The science of logic

Afterwards, the science of logic spread in Islam and people studied it.

They made a distinction between it and the philosophical sciences, in that (they stated that) logic was merely a norm and yardstick for arguments and served to probe the arguments of the (philosophical sciences) as well as (those of) all other (disciplines).

Scholars studied the basic premises the earlier theologians had established.

They refuted most of them with the help of arguments leading them to (a different opinion).

Many of these (arguments) were derived from philosophical discussions of physics and metaphysics. When they probed them with the yardstick of logic, it showed that they were applicable (only) to those (other disciplines and not to theology, but) they did not believe that if the arguments were wrong, the thing proven (by the arguments) was also wrong, as had been the opinion of the Judge (al-Baqillani).

This approach differed in its technical terminology from the older one. It was called “the school of recent scholars.” Their approach often included refutation of the philosophers where the (opinions of the) latter differed from the articles of faith. They considered the (philosophers) enemies of the articles of faith, because, in most respects, there is a relationship between the opinions of the innovators and the opinions of the philosophers.

The first (scholar) to write in accordance with the (new) theological approach was al-Ghazzali. He was followed by the imam Ibn al-Khatib. 359 A large number of scholars followed in their steps and adhered to their tradition. The later scholars were very intent upon meddling with philosophical works. The subjects of the two disciplines (theology and philosophy) were thus confused by them. They thought that there was one and the same (subject) in both disciplines, because the problems of each discipline were similar.

The theologians most often deduced the existence and attributes of the Creator from the existing things and their conditions.

As a rule, this was their line of argument. The physical bodies form part of the existing things, and they are the subject of the philosophical study of physics. However, the philosophical study of them differs from the theological. The philosophers study bodies in so far as they move or are stationary. The theologians, on the other hand, study them in so far as they serve as an argument for the Maker.

In the same way, the philosophical study of metaphysics studies existence as such and what it requires for its essence. The theological study (of metaphysics), on the other hand, is concerned with the existentia, in so far as they serve as argument for Him who causes existence.

In general, to the theologians, the subject of theology is (to find out) how the articles of faith which the religious law has laid down as correct, can be proven with the help of logical arguments, so that innovations may be repulsed and doubts and misgivings concerning the articles of faith be removed.

If one considers how this discipline originated and how scholarly discussion was incorporated within it step by step, 361 and how, during that process, scholars always assumed the correctness of the articles of faith and paraded proofs “and arguments (in their defense), one will realize that the character of the subject of this discipline is as we have established it, and one will realize that (the discipline) cannot go beyond it.

However, the two approaches have been mixed up by recent scholars.

The problems of theology have been confused with those of philosophy.

This has gone so far that the one discipline is no longer distinguishable from the other. The student (of theology) cannot learn (theology) from the books of (the recent scholars, and the same situation also confronts the student of philosophy). Such (mixing of theology and philosophy) was done by al-Baydawi, in the Tawali, and by later, non-Arab scholars, in all their works.

However, some students have occupied themselves with the (mixed) approach (in spite of its uselessness for the study of theology), in order to learn the different school opinions and to become versed in the knowledge of argumentation, which is amply represented in (the works which follow the mixed approach).

The approach of the early Muslims can be reconciled with the beliefs of the science of speculative theology only if one follows the old approach of the theologians (and not the mixed approach of recent scholars). The basic work here is the Kitab al-Irshad, as well as works that follow its example.

Those who want to inject a refutation of the philosophers into their dogmatic beliefs must use the books of al-Ghazzali and the imam Ibn al-Khatib.

They do show some divergence from the old technique, but do not make such a confusion of problems and subjects as is found in the approach of the recent scholars who have come after them.

In general, the science of speculative theology is not something that is necessary to the contemporary student. Heretics and innovators have been destroyed.

The orthodox religious leaders have given us protection against heretics and innovators in their systematic works and treatments. Logical arguments were needed only when they 363 defended and supported (their own views with them).

All that remains of them is a certain amount of discussion, from most of whose ambiguities and inferences the Creator can be considered to be free.

Al-Junayd 366 was once passing a group of theologians discussing the (problem of the freedom of the Creator from human attributes).

He asked who they were. He was told that they were people who, by the aid of arguments, were trying to free God from the attributes of createdness and from the qualities that indicate deficiency. Whereupon alJunayd said: “The denial of a fault where (the existence of) a fault is impossible is (in itself) a fault.”

However, the usefulness of (speculative theology) for certain individuals and students is considerable. Orthodox Muslims should not be ignorant of speculative argumentation in defense of the articles of orthodox faith.