Upon surveying the methodology of the Mutakallimīn, it becomes evident that it is an incorrect methodology and that applying it does not lead to imān or the strengthening of imān. Applying it does not even lead to thinking or to the strengthening of thinking. It only leads to mere knowledge; and knowledge is different from imān and different from thinking. The error of this methodology is obvious from several aspects:

Firstly: in this methodology, they base their proof on a logical basis not on the sensory basis. This is wrong because of two reasons. Firstly that it makes the Muslim in need of learning the science of logic in order for him to be able to prove the existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ; this means that those who are not acquainted with logic are incapable of proving the correctness of their ‘aqīdah (creed); it also means that the science of logic becomes, in relation to ‘Ilm al-Kalām, like the science of grammatical syntax in relation to the reading of Arabic after the Arabic tongue has deteriorated, although the science of logic is irrelevant to the ‘aqīdah and is irrelevant to proof. Indeed at the advent of Islam the Muslims did not know the science of logic; they carried the message and established definitive evidence to their creeds without relying on the science of logic whatsoever. This proves that the science of logic has no presence in the Islamic culture and that there is no need for it in any proof of the Islamic ‘aqīdah. Secondly, that the logical basis is susceptible to error unlike the sensory basis, which with regard to the existence or otherwise of things is absolutely infallible; what is susceptible to error should not be a basis for imān.

Logic is susceptible to speciosity and its conclusions are susceptible to be incorrect, because although it stipulates that the correctness of the premises and the soundness of their structure is a condition, the fact that it consists of the syllogising of one premise upon another makes the correctness of the conclusion dependant upon the correctness of these premises. The correctness of these premises is not guaranteed because the conclusion is not directly founded on sensation, it is founded on the syllogising of premises, one upon another, and thus the correctness of the conclusion is not guaranteed. This is because what occurs in it is that premises are syllogised, one upon another: things that can be comprehended upon the like, resulting in the same, and things that can be sensorially perceived upon the like, resulting in the same. As for the syllogising of comprehensibles upon comprehensibles, it leads to slipping into error and to contradictory conclusions, and it leads to drifting into a series of premises and conclusions which are rational in theory and by assumption but not with regard to thier existence in reality, so much so that in many of those syllogisms, the end results are utter fantasies and absurdities. Thus establishing proof through the syllogising of comprehensibles upon comprehensibles is susceptible to slipping. For example, logically it is said: the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and it is comprised of letters which are arranged and sequenced in existence, and every speech made up of letters arranged and sequenced in existence is recent; the conclusion: the Qur’ān is recent and created. This syllogising of premises has lead to a conclusion which in inaccessible to the senses; so the intellect is incapable of inquiring into it (as to its correctness) or judging it. Therefore, it is a hypothetical judgement, not a realistic one over and above it being one of the issues which the intellect has been prohibited from discussing. This is because a discussion of the attributes of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is a discussion of His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ essence, and in no way is it permissible to discuss the essence of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. Yet it is possible to reach, via the same logic, a conclusion contradictory to this one. Thus it is said: the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰand it is one of its attributes, and any thing that is an attribute of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is eternal; the conclusion: that the Qur’ān is eternal and not created. Thus contradiction in logic is evident in one and the same proposition. Likewise, in many logical propositions that are resultant from the syllogising of comprehensibles upon 36 The Error in the Methodology of the Mutakallimīn comprehensibles, a logician reaches conclusions which are utterly contradictory and utterly bizarre. As for the syllogising of the sensorially accessible upon the sensorially accessible, if the premises can be traced back to the senses and the conclusion can be traced back to the senses, the result will be correct, because it is based on the senses in the premises and the conclusion is not solely based on the syllogising of propositions. However what occurs is that in arriving at truths reliance is placed on the syllogising of propositions, and the noticing of the senses is restricted to what the propositions end with. It may occur that a proposition is imagined to be true to a certain reality but in fact it is not. It may also occur that a proposition which is defined with a general demarcation will be true only to certain parts of it, and this truth of certain parts will lead to the deceptive conclusion that it applies to all parts. It may also be that in the proposition there appears apparent truth, but in reality it is incorrect, which deceptively means the truth of the proposition. It may also be that the conclusion is correct but the premises from which it is concluded are false, from which it may be imagined that because the conclusion is correct, so too are the premises…and so forth. Thus, it has been said, for example, that the inhabitants of Spain are not Muslims, and every land whose inhabitants are not Muslims is not an Islamic Land; the conclusion is that Spain is not an Islamic Land. This conclusion is wrong. Its error come from the error of the second premise: the statement that every land whose inhabitants are not Muslims is not an Islamic Land is false because a land is deemed Islamic if it were ruled by Islam or if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims. This is why the conclusion is wrong; Spain is indeed an Islamic Land. As another example, it has been said that America is a country of high economic standard, and every country of high economic standard is a revived country. The conclusion is that America is a revived country. This conclusion is true with regards to America, although one of the two premises is false: not every country with a high economic standard is revived; a revived country is one with a high intellectual standard. Thus, this syllogism, whose conclusion is true, deceptively leads one to assume that the premises from which the conclusion was arrived at are also correct. It also leads to proposition that each of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia is a revived country because each has a high economic standard, although the truth is that these are not revived countries. Thus, the correctness of the conclusions of all syllogisms is dependent on the correctness of the premises. The truth of the premises is not guaranteed because they are susceptible to having flaws. Therefore, it is erroneous to depend on the logical basis in the establishment of proof. This does not mean that the truths reached via logic are false or that the establishment of proof via logic is erroneous, but it means that reliance in the establishment of proof on the logical basis is erroneous and that taking logic as a basis in the establishment of arguments is erroneous. It is the senses that are to be made the basis for proof and evidence. As for logic, it is valid to use it for the establishment of the proof of the correctness of a proposition and it would be correct if all the premises are true and if they together with the conclusion were traceable back to the senses. The correctness of the conclusion comes from its being deduced from the premises, not from anything else. Yet, its susceptibility to being erroneous makes it imperative that it is not made a basis in the establishment of proof because as a whole, it is an uncertain basis which is susceptible to error, although proof by means of some forms of it can be conclusive. It is the senses that must be made the basis of proof, because as a whole this is a definite basis regarding the existence or otherwise for things; it is completely insusceptible to error.

Secondly: the Mutakallimīn departed from the sensorially accessible; they went beyond it to the sensorially inaccessible, and inquired into the supernatural: the essence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and His attributes, into that which the senses cannot perceive, and they connected this with inquiries into matters related to the sensorially accessible. They went into excess in drawing analogy of the unseen with the apparent, that is, drawing analogy of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ with man, so they necessitated The Islamic Personality Vol.1 37

justice, as envisaged by man in this worldly life, upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. They deemed it necessary that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ do that in which there is betterment. Some of them even necessitated upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ that he do that which is the best, because (according to them) Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is Wise and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ does not do anything except for a purpose or a wisdom; an action without a purpose is meaningless and futile; a wise (being) either benefits himself or others, and since Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is too sublime to be benefited, He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ only acts to benefit others.

Thus they overstepped into discussions of the sensorially inaccessible and of issues which the intellect is incapable of judging, and so they blundered. They missed the point that the sensorially accessible is comprehensible and that the essence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is incomprehensible, so it is not possible to draw analogy of one upon the other. They were inattentive to the fact that the Justice of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is incomparable to the justice of man, and that it is invalid to apply the laws of this world to Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, who is the Creator of this world and the one who regulates it according the laws he set for it. When we do see that the perspective of man is narrow, he understands matters in a given way and that once his perspective widens, his view of justice changes and his judgement changes as well; how then do we compare (to ourselves) the lord of the worlds الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ whose knowledge encompasses everything and give His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ justice the meaning of justice that we ourselves see to be justice? As for betterment and that which is best, it is linked to their view of justice; they say about it what they say about justice. It is observed in this regard that man can view a given thing as good, but once his perspective widens his view changes. For example, the Muslim world today is dar al-kufr having abandoned the rule of Islam; so all Muslims view it as a corrupt world and most of them say that it is in need of reform. But the aware see that reform means the removal of corruption from the status quo, and this is erroneous: the Muslim world is in need of a radical and comprehensive change that removes the rule of kufr and implements the rule of Islam; any (mere) reform includes the prolongation of corruption. Thus it is seen how the view of man changes towards what is good. How do we then subject Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to the judgement of man and deem it necessary for Him الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to do what we see as good or better? If we made our mind the judge, we would see that Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ did things which our minds see no good whatsoever in; what good is there, for example, in the creation of Iblīs and the shayātīn and giving them the ability to misguide man; why did Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰgive Iblīs respite until the Day of Judgement and let our Master Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم die? Is all this better for people? Why does he الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ allow removal of the rule of Islam from the Earth and enable the dominance of the rule of kufr, humiliate the Muslims and enable the dominance of their kafir enemies? Is this better for His الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ servants? If we proceeded in the enumeration of thousands of acts and judged them by our mind and our understanding of the meaning of good and better, we would not find them good. Therefore the comparison of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to man is not correct, and nothing is incumbent upon Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ:

Indeed, what made the Mutakallimīn slip into all this is their methodology of inquiry and their comparing Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ to man.

Thirdly: The methodology of the Mutakallimīn gives the intellect the freedom of inquiry into every thing, into the sensorially accessible and the sensorially inaccessible. This inevitably results in the intellect inquiring into matters that it is incapable of judging, and inquiring into suppositions and imaginations, and establishing evidence to support mere conceptions of things that may exist or may not exist. This allows for the possibility of the rejection of things which 38 The Error in the Methodology of the Mutakallimīn definitely exist: things of which we were informed by a (source) the truth of whose information is definite for us but the intellect does not comprehend them. It also allows for the possibility of having imān in fantasties having no existence, which have been conjured up by the mind. For example, the Mutakallimīn discussed the essence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and his attributes: some of them said that an attribute is one and the same as the attribute carrier; others said that the attribute is other than the attribute carrier. They said that the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is the unfolding of the Known as it is, and the known changes from one time to another: the leaf of a tree falls after not having fallen, and Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

With the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ a thing unfolds as it is; thus Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing will be before it is and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing was when it was and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing no longer is when it no longer is. So how does the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ change with the change in things? The knowledge that changes with the change of recent things is a recent knowledge and a recent thing does not lie in Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ because that with which the recent is associated is itself recent. Others amongst the Mutakallimin replied to this by saying: it is self-evident that our knowledge that Zayd will come to us is other than our knowledge that he has indeed come; this distinction is due to the renewal of the knowledge; but this is applicable to man because it is he whose knowledge is renewed because the source of his knowledge, sensation and comprehension, is renewed. But with Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ there is no distinction between something destined that will be, a realised thing that was, an accomplished thing that occurred and a predicted thing that will occur. Indeed, information with regards to Him الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is of one state. Other Mutakallimin replied: Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ inherently knows all that was and that will be, all information is known by him as the same knowledge, and the difference between what will be and what will stem from the change in things not in the knowledge of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. All this discussion deals with matters that are sensorially inaccessible, and upon which the intellect cannot judge; so it is not allowed for the intellect to inquire into them. But they discussed them and reached these conclusions in line with their methodology that gives the intellect the freedom to inquire into everything. They imagined things and discussed them. For example, they conceived that the Will of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is associated with the action of the servant (man), when the servant willed the action, that is, Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ created the action when the servant was capable and willing, not with the servant’s capability and will.

This subject matter was only conceived and hypothesised by those who inquired into these matters; sensorially, it has no reality, but they gave the intellect the freedom of inquiry so they inquired into it, formed this conception and deemed it compulsory to believe in it and they named it kasb [acquisition] and ikhtiyār [choice]. Had they restricted the inquiry of the mind into the sensorially accessible only, they would have realised that the action so far as the creation of all of its materials is concerned, it is only from Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, because creation from nothing only comes from the Creator. As for the manipulation of these materials and their affect on the action, this is from the servant, just like any industry he carries out, like the making of a chair for example. Had they restricted the inquiry of the intellect into the sensorially accessible alone, they would not have believed in much of the fantasies and theoretical suppositions (they came up with).