth
early
`Abd al-Jabbär
others
Islam
other
and
with
works
sects.
Thus
attacked
in criticising
their
God.
saw the doctrine
Jabbär's
by
reinforced
corrupted
developed
and approach than
of
issue
central
began
Christian
sympathetic
more
terms
usually
the
doctrine
Both
was
century
century/ninth
among
However, even
theology had been
scriptures
of anti-Christian
manner.
They
Christian
of Christ.
teaching
In
towards
can even
Kulläbiyya
the be seen morn
al-Jabbar in t xplainin-_
in ': bbd
precisely described) the
they
al-Jabbär's in
}tho
doctrine
used
`.bbd
al-
Trinity
in
of divine
attributes.
The
Jabbär's
The
4Abd al-Jabbär
of
knowledge doctrines,
'1sä
Jubbäi,
Abü
them.
It seems
an independent
were some on the
Hazm
not
internal only
However,
one
goes
to rAbd
have
originally
imported
'Abd
Clearly incarnation discussion
himself
did
there
not
sometimes habit
to
to be
ie but
main
tawhid.
continued
to
In the
later
period
forward
way
of
had
been
not
a
Christianity.
This
its authentication
is not
of the
that
Ibn
Gospels.
of the
there
al-Jabbär,
concen-
traditional
a
criticism
fact
There
tried
as
origins
of the
a detail
discussion
how
of
the
pure
and
true
teaching
of
Christ
conceive
of
the
doctrine
of
the
Trinity
and
and
for
this
he
included
his
devoted
specially
to
chapter
of tawhid.
the
polytheism in
volume
some
five
the
inadequacies
principle
Kullabiyya
doctrines
to Christians
reed-ting inconsistent
arguments
same
about
al-Mughni,
in 'Abd
arguments
183
the
al-Jabbär's
of establishing
he established
especially
reason,
under
has he applied way sect,
the
of
al-usül-al-Khamsa
He was in the habit
In the same
attributed of
but
are
apply
and dhät.
applicable
textual
historical
put
the
issues
'Abd of
inspite he
in shark
his criticism.
presenting
words
who
al-Warräq
doctrines.
to the
time the
cannot
religionsand
of
the
only,
Christianity
that
his
that
was
to them.
anything
of
polytheistic
Inspite
his study
from
al-Jabbär as
'Isa
doctrinal
the
on
upto
diverted
to
was not
framework.
Mu'tazilite a
within
in Christian
contradiction
al-Jabbär
doctrines
differences, of
points
as Abü
such
In his Tathbit,
confirmed.
seems
him,
say that
real
doctrines
who had investigated
scholar
Christians
the
Christian
concentrated
can
the
al-
referred
Mu'tazilites,
the
of
as Abü
'Ali
information.
but also he extended
criticism,
jawhar
for
principle
of
he often
In other
doctrine.
such
first
to investigate
before
scholars
trate
fully
affirm
discussed
al-Jabbär
of
such
Christian of
his study
behind
the
Mu'tazla,
his
that Christian
reFutation
his discussion
During
z.
analysis
on his own teachers
to rely
credit
impartial to
only
intention
the
he was unable
Evidently
single
that
from
to indicate
seems
In his
hand.
teachers
and al-Jähi;;
al-Warräq
and
was
purpose
IAbd
on his early
he depended
first
was not
doctrines
two
these
about
doctrines
these
of
of attributes
of the Trinity.
understanding
study
doctrine
Kullabivva's
Abü
influenced
1Abd aland
rAli
in the which again
can
see
arguments
case
they and
as he leaves
of
never again, the
in the
which
the
word
held. and basic
while
and then
a principle
as one such
arguments
he
case
were ma`nä.
of
only He
He was also in sometimes discussion
he and
jumps
has done he particularly one as
to another
he is unable to differentiate
and sometimes 'Abd
Christian
with his
on the
polemic.
incarnation
position
For
irrational
illogical,
man.
on this
This and
of Christ.
and nature
person
The
'Abd may have led
subject,
in the
is made
his argument
main
and impossible.
He fails
belief
that
the crucifixion
omission
puts
the
Christian
he
should
have
dealt
stronger.
183A
with
fact
were
doctrine it
in
for
that
al-Jabbär
order
Christian
in
of incarnation
as
necessary an to
was arguing
to be less systematic
for
the
the salvation
of
the Christian
in
right
by the Christian
him
doctrine
the
to discuss
and their
is quite
of these sects.
easier
rejects
on the incarnation.
sometimes
al-Jabbär
the doctrines
incarnation
of the
critique
al-Jabbär's
disputes
1Abd
doctrines,
In the case of the sects and their
in the section
for
reason
ridiculous
unjustifiably
have
made
his
argument
APPENDIX
Recent Studies on I.
'Abd
and his work
al-Jabbär
Books:
(Abd 1. al-Sattär.,
'Uthmän, Z.
a1-ýAq1
A. Karim.,
about
wa 'Abd
Beirut,
1980.
Qädi
al-Hurriyya,
'Abd
al-Qudät,
J. G. T. M.,
comprehensive
biography
Jabbär)
1967.
Beirut,
George F.,
Hourani,
(A al-
1976.
Leiden,
The Ethics
'fAbd
of
Speech, (A study in the 'Abd theology alof
God's Created
Jabbär)
b.
a1-Jabbär
al-Hamadäni,
speculative
4.
study
thoughts)
a1-Jabbär's
Ahmad
3. Peters,
(A
1Abd
of
a1-Jabbar,
Oxford,
1971.
5. McDermott,
The Theology
M. J.,
(A
of al-Shaikh al-Mufid, 'Abd Comparison of al-Jabbär's
theology Mufid)
6. Monnat,
2. Doctoral
ýUthmän, 1.
of
al-Shaikh
al-
1978.
Beirut,
Musulmans
Penseurs
Guy.,
that
with
Iraniennes.
(fAbd
Devanciers
Beyrouth,
Religions
Et
al-Jabbär
et
Ses
of
Abd
1974.
thesis:
Nazriyya
A. Karim.,
al-Taklif,
A
theology). approved
184
speculative
about
r
al-Jabbi
(opinions
by
doctoral
dissertation
al-Azhar
University
Cairo,
1965 and later
Beirut,
1971.
published
from
Z. Katz,
Judith.,
Reason
translation
annotated
from
Tawlid
al-Mughni,
for
dissertation
University
degree
the
and
of Doctor by
approved
California,
of
alsmall
with
A
Philosophy
of
Kitäb
of
introduction). submitted
(An
Responsibility,
and
Berkeley,
1975. (unpublished).
3. A1-Musawi,
Muhammad
Jawäd
Hasan Häshim,
The
Philosophical
problem
relation
between
revelation,
A dissertation
for
the
degree
Philosophy
and
University
and
reason
submitted doctor
of
of by
approved
1976.
Edinburgh,
of
the
of
(unpublished).
3. Articles:
"The
1. Pines, Shlomo.,
of
of Christianity
centuries a
Christians
Jewish
Israel
Academy
early to
according
Proceeding
source",
new
the
the
of
Sciences
of
and
Vol. II (1966) PP 237-310
Humanities, (Jerusalem).
"Israel
Z. Ide m,
and the Sonship
My Firstborn"
of Jesus, in
Studies ed.
Mysticism Ur, alch
F.
E.
(Jerusalem,
Arabic
Jewish
Proceedings Academy XXXV York)
185
and
others.
1967) PP. 177-190.
Materials
"Judaeo-Christian
3. Idem,
Religion,
and
(1967),
an
Treatise", of
for
in
Jewish
the
American
Research,
PP. 187-217.
Vol. (New
4. Stern, S. M.,
"New
Light
Encounter,
on Judaeo-Christianity", XXVUI,
Vol.
No 5 (1967),
PP. 53-57
5. Idem,
"t Abd
al-Jabbär's
Account
Religion
was falsified
Christ's Adoption
Roman
of
Journal
How
of
by the
Customs, "
of Theological
Studies,
Vol.
XIX (1968), PP. 1Z8-185.
6. Ide m,
"Quotation in
from
'Abd
Apocryphal
Journal
al-Jabbär",
Theological
Studies,
Gospels of
(1967),
Vol. XVIII
PP. 34-57.
Idem,
8. Bammel,
Ernst.,
'Abd
al-Jabber,
Islam,
Vol. I, PP. 59-60 (New edition)
"Excerpts Novum
Encyclopaedia
from
a
New
Testamentum,
Vol.
of
Gospel? " X (1968),
PP. 1-9.
9" Schwarz,
Michael.,
"The
fAbd
Qadi
Refutation
the
of
Oriental
Studies,
translation Mughni,
Vol. (It
of
in the Teaching Le
Israel (1976),
VI
is
annotated
Chapter
a
of
al-
Vol. VIII.
"The Autonomy
R. M.,
Doctrine
(Kasb)",
PP. ZZ9-Z63.
10. Frank,
As(arite
'Acquisition'
of
al-Gabbär's
Museon,
of the Human Agent fAbd of al-Gabbär, "
Vol.
VC
No
4
(1982),
PP. 323-355.
11. Hourani,
George
"The
F.,
Rationalist
Jabbär" Islamic
186
Ethics
of
(Abd
in S. M. Stern and other Philosophy
and
al(eds) the
Classical to
Richard
(Oxford
1Z. Bouman,
J.,
"The the
Tradition,
Essays presented PP. 105-115
Walzer,
1972).
Doctrine Qur'an
'Abd
of
as the
on
a1-Djabbär
Created
Word
of
aspects
of
Allah, " in: verbum, the
(Utrecht
Robert.,
on some functions
religious
dedicated
13. Brunschvig,
essays
to
Mu'tazilite
W.
H.
words, Obbink,
1964) PP. 67-86.
Rationalite 1'analogie
Dr
of
tradition
et
juridico-religieuse 'Abd
dans Chez le
al-Jabbär,
Arabica,
Vol XIX (1972), PP. 213-2Z1.
14. Khodeiri,
Mahmoud
Deux nouvelles
el.,
Qadi
Sections
'rAbd al-Jabbär,
(1958), PP. 417-414.
187
du Moghni
MIDEO,
Vol.
du V
BIBLIOGRAPHY rAbd
Qä41 al-Qudät
al-Jabbär,
al-Hamadäni.,
Idem,
Sharki a1-Usül al-Khamsa, ed. rUthmän. K. (Cairo, 1965) A.
fi Abwäb
Al-Mughni 'radl, Various
Idem,
Idem,
1958-65)
Tathbit
Dalä 'o'il al-Nubüwa, 2 vols. (Beirut,
A1-Ash&ri
Abü al-Vasan
b. Ism! il,
Athwater,
Donald.,
Taklif,
Vol. I, ed. J. J. Houben,
tan Usül al-Diyäna,
Al-Ibäna
1980)
Kitäb
Maqýlät
IkhtilXf
al-Musallin,
ed. Helmut
Ritter,
(Wiesbaden,
1963)
Christian
The
al-Islämiyyin
Church
wa
East,
the
of
1961)
Tärikh
al-Khatib.,
bi- al-
al-Muhit
1965)
(London,
Al-Baghdädi,
1966)
al-Majmü4
(Haydrabad,
Idem,
fi
ed. A. K.
Kitäb
(Beirut,
Wi
eds. 16 vols.
(Cairo,
tthmän,
wa al
al-Tawhid
Baghdad,
vols.
(Cairo,
(Beirut,
1973)
14
1931)
A1-Baghdädi,
Abu Mansur,
Abd al-Qähir.,
bayn al-Firaq,
Al-Farq Tr.
K. C. Seely,
Sects, (New York,
A1-Bägilläni,
Abi
Bakr Muhammad
b. al-Tayyib.,
Kitäb
Hamdi.,
Muhäwara
al-Mahdi
m2Timütäwis, Vol. (Cairo)
188
(Beirut,
Majt111a Kulliyya XII,
(1950),
Schism
and
1920)
al-Tamhid,
R. J. McCarthy,
Bakri,
Moslem
Part
ed. 1958)
al-Ädäb, Z, PP. 41-47.
Idem,
Risäla
al-Häshimi
ilä al-Kindi,
(1947), Part
Baker,
Bethune,
F. N.,
al-Adäb,
Vol. I
2, PP. 29-49.
(Cairo)
Kulliyya
Majalla
Nestorius (Cambridge,
L. E.,
Brown,
The
John Henry,
Blunt,
Eclipse
of
Anwar
in Asia,
Christianity
(Cambridge,
1933)
Dictionary
of
(London,
Teaching,
1908)
Sects
Heresies
and
Parties,
Ecclesiastical
Chejne,
his
and
1874)
gAbbäd G., Mu4am mar ibn al-Sulami,
Muslim
World, Vol. LI
(1961), PP. 311-320.
Celebi,
Kätib,
Hajji
Khalif a.,
Kashf
vols.
(Istanbul,
Theologiques,
(9th-13th
Z
al-Zunün,
1941)
Cheikho,
P. L., (editor)
Traites
Vingt
Arabic
centuries) (Beirut,
Trois
Idem,
1920)
Traites
Anciens,
Arabic
(Beirut,
1923)
Idem,
li-tadärus
Maymar
AbI Qurra,
Vol. XV, (191Z) PP. 825-
Al-Machriq, 842
Crow,
D. K., The death of al-Husayn
(A1i B. and early
Shi'i views
Imamate, Husayn
in
al-Serät,
Conference
on the Imäm
The
Number,
Vol.
XII
(1984) PP. 78-81
A1-Duwayhi,
Mar Istifän.,
(Beirut,
Douglas,
fa al-Ta'i
Tärikh
The
J. D.,
New
a,
Dictionary
of
1890)
International
the Christian
189
ärüniyy al-M
Church,
(Exeter,
1974)
The Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia
of Islam,
of Religion
First
(Leidon
edition,
and Ethics,
of Alexandria.,
Eutychius
1913-1938),
(London
and Leidon,
1960 continuing)
13 voll,
(Edinburgh,
1908-1926)
Kitäb
al-Burhän,
Cý-achia,
ed. Pierre
Majid.,
A
History
Frank,
R. M., "The Divine
Attributes
al-Hudhayl
"Abü Häshim's
"States", of
Theory
Philosophy,
al-'AL1
of Abu
f, " Le Museon,
Vol
(1969) PP. 451-506.
LXXXII,
Idem,
by W.
1970)
to the Teaching
according
of
1960-61)
Islamic
of
(New York,
Book
Translated
(Louvain,
M. Watt,
Fakhry,
The
2 vols,
Demonstration,
ý
New edition,
its Structure
and Function,
"
Actas
do IV Congress
de Estudos
Finkkl :, Joshua.,
A Risala
Arabes
e Islamicos,
of al-Jahiz,
(Leiden,
1971), PP. 85-100
Journal
of
Society,
Vol.
Oriental
American XLVII
(1927),
PP. 313-
334
A1-Ghazäli,
Abii Hämid
Muhammad.,
Al-Radd,
al-Jami1
li_Uluhiyya
ýAbd al-Injil, ed. al -'Aziz (Cairo, Hilmi, 1974) al-Hagq qarih
Guillaume,
A., Theodore
Abi
Qurra,
Muslim
World,
isä
'Abd
Vol. XV (19Z5), PP. 42-
51.
Griffith,
Sidney H., Habib ibn Hidmah
Abt
Rä ith, Orien
Christians,
Vol.
(1980), PP. 161-ZO1
Idem,
4Ammär
a1-Basri's
Kitäb
al-Burhän,
Le Museon, PP. 145-181
190
bi_
Vol. VIC (1983),
LXIV
L., "The Incarnation"
Hodgson,
A. E. J. (ed) Essays on the Trinity
in Rawlinson,
(London,
and the Incarnation,
b. Ayyüb.,
Al-Hasan
ýalä
Al-Radd
in Ibn Taymiyya,
al-Nasärä,
1928)
al-
al-Jawäb
Sahih, Vol. II, PP. 31Z-363.
V. A.,
Harvey,
Headlam,
Ibn Hazm,
A. C.,
Abi
Handbook
A
'Ali
Muhammad,
Ibn al-ý mäd, Ibn al-Faläh'Abd
b. Ahmad.,
al-Hayy.,
Terms,
Theological
of
(London,
1964)
Christian
Theology,
(Oxford,
Al-Fisal
fi al-Milal
wa al-Ahwä'
al-Nihal,
5 vols. (Cairo,
Shadhrät
al Dhahab
1934)
1899)
fi Akhbar
Dhahab,
2 vols. (Beirut,
Tabaqät
al-Mdtazila,
wa
man
) d. n.
All
Ibn Mu; 1tadä, Ahmad
b. Yahyä., A.
Ibn al-Nadim,
Muhammad
Ibn Taymiyya,
Taqiyy
-
b. `Ali.
al-Din
Kitäb
9
Ahmad.,
(Egypt,
al-Fihrist,
al-Sahih
al-Masih,
4 vols, (Cairo,
Idem,
Minj"aj al-Sunna,
Idem,
Al-Radd
Abü Ja'far
Kitäb
Muhammad,
Said b. Mansiir.,
al-Tawhid,
Tangih ed.
*11
Abü
A1-Jahiz,
(Amr.,
A1-Radd
'alä
.
ed. H. al-Husayni
1967) li-Milal
a1-Thaläth,
Moshe (California, 2 in J. Fin1d1
al-Nasärä,
Rasälil (Cairo,
191
) d. n.
al-Mantigiyyin,
(Tehran,
al-Abhäth
Perlmann, ýLTthmän
1905)
1942)
al-Tihrani,
Ibn Kammüna,
Din
Baddal
4 vols, (Beirut,
'alä
(Bombay,
1961)
1348/1928)
li-man
Al-Jawäb
I
Ibn Bäbawayh,
(Beirut,
li
Abi
1967)
,
tthmän
19Z6) PP. 10-38
Thaläth
a1-Jä. hiz,
4Abd al-Malik
Al-Juwayni,
b. Yu-suf., Kitab
al-Shämil
I1-Irshäd,
1969)
(Alexandria,
al-Nashshär,
Idem,
S. A. ed.
fit usül al-Din,
ed.
(Paris,
Luciani,
D.
J.
1938)
A., "Ghevond's
Jeffrey,
text
Umar Radä.,
Review,
(1944), PP. Z69-332
XXXVII
Muýam
IEEand Leo
Theological
Harvard
Vol.
Kahhäla
between
of the correspondence III",
'Umar
(Beirut,
15 vols,
al-Mu? allifin,
1957)
Abi
Al-Khayyät,
al-Husayn
4Abd
Intisär
al-Rahim.,
wa al-Radd
(Beirut,
Al-Kindi,
Yüsuf
Abi
Ya4qüb., Al-Radd
ýalä
1957)
ed and tr. A. Perier,
al-Nasärä,
de Yahyä
traue
ýa1ä al-Räwandi,
Ben {Adi,
Chre tien,
L'orient
de
Revue
(1920-
XXII,
Vol.
Un
21), PP. 3-21
Al-Kindi,
Kelly,
ýAbd
al-Masih.,
J. N. D.,
Risälat
'Abd
Kindi,
(London
Early
Christian
a1-Masih
ibn
Ishäq
al-
1870)
(London,
Doctrines,
1985)
Arabic
Lane, W. W.,
English
(Cambridge,
Loof,
Nestorius
Friedrich.,
of
Lexion,
2
vols,
1984)
and his Place in the History
Christian
Doctrine
(Cambridge,
1914)
Al-Mäturidi,
Abu Mansur
Muhammad.,
Kitäb
al-Tawhid,
1970)
192
ed. F. Khuleif,
(Beirut,
Mingana, A., "The Apology of Timothy
before the caliph
I the Patriarch
of
Ryland
John
Bulletin
Studies,
Mahdi, " Wood Brook
Library,
XII
Vol.
(1928) PP. 137-289 I
Muir,
W.,
The
Apology
of
Theology
of al-Shaikh
(London,
al-Kindi,
1887)
J. M.,
McDermott,
The
(Beirut,
Al-Näshi
Abü al-4Abbäs
al-Akbar,
gAbd-Alläh.,
1978)
Kitäb
fl a1-Magälät,
al-Awsat
J. van Ess, (Beirut,
New Catholic
Oxford
Dictionary
of Christian
Church,
De L.,
1974)
(London,
Perier,
TRA IT ES
J. R. M. T.,
Al-Qäsim
ibn Ibrahim
al-Hasani.,
Fathers,
and
1909)
YA-N I-AAF/y '-iQUES F? LO APO -ý., iDE (Paris,
Peters,
Church
Syriac
The
A., (ed) Tr -TITS
1967)
ed! F. L. Qoss and E. A. Livingstone, (London,
O'Leary,
ed.
197 1)
17 vols, (Washington,
Encyclopedia,
al-Mufid,
Al-Radd
1920)
(Leiden,
God's Created
Speech,
(alä
ed. I. di Matteo,
al-Nasarä,
Confutazione Zaydite Degli
Controi
al-Qasim Studi
Cristiani
b. Ibrahim,
Orientali,
1976)
dello Rivista
IX
(1921-
(Beirut,
1980)
Vol.
3), PP. 301-364
Räwi,
'Abd
Richardson,
Al-eAgl
al-Sattär.,
A. and Bowden
John.,
(eds),
wa al-Hurriyya,
A New Dictionary Theology,
193
(London,
of Christian 1983)
I
(ed),
Karl.
Rohner,
Encyclopedia
(London,
Theology,
of
1975)
Abu al-Fath
Al-Shahristani,
Muhammad
(Abd b. al-Karim., (London,
Nihal, 'Abd Abü Nasr al-Wahhäb.,
Subki, Taj al-Din,
Tabagät
Kate
Sweetman,
J. W.,
Al-Tabari,
Kitäb
al-Din
1906)
Islam
and Christian
al-Nasärä,
Book
" eds. I. A. Khalife,
and
Z vols.
Theology,
1923)
A.
tr.
Religion
of
(Manchester,
Idem, "Al-Radd
(New
ed. A. Mingana,
(Manchester,
4alä
Sect,
1945-67)
wa al-Dawla,
The
al-Kubrä
6
1906)
York,
(London,
4Ali b. Rabbän.,
1846)
Schisms
Moslem
Chambers.,
wa al-
al-Milal
al-Shäfiýiyya
(Cairo, vols.
Seelye,
Kitab
Mingana,
and
Empire,
1922)
W. Kutsch,
Melanges
St Joseph,
L'Universite
Vol.
de XXXVI,
(1959) PP. 113-148
Thänawi,
Muhammad
'Ali., b. Alta
Dictionary
of Technical vols (Asiatic
(Uthmän,
iAbd
al-Karim.,
Nazriyya
al-Taklif,
Qädi A4mad
Al-Warräq,
%ä Muhammad Abü
b. Harün.,
Al-Radd
Chretiennes, duplicated
al-
1971)
'4Abd
al-Thaläth
ed. A. Abel,
Refutation
eds, 2
of Be/gal, 1862)
al-Hamadäni, (alä
various
tAbd al-Jabbär
(Beirut,
al-Qudät
Nasärä,
194
Society
Aarä al-Qädi Kalämiyya,
Idem,
Terms,
des
b.
al-JabS"ar
(Beirut,
Firaq
1967)
min al-
Le Liv_ rtPour Trois
(Brussels,
la
Sects
1949)
Watt,
W. Montgomery.,
Free
in early
and Predestination
will
(London,
Islam,
1948)
Philosophy
Islamic
Idem,
(Edinburgh,
1962,1985)
Account
"Ash - Shahristäni's Doctrines, Christian
Ideen,
Theology,
and
" (1983),
IX
Vol.
Islamochristiana,
Islamicus,
Hamdard
PP. 249-259.
of
Vol.
VI No 2 (1983), PP. 57-68 formative
The
Ide m_,
(Edinburgh,
Thought,
Waardenburg,
J., Two light
Islam
Medieval
Perceived,
The Muslim
Wiles, M., "Christianity
without
Incarnation"
Harry
(Harvard
Tijdschrift,
(London,
Creed,
1965)
(ed) The Myth
(London,
God of
1977)
Philosophy
The
A.,
1973)
and Christianity,
in John Hick incarnate,
Wolfson,
Islamic
(1977), PP. Z69-189
Vol. XXXI
A. J.,
of
Theologisch
Nederlands
Wensinck,
Period
of
University
Kalam,
the
Press,
1976) The
Idem,
Philosophy
(Harvard
Wright,
David
F., "Council
and Creeds",
University
in Robert
D. Linder
Brigg
(eds)
Christianity, 178
195
Church
of
Press,
Fathers, 1956)
and John H. Y. The
(Bristol,
History 1977)
of
PP. 156-
Yäqüt,
'Abd-Alläh, b.
al-Rümi
al-Hamal
i., Kitäb
7 vols,
ed. D. S. Margoliouth,
Adib, (Egypt,
1923-30)
Mu'jam
Idem,
ilä maýrif acal-
Irshäd al-Arib
(Leipzig,
6 vols.
al-Buldän,
1866-73)
ýAdi., Yahyä b.
Magälät,
ed.
(Paris,
Perier
A.
tr.
1920)
8 vols. (Beirut,
Al-kläm,
Al-Zarkaly.,
Unpublished
Ph. D. thesis.
1. Devalve,
Robert
Henry.,
The Apologatic IAdi,
(tenth
Seminary
Z. Griffith,
Sidney Harrison.,
The
Qurrah,
3. Thomson,
Jr Herbert
Fergus.,
196
Theology
Catholic
Abi
of
University
of
Ph. D., 1978.
Treatises
Tenth
Century
1952.
Ph. D., 1973.
Foundation,
Four
Baghdad,
b.
Hartford
The
century),
The
America,
of Yahya
writings
Controversial
1980)
by
ýsa
Jacobites
Columbia
ibn
Zur4a,
Christian
University,
of
Ph. D.,
