The Perspective of Some Ash’ari and Maturidi Scholars on Logic and Kalam
The below is a translation of a section of Ustadh Alaa Hasan’s article, Da’wah Iftiqar ‘Ulama as-Salafiyyah li-‘Ulum al-Aalah…Arḍ wa-Naqd
It would be appropriate to begin by mentioning the disapproval of the Salaf and imams towards the Kalam and Greek logic, as this is the foundation we should start with. However, for the sake of brevity, we will bypass their statements this time since their disapproval of Kalam is well-known and not unfamiliar to the opposition. Instead, it seems fitting to mention the opinions of some later scholars, as the dissenters often give weight only to their views.
Sheikh ‘Ulaysh al-Maliki, in the beginning of the chapter on Jihad, stated:
وما ذَكَرَهَ من توقُّفِ العقائد عليه (أي: المنطق) وتوقف إقامة الدين عليها (أي: دراسة المنطق) غيرُ صحيحٍ، وقد قال الغزالي في الإحياء: ذهب مالك والشافعي وأحمد وجميع أهل الحديث من السلف -رضي الله تعالى عنهم- إلى أن علم الكلام والجدل بدعةٌ وحرامٌ، وأن العبد أن يلقى الله بكل ذنب خير من أن يلقاه بعلم الكلام
“What has been mentioned about the necessity of logic for understanding creeds and the establishment of religion upon it is incorrect. Al-Ghazali said in the Ihya: ‘Malik, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and all the hadith scholars among the salaf - may Allah be pleased with them - believed that the science of kalam and argumentation is an innovation and prohibited and that it is better for a servant to meet Allah with every sin than to meet Him with knowledge of kalam.’”
Sheikh ‘Ulaysh continues his commentary:
ونهى عن قراءة المنطق الباجي وابن العربي وعياض. وقال الشاطبي في الموافقات في القضايا الشرعية: إن علم المنطق مناف لها، لأن الشريعة لم توضع إلا على الشريعة الأمية اهـ. وقال في الإحياء: معرفة الله سبحانه وتعالى لا تحصل من علم الكلام، بل يكاد الكلام يكون حجابا عنها ومانعا منها. وقال أيضا: ليس عند المُتكلم من عقائد الدين إلا العقيدة التي يُشارك فيها العوام، وإنما يتميَّز عنهم بصنعة المُجادلة.. وحينئذ فإن لم يكن المنطق منهيًّا عنه فلا أقل أن يكون جائزا كما اختاره ابن السبكي وغيره. وأما الوجوب فلا سبيل إليه والله أعلم
“Al-Baji, Ibn al-Arabi, and ‘Iyadh prohibited the reading of logic. Al-Shatibi stated in Al-Muwafaqat concerning legal issues that the science of logic is contrary to them, as the Sharia was only revealed in a manner consistent with the ummiyyah (unlettered) nature. It is also said in Ihya Ulum al-Din that the knowledge of Allah, the Exalted, cannot be obtained through the science of kalam; rather, kalam acts as a veil and hindrance to it. He further stated that the Mutakallim possesses no more of the tenets of aqeedah than the common people, distinguishing themselves only by their skill in argumentation. Thus, if logic is not prohibited, at the very least, it is permissible as opined by Ibn al-Subki and others. As for it being obligatory, there is no way to assert that, and Allah knows best.”[1]
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami states:
فيتعين على الولاة منع من يشهر علم الكلام بين العامة لقصور أفهامهم عنه، ولأنه يؤدي بهم إلى الزيغ والضلال، وأمر الناس بفهم الأدلة على ما نطق به القرآن ونبه عليه إذ هو بين واضح يدرك ببداهة العقل كما مر، ثم يتعلم أحكام العبادات والعقود التي كلفوها على ما هو مبين في الفروع… لأن من اشتغل بعلم الكلام ومقدماته قبل اشتغاله بمعرفة ما كلف به من العبادات وغيرها يجلس مدة ذلك وهو لم يصل ولم يصم ولا حج، وقد لا يتم له تعلم الكلام ومقدماته إلا بعد الزمن الطويل، فيمرق من الدين ويخرج من جملة المسلمين، أعاذنا الله من الشيطان الرجيم، ولا نكب بنا عن المنهج المستقيم برحمته، إنه منعم كريم، وأدام علينا الاستمساك بما جرى عليه السلف وانتهجه صالحو الخلف آمين
[فائدة]: زعم بعضهم أنه يقرب مما حكى عن البعض المذكور في السؤال قول الإمام في (الإرشاد): أول ما يجب على البالغ العاقل باستكماله سن البلوغ أو الحلم شرعا القصد إلى النظر الصحيح المفضي إلى العلم بحدوث العالم
وليس ذلك الزعم في محله، إذ ما قاله لا خلاف فيه فلم يحصره في تعلم القوانين الكلامية التي الكلام فيها
نعم، الذي يقرب من ذلك إنما هو قول الباقلاني: يلزم ذكر حدوث العالم وأدلة إثبات الأعراض وامتناع خلو الجواهر عنها وإبطال حوادث لا أول لها، وأدلة العلم بالصانع وما يجب له تعالى وما يستحيل عليه وما يجوز له، وأدلة المعجزة وصحة الرسالة، ثم الطرق التي وصلنا بها إلى التكليف. انتهى. ولقربه من ذلك قيل عليه: إنه هفوة من القاضي. قال المازري: أردت اتباعه فرأيت في نومي كأني أخوض بحرا من ظلام، فقلت: هذه مزلة الباقلاني. قال البرزلي: سألت شيخنا عن قول المازري: هل أراد الانتقاد عليه أو الأخذ به؟ فقال: الأول، وهو يستلزم الثاني لأنه خوض فيما لا يعني، ويحتمل أن تكون هذه واجبة مع الإمكان، فليست بشرط في وجوب الأحكام، فلا يمنع وجوبها مع فقدها ما ذكر. انتهى. والذي صرح به أئمتنا أنه يجب على كل أحد وجوبًا عينيًا أن يعرف صحيح الاعتقاد من فاسده، ولا يشترط فيه علمه بقوانين أهل الكلام
“It is incumbent upon authorities to prevent the dissemination of the science of kalam among the general public due to their limited understanding, which could lead them to deviation and misguidance. They should be directed to understand the evidence as articulated in the Quran, which is clear and self-evident to reason, as previously mentioned. Then, they should learn the rules of worship and contracts they are obliged to follow as detailed in the branches of jurisprudence…For those who engage in the study of kalam and its preliminaries before understanding their obligatory acts of worship, they may spend considerable time without praying, fasting, or performing Hajj. It may take a long period to fully learn kalam and its preliminaries, which could lead them to stray from religion and exit the fold of Islam. We seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan, and we pray that He keeps us on the straight path through His mercy. Indeed, He is the Generous Benefactor, and may He grant us adherence to the way of the Salaf and the righteous followers. Ameen.
[Benefit]: Some have claimed that what was mentioned about the obligation of studying kalam is similar to what the Imam stated in Al-Irshad: The first obligation upon a responsible adult who reaches the age of puberty is to engage in correct reasoning that leads to the knowledge of the world’s creation. End quote.
This claim is unfounded, as there is no disagreement regarding what he stated, as he did not confine it to the study of Kalami rules being discussed. Indeed, what closely resembles this is what Al-Baqillani said: It is necessary to mention the creation of the world, the proofs for establishing contingencies, the impossibility of substances being devoid of these contingencies, the refutation of the idea of events without a beginning, the proofs of the knowledge of the Creator, what is obligatory for Him, what is impossible for Him, what is permissible for Him, the proofs of miracles, the authenticity of the prophetic message, and the methods through which we arrived at religious obligations. End of quote.
Because of its closeness to that, it was said that it was a lapse by al-Baqillani. Al-Mazari said: I intended to follow him, but I saw in my dream as if I were wading through a sea of darkness, so I said: This is the slip of Al-Baqillani. Al-Burzuli said: I asked our sheikh about Al-Mazari’s statement: Did he mean to criticize or follow him? He said: The former, which implies the latter because it involves delving into irrelevant matters. It could be that these are obligatory if possible, but they are not a condition for the obligatory nature of religious rulings, and their absence does not negate their necessity.
Our prominent scholars have explicitly stated that it is obligatory for everyone individually to distinguish between sound and corrupt beliefs without requiring knowledge of the principles of the Mutakallimun.[2]
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti states:
كنت قديما في سنة سبع أو ثمان وستين وثمانمائة ألفت كتابا في تحريم الاشتغال بفن المنطق، سميته (القول المشرق)، ضمنته نقول أئمة الإسلام في ذمه وتحريمه، وذكرت فيه أن شيخ الإسلام أحد المجتهدين تقي الدين ابن تيمية ألف كتابًا في نقض قواعده، ولم أكن إذ ذاك وقفت عليه، ومضى على ذلك عشرون سنة، فلما كان في هذا العام وتحدثت بما أنعم الله به علي من الوصول إلى رتبة الاجتهاد ذكر ذاكر أن من شروط الاجتهاد معرفة فن المنطق، يعني وقد فقد هذا الشرط عندي بزعمه. وما شعر المسكين أني أحسنه أكثر ممن يدعيه ويناضل عليه، وأعرف أصول قواعده، وما بنيت عليه وما يتولد منها معرفة ما وصل إليها شيوخ المناطقة الآن -إلا شيخنا العلامة محيي الدين الكافيجى فقط- فطلبت كتاب ابن تيمية، حتى وقفت عليه فرأيته سماه: (نصيحة أهل الإيمان في الرد على منطق اليونان) وأحسن فيه القول ما شاء من نقض قواعده قاعدة قاعدة وبيان فساد أصولها. فلخصته في تأليف لطيف سميته: (جهد القريحة في تجريد النصيحة)، ثم إن كثيرًا من المخبطين الذين هم عن تحقيق العلم بمعزل لهجوا بأن يقولوا: ما الدليل على تحريمه؟ وما مستند ابن الصلاح في إفتائه بذلك؟ ونحو ذلك من العبارات. والعجب أنهم يناضلون عن المنطق ولا يتقنونه، ويدأبون فيه وفي أبحاثهم لا يستعملونه، فيخبطون فيه خبط عشواء، ولا يهتدون عند المناظرة والاستدلال إلا عمياء. ولقد اجتمع بي بعض من قطع عمره في المنطق، فرأى قول ابن الصلاح في فتاويه: وليس الاشتغال بتعلمه وتعليمه مما أباحه الشارع ولا استباحه أحد من الصحابة والتابعين والأئمة المجتهدين والسلف الصالحين، فقال: هذه شهادة على نفي فلا تقبل. فقلت: يا سبحان الله! لا طريق أهل الشرع سلكتم، ولا طريق أهل المنطق اعتمدتم
“A long time ago, in the year 867 or 868 AH, I composed a book condemning the engagement with the art of logic, which I titled ‘The Radiant Statement.’ In it, I included quotes from the leading Islamic scholars who condemned and prohibited it. I mentioned that Shaykh al-Islam, one of the mujtahids, Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, authored a book refuting its principles, though I had not come across it then. Twenty years passed, and then, this year, when I spoke about the grace Allah bestowed upon me by reaching the rank of ijtihad, someone mentioned that one of the conditions of ijtihad is the knowledge of logic, implying that I lacked this condition. The poor soul was unaware that I mastered it better than those who claim to possess it and debate over it. I know its foundational principles, what they are built upon, and what results from them, understanding more than what the current logicians have reached – except for our Sheikh, the scholar Muhyi al-Din al-Kafiji only. I sought Ibn Taymiyyah’s book until I found it. I saw that he named it ‘Advice to the People of Faith in Refuting the Logic of the Greeks,’ and he articulated his refutation of its principles thoroughly, one by one, demonstrating the corruption of its foundations. I summarized it in a concise work titled ‘The Effort of the Mind in Extracting the Advice.’
Many of the confused individuals, who are far from true scholarly pursuit, have started saying: ‘What is the evidence for its prohibition? What is Ibn al-Salah’s basis for his fatwa on this matter?’ and similar phrases. It is astonishing that they defend logic without mastering it, engage in it without employing it in their research, stumbling blindly and unable to navigate debates and arguments except haphazardly. Some who spent their entire lives on logic met me and saw Ibn al-Salah’s statement in his fatwas: ‘Engagement in learning and teaching logic is neither permitted by the Shariah nor practiced by any of the Companions, Tab’in, leading mujtahids, or the righteous Salaf.’ They said: ‘This is a negative testimony, thus unacceptable.’ I responded: ‘Glory be to Allah! You neither followed the path of the Shariah nor relied on the way of the logicians.’”[3]
Shihab al-Din al-Marjani al-Hanafi stated in his commentary on Saad al-Taftazani's "Sharh al-Aqa'id al-Nasafiyya":
ولعمري إنك لو فتشت عن كل صناعة صادفته علمًا وافيًا بمقصوده، بخلاف الكلام، فإنه فنٌّ ضائع، لا يقوم بحاصل، ولا يعود إلى صاحبه بطائل، وإنما هو صناعة جدل وضعها المعتزلة، بعدما طالعوا كتب الفلاسفة، حين فُسِّرت في خلافة المأمون، وأفردوه فنًّا بحياله، وخلطوا مناهجها بمناهجه، وتوارثه الأشعرية منهم، وجَرَوا على إثرهم
وإنما سمّوه بهذا الاسم إما لأنه صناعة جدل ومناظرة على البدع بعد فرض المسائل الصحيحة من الشرع، وليست براجعة إلى عمل واعتقاد، وإما لمقابلتهم الفلاسفة في تسميتهم فنًّا من فنون علمهم بالمنطق، وإما لأن أظهر مسألة تكلموا فيها وتقاتلوا عليها هي مسألة الكلام، فسمي به النوع، ثم أخذوا بالبحث عن حقائق الأمور، وخاضوا فيه قبل فهمها والاطلاع عن كنهها، وأحدثوا في الدين ما ليس هو منه، فلهجوا به، وشوَّشوا عقيدة الحق على أهله، وأيم الله ليس مدار أمرهم إلا على إنكار الحق والعيان، ومخاصمة الضرورة والبرهان، تبًّا لمعرفتهم، وتَعسًا لفلسفتهم
وأما علم التوحيد والصفات الذي هو أصل الواجبات وأساس المشروعات الموسوم بالفقه الأكبر، وعلم أصول الدين والعقائد، فهو ما ورد به الوحي ونطق به الكتاب والسنة، الباحث عن رأس الأمر ومِلاكه، ومبنى أحكام الشرع ومداره، الذي فاقده أضل من النعم، ولا يغني عنه أسفار الحكم، وإن بذَّ فيها الحكماء، أو حكَّ بيافوخه السماء ([13])
“Indeed, if you scrutinize any discipline, you will find it a comprehensive science fulfilling its intended purpose, unlike Kalam, which is a lost art that produces no tangible results and offers no benefit to its practitioner. It is essentially a technique of debate developed by the Mu’tazilites after they studied the works of the philosophers when they were explained during the caliphate of al-Ma’mun. They isolated it as a distinct discipline, blending its methodologies with their own, and it was subsequently inherited by the Ash’arites who followed in their footsteps.
They named it ‘Kalam’ either because it is a technique of debate and disputation over heresies after establishing correct issues from the Sharia, which does not revert to practice and belief, or to counter the philosophers who named a branch of their science ‘logic,’ or because the most prominent issue they debated and fought over was the question of Kalam (divine speech). Thus, the discipline was named after it. They delved into investigating the truths of matters, engaging in them before understanding them and grasping their essence, thereby introducing what is not part of the religion. They became engrossed in it and confused the true creed for its adherents. By Allah, their entire endeavor revolves around denying truth and reality, disputing necessity and evidence. May their knowledge perish and their philosophy be damned!
As for the science of Tawhid and the attributes of God, which is the foundation of all obligations and the cornerstone of religious practices, often referred to as the “greater jurisprudence” (al-fiqh al-akbar), and the science of the principles of religion and creeds, it is derived from divine revelation and articulated by the Quran and Sunnah. This science investigates the essence of the matter and its core, and it is the foundation upon which the rulings of Sharia are based. The one who lacks this knowledge is more misguided than cattle and cannot be compensated by the volumes of wisdom, even if philosophers excelled in them or touched the skies with their intellect.”[4]
From the above, it is evident that this science, according to the later Ash’arites, oscillates between prohibition and permissibility, even among its luminaries. They reserved it for those seeking further knowledge and refuting opponents, but none considered it obligatory for scholars, let alone for students of knowledge.
Therefore, the contemporary claim, popular among some students of knowledge, that learning logic and Kalam is mandatory for understanding Sharia is an alien concept within the scholarly tradition. No Muslim jurist before them ever proposed such an idea.
We even hear some contemporary youth, infatuated with this science, say, “If you see a scholar teaching people without mastering logic, do not trust his knowledge.” One wonders where this astonishing claim originated, which implies the dismissal of the majority of scholars, past and present, except for a select few, not to mention the dismissal of the Salaf and the four Imams and others.
We say that these contemporary claims mostly arose when some Salafis felt psychologically defeated by the Ash’arites due to their ignorance of these sciences and their misunderstanding of some of Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements. They believed there was a lack of commentaries on books of logic, which led to what can be termed an “inferiority complex.” To counter this perceived deficiency, they launched a hybrid counter-claim that no Muslim scholar before them had ever proposed.
The aim is to place the sciences of Kalam and logic in their proper context without excess or neglect. Acquiring these sciences is not mandatory for scholars; they are supplementary and additional sciences. This does not mean that Salafi scholars outright prohibit these sciences’ learning. Instead, they permit them for specialists, provided these sciences are seen as human knowledge, subject to critique and examination like history, sociology, and other humanities. In fact, Ahl al-Sunnah do not prohibit the study of Jewish and Christian texts or Western philosophies, so how could they prohibit other sciences?
The point of contention between them and the people of innovation lies in their perspective on this science. They place it in its proper context and do not surround it with a sacred aura or refer to Kalam as a noble science, as the extreme Mutakallimun do. They do not consider Kalami proofs to be decisive rational proofs or a standard of truth against which the Quran and Sunnah should be judged, nor do they impose it on scholars, let alone students of knowledge.
Dr. Abdul Karim Al-Khudair, may Allah preserve him, says:
فوصيتي لطلاب العلم عامة ألا ينظروا في علم الكلام، إلا إذا احتيج إلى الرد في مسائل جدت لم يتعرض لها شيخ الإسلام وغيره من العلماء، فالمذاهب لم تنقرض، ولكل قوم وارث، وكل يوم يظهر شخص برأي يلحق، إما برأي الجهمية، أو برأي المعتزلة، أو غير ذلك
ومن طلبة العلم غير المتأهلين من يتكايس ويزعم أن من دلائل قوّة البحث والباحث رد كل قول إلى مصادره الأصلية، وأن هذا من باب التحقيق العلمي
وفي هذا خطر عظيم
ولما أتى عمر بن الخطاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بكتابٍ أصابه من بعض أهل الكتب، فقرأه عليه غضب صلى الله عليه وسلم، وقال: (أمتهوكون فيها يا ابن الخطاب). يعني: هل أنت بحاجة إلى أن تنظر في هذا؟ إذ لم يكن أحد يروج للديانة اليهودية، فيحتاج أن ينظر في كتبهم ليرد عليها خاصة، مع وجود المعصوم المؤيد بالوحي بين أيديهم، ومن ثمّ زجره النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
والسخاوي له كتاب أسماه (الأصل الأصيل في تحريم النظر في التوراة والإنجيل)، ومقصوده التوراة والإنجيل المحرّفة التي بأيدي اليهود والنصارى، فينبغي لطالب العلم أن يكون على حذر تام من النظر في كتبهم
“My advice to all students of knowledge is not to delve into the science of Kalam, except when necessary to refute new issues that Shaykh al-Islam and other scholars did not address. Schools of thought have not disappeared, and each group has its inheritors. Every day, someone comes forward with an opinion that aligns either with the Jahmites, the Mu’tazilites, or others.
There are unqualified students of knowledge who, in their cleverness, claim that one of the indicators of robust research and a strong researcher is to trace every opinion back to its original sources, and that this is part of scientific investigation.
This carries a great danger.
When Umar ibn al-Khattab brought a book he had obtained from some of the People of the Book to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and read it to him, the Prophet (peace be upon him) became angry and said: “Are you in doubt, O son of al-Khattab?” Meaning: Do you feel the need to look into this? There was no need to engage with Jewish religious texts for the purpose of refutation, especially with the infallible, revelation-supported Prophet among them. Thus, the Prophet (peace be upon him) rebuked him.
Al-Sakhawi authored a book entitled “Al-Asl al-Asil fi Tahrim al-Nazar fi al-Tawrah wa al-Injil” (The Original Principle in the Prohibition of Looking into the Torah and the Gospel), referring to the distorted Torah and Gospel held by Jews and Christians. Therefore, a student of knowledge should be extremely cautious about examining their books.”[5]
In conclusion, a significant number of scholars have denounced this practice and refrained from it. Similarly, the preference for concise and intermediate books devoid of lengthy works on usul over extensive foundational texts is a considered opinion and should not be criticized.
Recommended Reading:
Was Ibn Taymiyyah Against Logic?
Allah's Divine Attributes Discourse
[1] Manh al-Jaleel Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel, vol. 3, p. 63
[2] Al-Fatawa al-Hadeethiyyah, p. 361
[3] Sawn al-Mantiq wal-Kalam ‘an ‘Ilm al-Mantiq wal-Kalam, pp. 7-8
[4] Al-Hikmah al-Baligha al-Janiyyah fi Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Hanafiyyah, pp. 6-7
[5] Al-Ta’leeqat as-Sunniyyah ‘ala al-Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah