Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 26:2 (1987)

THE BEGINNINGS OF I S L A M I C THEOLOGY:

A CRITIQUE OF JOSEPH VAN ESS' VIEWS
HASAN QASIM MURAD

The question of the beginnings of Islamic theology has

attracted the attention of modem scholars of Islam since a t least
the beginnings of more serious and scientific Islamic Studies in the
West, that is since about the pioneering work of Ignac Goldziher in
the field of Islamic religious thought.' But i t goes to the credit of
Joseph van Ess, one of the most outstanding and fecund living
Western scholars of Islamic theological thought, that he pointedly
made this question the subject of a brief but very provocative
study of @an b. Muhammad b. al+anafiyyah's K h Z b d-raja' and
Radd ' u& d - ~ a d a @ y a h , entitled "The Beginnings of Islamic
The~logy",~ containing persuasive arguments and even more
persuasive conclusions. One feels so overwhelmed by his masterly
discussions and deductions that one cannot comfortably or
b confidently disagree with Van Ess' skilful reasoning, a t once logical
and historical, textual and contextual, which appears all the more
forceful by dint of its precise and cautious style, leading to
almost inescapable results. We shall, however, take tbat risk and
take issue with him on his conclusions affirming overly political, in
fact governmental, origins of Islamic theology.

To our knowledge, the conclusions referred to above have

been set forth and zealously argued by Joseph Van Ess only once
and that was in his article on "The ~ e ~ i r k i nof ~ s Islamic
Theology" and in the discussion that followed the reading of this
article in the colloquium for which it was prepared. At first glance
the title and the accompanying zeal remind one of the - 0 04
Muhammadan Jmkpudence and the dogmatism that came to charac-
terize that work. However, Van Ess' earlier English writings are
free from such extreme, narrow and exclusive conclusions and
exaggerated generalizations. Perhaps he also did not choose to
pursue them any further. As a matter of fact, these conclusions, or
rather generalizations of a particular phenomenon in disregard of
other relevant phenomena, do not seem to accord well with V a n
Ess' usually judicious, balanced and moderate style and approach m
scholarship. We would perhaps not have taken issue with him had he
restricted his findings in the article-which are in themselves

© Dr Muhammad Hamidullah Library, IIU, Islamabad. http://iri.iiu.edu.pk/

192 ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

somewhat questionable because of the number of assumptions

involved in them-to indicating a factor in the origin and growth
of lslamic theology, although a very significant one. For a single
factor, however significant it might be, especially because of the
very limitations within which it is found, cannot be exhaustive of
the "origins" of lslamic theology.

Let us now take to elaborating, in more concrete terms, our

critique of Van Ess' views on the question concerned.
First of all, as we hinted above, it is in itself question-
able, contrary to what Van Ess has come to believe, that Fsan b.
M+ammad b. al-ljanafiyyah wrote his K&b d-Pcjli' and Radd 'a4ii
d-Qada4.igyah on behalf, or even at the behest of, 'AM al-Malik.
Van Ess mentions that "in the year 73 ljasan's father, M+ammad b.
al-Wafiyyah acknowledged the political facts and paid allegiance
to the Caliph, and his son seems to have shared his realistic
attitude"" and that "M+ammad b. al-ljanafiyyah visited 'AM al-
Malik in Damascus to confess that he was highly indebted. The
Caliph then assumed all his obligations".+ Surely these incidents do
not provide sufficient grounds to "assume that some sort of politi-
cal pressure or a t least persuasion stood behindu5 +an's K&b
d-14jli'. Nor do they suffice for concluding that "it is not improb-
able that" he wrote it "as a token of suggested g r a t i t ~ d e " .Nor
~
are there sufficient grounds to maintain that in writing his Radd
'& d-@da4.igyah !asan b. M+ammad b. al-+nafiyyah "corres-
ponded to the caliph's intentions and perhaps to his expectations"'
in respect to his supporting "predestinarian ideas" and wanting "his
subjects to believe that the power 'kingship' (mu&] given to him
and his family was a possession ImuPhl granted by God and inalien-
able according to His divine will". ' On the contrary, as Van Ess has
mentioned, not only M+ammad b. al-ljanafiyyah and his son +an,
but many other 'Alids as well, even among the grandsons of 'Ali,
"never thought of any opposition against the Umayyad regime and
rather preferred to live quietly off their p e n ~ i o n " . ~This shows
that political allegiance or financial obligation to the Umayyads
were not necessarily the cause or motivation for writing the K&b
d-14jli' or Radd 'a& d-Qada*yah. In writing his Kitiib d - l ~ j l i ' ,
which also contains a clear denunciation of the Saba%, ljasan b.
M+ammad b. al-ljanafiyyah cannot be said to "feel induced to
betray the cause of MukhtZr and to make such an open avowal of
his anti-extremist and anti-revoluntionary attitude". Such an
assumption would seem unwarranted in view of what Van Ess himself
says: ";asan ibn M+ammad b. al-Vanafiyya is an 'Alid, but not
necessarily a Shi'ite".ll I t is also unwarranted in view of the fact
that his father, M+ammad b. al-I;ianafiyyah, always remained a
realist, anti-radical and opposed to bloodshed. He not only did not
go along with Vusayn, but was later willing to pzy allegiance to
whichever side (Ibn al-Zubayr or 'AM al--Malik) might win and
unite the community under itself. Afterwards, he even advised his
followers not to fight for or against the Umayyads. Moreover, he
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

never committed himself openly and clearly to Mukhtiir al-Thaqafi,

did not approve of being addressed as the mahdi and disclaimed
Mukhtiir's esoteric claims about himself, particularly those concern-
ing secret revelation or knowledge.12 Furthermore, if Hasan b.
Mt$ammad b. Yanafiyyah really wanted t o pay the "price" and show
gratitude, the least he could have done was t o say something
positively in support of the Umayyads. But, in his K i t 2 6 d - I a j Z , he
confined himself to reserving judgment Inm@l about 'Uthmiin and
' A l i (ahe d-&qa d - u w d ) l a t a time when ' A l i was still being
cursed publicly from the pulpits and when the Umayyads would
perhaps have given anything t o separate 'Uthmiin from ' A l i and
reinstate the former along with AbG Bakr and 'Umar. In condemning
the SabZ'is for (among their other deeds and views) their slander
of the Umayyads, Hasan b. M@ammad b. al-Hanafiyyah says:" in ...
reproaching for their sin [i.e., murder] those who had committed i t
[i.e., the Umayyads] while committing i t themselves (afterwards)
when they had an opportunity [i.e., the sabZ'is1;". l * It i s obvious
that these words not only do not absolve the Umayyads of the sin
of murder (of Husayn) but even remind one of Hasan al-Basfi's
remark that "a Khiirijite who tries t o right a wrong (munhaa!
commits a greater wrong" ' which is not saying much in defence
of the Umayyads. In his Radd '& d-Qadaaiyyah also Hasan b.
Maammad b. al-Hanafiyyah does not hint even cnce that the
kingship given t o a l - ~ a l i k and to his family wa:; a possession
granted by God and hence inalienable according t o His divine will.
Such an -omission is significant in so far a s court poets and
professional eulogists such as Jarir and Farazdaq used t o say So
openly,' even though God alone knows if even they really
believed that t o be true. Hasan b. Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyyah and
his theological compositions should, however, be distinguished from
such courtiers and their poetical compositions. Both his treatises
have the stamp of serious earnestness and the ring of sincere
belief about them. There i s not a single shred of internal evidence
to support the idea that they were written under political pressure
or persuasion and a s a token of suggested gratitude, or that Hasan
meant them t o correspond with 'Abd al-Malik's intentions or
expectationst things which one may perhaps readily admit, p h a
bacie, in the case of the poets such a s Jar+- and Farazdaq. Van Ess
has drawn very firm concb~sions on the basis of some weak
circumstantial evidence and has made those conclusions, in turn,
the basis of even further and more momentous conclusions about
the very nature of the beginning of lslamic theology itself, a s we
shall presently see. Not only that, it would seem that there i s even
some -contrary circumstantial evidence which Van Ess himself
mentions but somehow fails t o draw the right inference from. There
is testimony from an independent source that Hasan b. Muhammad b.
31-Wafiyyah "indeed detested the Qadarites," l 7 a testimony that
confirms that he had a necessary, personal motivation t o write the
treatise against the Qadariyyah rather than, a s Van Ess believes,
that he wrote i t on behalf of 'Abd al-Malik. Likewise his having
 ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

his treatise on hja' recited publicly everywhere and his having

fought for his convictions in the circle of a certain Kiifan genea-
logist should have indicated to Van Ess that this was not paid
propaganda but a matter of earnest belief for F s a n b. M*amrnad
b. al-I+nafiyyah.la As to the reasons for writing the treatise on
ixjB', indeed for being the first to formulate, or a t least to give
literary form to, the doctrine, his dislike for the SabZ'i extremism
undermining the very revealed basis of the community and his
concern for unity on the minimum essentials-motives both of which
he might have inherited from his sensible and realistic father-are
patently evident from the treatise itself.19 It is not difficult to
assume that he would have as wholeheartedly disliked the KhZrigs
as he did the SabZ'is. Even his hja' in respect to ' A l i (and
'Uthmk) may have a prefoundation in his father's statement that
"after the Prophet of God, I do not attest to salvation or to
belonging to the people of paradise in respect of anyone, including
my father from whom I am born".2' What is new and to us some-
what surprising, and yet understandable in view of his emphasis on
the unity of the community under them, is e s a n b. M+ammad b.
al-ljanafiyyah's approval of Abii Bakr and 'Umar. He did not have
to be a Shi'i, which he obviously was not, to disapprove of Abu
Bakr and 'Umar. But apparently considerations about the common
good of the Muslims weighed more heavily with him than anything
else. And the chance-- need not necessarily have provided
"theological assistance", in addition to "free" papyrus and
p a r ~ h r n e n t , ~two
' of the numerous assumptions that Van Ess makes
in his article without committing himself to any one of them singly
or separately, but joining them together into a firm theory. He
does this despite his earlier note of caution, inspired by the
Mu'tazili Nazz%n, that "the mere accumulation of uncertainties
does not establish historical f a ~ t s " . ~If his remote nephew, the
rebel Zayd b. 'Ali, who was perhaps more of a Shi'i, can
acknowledge Abii Bakr and 'Umar and perhaps also hold
predestinarian ideas, perhaps taken over from the uncle, without
any assistance-material or idealogical-from the chancery, could it
not be so with Hasan b. Mulpmrnad b. al-Wafiyyah, who is merely
an 'Alid and may well have been following, or rather developing,
the intellectual-religious tradition of his father? A l l this is not to
deny the material political relevance of the theological doctrines
held and published by Vasan b. M*ammad b. al-Vanafiyyah. What
we question is that they were proclaimed as part of some kind of
government project-a conclusion to which Van Ess leads us as the
first step in his even more questionable theory about the origins of
Islamic theology.

Secondly, even if one were to agree with the initial, more

cautiously worded, conclusion of Van Ess' paper that:

Theology started a s an inner-Islamic discussion when, mably'

through political development, the self-confident naivete of

ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987) 195

the early days was gradually eroded. The initiative for

lifting these discussions t o a literary level seems t o have
been taken by the caliph 'Abd al-Malik. He was interested in
a dialogue in order t o cool down existing tensions or in
order to propagate his own theologico-political views, and
had the personnel and the financial resources t o start such
an enterprise. With this attitude, as with many other things,
he followed the heritage that he found in the country in
which he decided t o choose his capital: the tradition of the
Byzantine Emperors whose impact had moulded the Syrian
milieu for centuries."

This can be true only in regard to the beginning of the

K&m-style, particularly wlLLtten, theology-the two self-imposed
limits within which Van Ess admittedly developed his argument."
Moreover, it can be true only i f the literary and pre-literary
stages of theological discussion are clearly distinguished from each
other-b-a distinction which Van Ess seems to recognize here.*= But
this cannot be true in regard t o "theological endeavours on the
whole" or "the origins of Islamic theology" pe4 &z,f6 as Van Ess
later asserts in th; discussion on the paper, perhaps having been
carried awav bv his discoveries. He is still conscious of the
existence of Lon-k&m theology (perhaps because +sari b.
MuQammad b. a1-+nafiyyah9s K i a b d-l&j&' and +san al-Bi.xjr;r"s
W h were not written in the k&m style) and even of the
existance of pre-literary "religious discussions" a s implied by the
existence of the earlier "reIigious partisan movements" (for
instance, the ~ h d I C i . ) . ' ' But he greatly minimizes, in fact tries t o
eliminate, their theological si.gnificance by further describing them
as discussions that were "rather more concerned with political
issues".'' He does so in the same manner as he convenientlv
ignores his own self-imposed restriction to the k&m category,
which in fact was the very miAon dP6.Crre of his investigation. This
denigration of the pre-literary theological discuss& among
religious partisan movements and this ignoring of the pre-condition
of the k&m structure in theological endeavours are done
obviously in order to pave the way for the final conclusion: "lt
seems, a t least in the two texts that I found, that theology
emerged or came about through the instigation of the Caliph; the
Caliph may have initiated religious policy in the style of a
B ~ u n , " ' ' or below: "The only thing that I thought I could
render probable was that the earliest examples of theology we
have seem t o ow? their existence to the political intentions of the
Caliph". '
As pointed out above in our preliminary remarks, even if we
agree t o the in-itself-questionable theory of Van Ess that the two
texts under discussion were written as part of some state enter-
prise, this would only indicate the existence of one highly signi-
ficant factor in the early development of Islamic theology, but not
a factor in the oriqin of lslamic theology. This is so because the
196 ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

texts in question are not "the earliest examples of theology we

have ".Islamic theology existed before them, originated and grew
under the influence of a complex of factors--Lpolitical, social, reli-
gious and psychological-that were inextricably linked to each
other. The isolation of any one factor and the ascription of
primacy to i t can distort the historical reality, unless we are
dealing with a very specific and special person and situation, and
even then i t would be dangerous to lay too much emphasis on any
one factor. Anyway, what seems to have led Van Ess to believe in
an exclusively governmental origin of Islamic theology-in addition
to his remarkable skill in piecing together various uncertainties
into a near certainty+is his pronounced predilection for the 'text'
and the 'format' and, perhaps also, for the 'government'. The most
important of the three, which marks the serious, the real beginning
of things, is the 'text' the written word, the literary composition
which, in cases such as theology, almost invariably implies
theoretical formulation and should possibly, perhaps even probably,
presuppose imperial instigation. It appears that Van Ess shares all
these three tendencies with Joseph Schacht (and perhaps with other
scholars from the same cultural background) but with an important
difference in respect to the first and the third. While Schacht
would make thipgs begin to happen from the usually accepted date
of literacy, Van Ess would push back the threshhold of literacy t o
about a century earlier and would mark the genuine beginnings
from there." And while Schacht would only bemoan the gradual
autonomy of the duqahii' from the state from quite early times as
working to the detriment of the proper development of lslamic law,
Van Ess would find the mLLtaha&eimUn from the very beginning (of
theology) and perhaps also during the next two centuries (until the
*nab of Abmad b. ijanbal) working under state supervision as
instruments of the caliph's religious/theologica1 policy =--to whose
benefit or detriment, he does not say. However that may be, the
point here is that due to his predilection for literary formulations,
Van Ess has. totally neglected the theological significance of the
preliterary stages, what he calls "religious discussion. .. rather
more concerned with political issues" among "religious partisan
movements", and thus neglects the serious possibility
- of an earlier,
more complex origin of lslamic theology.

In the first place, what Van Ess dismisses as "religious

discussions. .. rather more concerned with political issues" were,
in fact, discussions a t once of religious behaviour and belief. To
him and to others living in the present time, they may seem rather
more concerned with political issues and, in so far as politics and
religion went hand in hand in those days, vaguely religio-political
or just religious discussions, depending on one's point of emphasis.
But to those who were involved in these issues and who were
taking part in the resultant discussion, they were probably more of
a moral-legal and t heological-cum-socio-political nature, the
different espects being quite inextricably interwoven. The question
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987) 197

of imcimah of the rightful ruler of the community (if that is what

Van Ess is referring to) was to them a question of both legal and
theological significance. Along with the immediately following,
deeply inter-connected question of the grave sinner or true
believer, the question of imdmah decidedly assumed a predominantly
theological significance. Then the question of grave sin itself, of
its definition and of its effect on belief, on the membership of the
community and on the ultimate fate of the professing believer,
especially in relation to 'Uthmiin and 'Ali but also in relation t o
other believers, particularly those in positions of authority-tall
this was of tremendous theological-moral and socio-political
significance. Around the turn of the second civil war, this question
was already being zealously debated in KhZrilT, moderate-KhZrijT
and even non-~hariji circles. In our Few, i t these discussions
that probably gave birth to g s a n b. M+ammad b. al-Vanafiyyah's
anti-extreme-Khiiriji and-Shi'i K&b d-l~tjci',without necessarily
any prompting from 'Abd al-Malik, or with the purpose of
corresponding to his politicaI intentions. One may incidentally also
ask why i f Abd al-MaliKS political intentions operating behind the
K&b d-l8jii' did not make i t any the less theological in nature,
the political issues lying behind the religious discussions among the
religious partisan movements make them non-theological?

Moreover, just as Vasan b. M+ammad b. al-Vanafiyyah's K&b

&-I&@ presupposes the existence of KhZriji and Shi'i theological
discussions, his Radd ' a h d-Qadaaiyyah and, probably a few years
later, k s a n al-Ba+'s pro-qada& RibtiPah.3,s presuppose theological
discussions in favour of qada& and jab8 respectively. In fact, since
k s a n al-Ba5t-i'~ lZ&ihh is not a rejoinder to the points raised in
Hasan b. M+arnrnad b. al-knafiyyah's Radd, this must mean that a
great deal more than was put into writing was being orally dis-
cussed and developed. Since this is true for the brief interim
period between the Radd and the RibtiPah, i t may also be true for
the longer period between the Qur'iin or, a t least, the first civil
war (i.e. i f theology has to be a consequence of political conflicts
and not of scriptural contradictions) and the Radd. But, says Van.
Ess in his article on the QadarTyyah, "The absence of earlier
theoretical formulations prevents our going back beyond !asan's
treatise"." He mentions, but is obviously sceptical about, such in-
formation that "the purport of divine predestination had been
'first' discussed when, a t the siege of Makkah by the troops of
Yazid I in 641683, the Ka'bah caught fire" or "that Mu' Fiwiya was
the first to justify his use of force by divine compulsion ( d j a b d "
or that the justification of revolutionary activity by QadafT
ideology is (first?) alluded to in "the speech of ' A m b. Sa'id, the
rebel against 'Abd al-Malik", in 69/689.'5 A l l these are apparently
suspect in the eyes of Van Ess for the additional reason that these
are only "answers to the wrong questions. There was never a point
in time when K a d m [or jab&, we might add] was spoken of 'for the
first time'; there are only particular moments a t which theological
198 ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

solutions emerge for the first time, or become generally significant

or c o n t r ~ v e r s i a l " . ~ ~ is a beautiful statement, but perhaps not
This
quite true ( a t least it i s not clear t o us a s t o its precise intent).
If there can be a-point in time when qadm o r jab4 are 'written
about' for the first time, why can there not be a point in time
when qadm o r jab4 are "spoken of" for the first time, even i f we
are not quite sure, because of the present state of our infor-
mation, about that particular time? But perhaps we have misunder-
stood Van &s here. Perhaps he is not denying the occurrence of
these pre-theoretical-formulation theological solutions. Possibly he
is only denying that any one of them can be regarded a s having
been first. This may be indicated by the fact that elsewhere3' he
seems to give credence t o the Qadari allusion in & A m r b. Sabid's
speech, perhaps because of i t s late date (69/689), but perhaps also
because it shows the revolutionary possibilities of the Qadafi
ideology. By the same token, he may perhaps be willing to give
credence to the first two mentioned occurrences, despite their
rather early date, because they show the contrary possibilities of
jab& ideology(?). Also, near the end of his article on the
Qadariyyah, in the course of his discussion of Christian influence,
he incidentally mentions that "There was nothing t o prevent Muslim
neophytes, a t least a f t e r the conquest of Syria, from naively
solving the theological problem posed by the ambiguity of the
Scriptures with categories familiar t o t h e r n ~ e l v e s " . This
~ ~ is a very
important statement, provided Van Ess seriously means and realizes
i t s implications for the even earlier (reign of 'Umar I ) beginnings
of Islamic theology. I t is important also for the role which i t
ascribes t o reflection on the w a n . But apparently Van Ess does
not realize the implications of what he has said, for he never
mentions i t in the course of his main discussions of the beginnings
of lslamic theology, nor does he mention the Qur'h among the
"sources" that he lists for the reconstruction of the origin and
development of the Qadariyyah, although he does mention the
counter-polemic in hadith literature, l a subject t o which we shall
return shortly. After referring t o the three pre-theoretical-
formulation occurrences, he further goes on t o say that "The
alleged Fadante beliefs of the last SufyZnid, Mub5wiya I1 (reigned
64/684. . .) probably derive from the belief that he abdicated of
his own accord, before his early death, which was perceived t o be
in. accordance with the political programme of the Kadariyya". And
that "the l e t t e r from Hasan b. 'A17 (d. probably 49/669-70) t o
I;lasan al-Ba+i on the q;estion is manifestly a forgery". (He does
not explain why, but his reason is perhaps, a s he mentions, that i t
is found both in a determinist and a Qadari version; ."

Furthermore, while Van Ess a t least mentions theologically

significant information that is prior t o the theoretical formulations
in theR.h&hJor the Radd, based on the evidence of certain
historical, biographical and other sources, and may even be willing
t o give credence t o some of them (although a f t e r arriving a t his
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

theory of government-originated beginnings of lslamic theology

around the year 70 A.H. he would most probably not assign them
any 'originative' significance), he does not refer a t all to any
early theologically relevant information based on the evidence of
ha& literature. This is true because, mainly relying on Schacht,
he considers the theological ahd&Xh largely, if not totally, to
reflect later polemic, actually anti-Qadafi polemic, since pro-Qadar?
ahddith are rare.
It can be proven [he says] that a large number of the anti-
Fadarite h a m are also late, or were first raised to the
rank of sayings of the Prophet as time went on; those
respected traditionists who a t that time were still Kadarite
cannot have thought them authentic. Some of them are
obviously in direct reference to the arguments F s a n al-Basr?
developed in the course of his W h . s l
The point here a t the moment is not whether these
deterministic ahddith were inauthentic and were so thought by
"those respected traditionists who a t that time were still
Fadante", or are so thought by respected scholars such as Van
Ess who, as we shall see later, has a soft comer in his heart for
the Qadariyyah. The point is whether these ahddith, even a small
number of them existed or, to borrow Schacht's tenqinology, "were
put into circulation" before F s a n al-Ba2i wrote his R&.&h, or,
rather, before the date given by Van Ess to the origins of Islamic
theology. If such ahddith did exist before the dates in question,
this would mean not only earlier origins for Islamic theology,
but would also imply origins not so exclusively governmental
as Van Ess has claimed them to be. This would hold true unless
it is shown that these ahddith too were coined and circulated
a t the instigation of the government. Van Ess indirectly admits
the earlier existence of a t least a small number of such ahddith,
as the quotation above shows but his heart is obviously not
in this belief; a t least he does not seem to regard them as
consequential for the origins of Islamic theology. David Ede,
in his Master's thesis entitled "Some Consideration on the
Freedom-Determinism Controversy in Classical Islamic Theology", has
quite convincingly argued for the existence cf a t least "some"
such ahddith prior to F s a n al-Ba$c8s Ridiiexh, and for their being
"behind the arguments of e ' s opponents" in the R&.&h.'2 Ede's
basic line of argument (which has also been successfully used by
+far IsbZq AnqZfi in his Doctoral dissertation on "The Early Deve-
lopment of Fiqh in Kiifa"), however, is more interesting and impor-
tant on account of its further implications for the early develop-
ment of Islamic theology. Although our own 'exegetical' position in
regard to the j a b d and QacE verses of the Qur'Zn is closer to that
of Watt than to that of Ede," in so far as we also hold that since
the Qur'Zn focuses attention upon God's majesty and omnipotence
and is through and through theistic, and since in the Qur'Sn
deterministic and non-detehinistic sayings stand side by side on
200 ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

the basis of the idea of a personal God, therefore any exclusively

or excessively deterministic (or, for that matter, non-deterministic)
interpretation of those verses, as reflected overwhelmingly in the
bad&% material, represents a very serious distortion of the central
message of t1?2 Qur'Zn. However, we agree with Ede's argument in
that the owxwhelming emphasis upon radical determinism in the
kadith material is "a radical yet consistent interpretation of
certain aspects of God's nature found in the QdZn," and not
necessarily a direct reflection of the atheistic fatalism of the pre-
Qur'Znic Arab jcih.dZ thought world, as held by Watt."

The kadith material [says Ede in a footnote to the above

obsenration] gives us many traditions which are obviously
and intimately connected to specific Qx'Snic passages. To
imply that the interpretation .given to those passages is
primarily from the pre-lslamic fatalistic view is to do a
grave injustice to those early Muslims who sought to
understand more systematically the difficult issues expressed
in the w a n . They, more than later followers of Islam, must
have been keenly aware of the opposition of the Qur'Zn to
the JZhili o ~ t l o o k . ' ~
What, however, is more relevant and significant to our discussion is
that Ede has been able to show, by comparing quite a few
Prophetic a~cidithand Qur'iinic verses, that "the kadlth put forward
theological position based fundamentally on and intimately
connected to Qw'iinic assertions about God's. omnipotency and
sovereignty" and that "the literary form of the bad&% and many of
the important key words employed in the kadith follow the form
and key expressions of the Qur'Zn" (sometimes bad&% being nothing
more than a paraphrase of Qur'Znic passages, sometimes the
theological reflection in kadith naturally flowing from the
description given in the Cbr'Zn, sometimes the reflection in kadith
produced in attempting to answer questions implicit in the Qu&nic
declarations) .'

FinallyLand this is in a way a continuation and conclusion

of our preceding argument-Van Ess and most other scholars on the
subject do not seem to regard the Qur'Eu-~ in itself as thought-
provoking and heat-generating. In other words, they do not regard
the @r'% as a question-and-controversy-creating document. They
also seem to overlook that in so far as the Qur'Zn was supposed to
be 'followed', that is, understood and lived, i t would naturally and
necessarilyL-and on a more enhanced level than i f i t were simply a
book for light or leisure reading-give birth to problems and dis-
cussions of both a theoretical and a practical nature (theological,
legal etc.) and, i f the Prophet had been alive at the time of the
rise of such problems and discussions, also to some genuinely
Pmphetic &&4 and b d i t h . But the role assigned to the Qur'aas
,
with more justification to the later wholesale formulation of had&%,
is merely instrumental: that i t was put to use by various groups
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

and individuals, particularly after the @an and the repeated

establishment of the Umayyad rule under Mu'swiyah, 'Abd al-Malik
and Hishsm, to support and further their own , religio-political
purposes. There is much truth in this. To deny this ,would be only
less foolish than denying the instrumental role of the h a m in
this process. But this should not -be allowed to blind us to the
independent *originative' or 'causitive' role of the Qur'Zn, as of
the Prophetic u n n a h (as distinct from later hadith which may have
been originated on the initial basis of the latter, as Fazlur R a l p h
has pointed out):' Also, to hold that because of its special
classification as prophetic, revealed literature, "the Fur'& poses
neither the theological problem of predestination (it does not p0&2
any pzobeeml, nor the philosophical problem of the nature of
human freedon: it evokes the mystery of the relations between
creature and Creator,"" or that its - af firmations about God and
man are religious, not theological or philosophical, or that i t is not
even conscious of a conflicting opposition between divine sove-
reignty and human freedom, does not mean that, according to Ede,
when reflected upon i t could not, or did not, raise questions, for
its first thoughtful and believing readers, about this very dilemma?9
But the which it raisesfor us is that of when this process
of questioning happened? Despite his repeated declarations that the
Qur'Zn is the "starting point and basic source of 1:;lamic theology",
particularly of the "freedom-determinism controversy in early
Islamic theology,"50 and despite his two-chapters length demons-
tration of how faithfully the deterministic adhere to and
follow from (upon reflection) the W Z n i c passages which underlie
the theological position advanced by the h a m , and that the
theological discussions embodied in such had&!%are an attempt to
formulate dogmatic assertions about the implications of divine
ornnipotency for the destiny of man,51 Ede was not interested
enough or consistent enough to press for a much earlier date for
the origins of Islamic theology. He was bold enough to oppose
Schacht, who placed even the two deterministic ahddith referred to
by F s a n al-Bagri in his Ridiieah in the second century, and brought
them and 'some' such other ahiidith back to the first century,
around the time when ?iasan was writing his Ridiieah, more speci-
fically to the last two decades of the first Islamic' century.52 This
much served his purpose, and he lost interest in pursuing any
further the implications of his own basic argument. (Though one
wonders i f his labours were not somewhat lost when the date of
Fsan's. W h was subsequently fixed between 75 and 80 A.H.)
But, as we hinted above, he was also not consistent enough to
pursue the logical conclusions of his argument for the early origins
of Islamic theology. By this we mean that despite his declarations
and demonstrations to the contrary, Ede perhaps did not really
believe in the originative or causitive function 0.' the Qur'Zn in
leading the way to deterministic ahiidith, otherwise he would put
the beginnings of theoIogical determinism in Prophetic times, a t a
202 ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

point when people began to think about the contents of the Qur'Zn.
Like others, he only believed in "deriving from the Qur'Zn the
necessary building blocks essential for developing the theological
position of radical determinism,"5' while its real causes lay
elsewhere, probably in the political conditions and necessities
ensuing from the first and second civil wars. He may be right. The
deterministic abiidith may be an attempt to come to terms with the
harsh political realities of the Umayyad rule. And, by the same
token, the non-deterministic ahiid.ith-which were annihilated by
later polemic and purge, if they at all came into existence-would
have come into existence to counter them. This is neat and clear.
However, we believe both these pictures to be partially wrong, and
to tell only part of the story. we believe in the theology-produ-
cing role of the Qur'C,, and we believe that theological
discussions, particularly on freedom and determinism, had started
during the lifetime of the Prophet and may even have been
reflected in some a@G.th which, being too moderate and closer to
the so-called bdouble' outlook of the Qur'Zn, may either have been
totally rejected by the freewill and predestination parties, parti-
cularly the latter, or partly incorporated into their more extremist
ah&&. Be that as it may, the fact that theological discussions on
freedom and determinism did arise during the Prophetic period is
indicated by a@idith which denounce and discourage such dis-
cussions, and which we believe to have greater likelihood of being
genuine than of having been projected back into an earlier time, in
so far as they faithfully depict the implicit Qur'Znic. stance in the
matter. According to bdith, reported in Tixmidhi and .tIbn MSjah,
once certain ~ o m ~ a n i & swere having an argument about qadaa
when the Prophet came upon them and on listening to their talk his
face turned red with anger as if a pomegranate was burst open in
his cheeks, and he said: "Is this [the thing] you have been
commanded about? or is it what I have been sent to you for?/or is
it what you have been created for, to mix one part bf the Qur'Zn
with another? The peoples before you were destroyed when-they
disputed with one another in this matter; 1 urqe you not to dispute
in the matter."5b According to another baa%% in Ibn Msjah, the
Prophet said: "One .who speaks about qadm will be questioned about
i t on the day of resurrection, but one who remains silent in the
matter will not be questioned about it".55 According to yet
another ha& in BukhZ? and Nasa'i. One night the Prophet went
to visit b A l i and FSfimah, and asked them why they did not offer
[tahajjud?] prayers? b A l i replied: "0 Prophet of God, our souls are
in the hand of God; when He wills He would arouse them [to pray]".
Hearing that, the Prophet at once turned back and, strikLg~his
'thigh [with his hand], said: "wa biina d - W n u abtham ohay.k
jad&nW.S
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

REFERENCES AND NOTES

For a brief survey of studies on Islamic religious thought, see Jean

Sauvaget. Inttoduction to the Hidoy 06 M& E d (Los Angeles, 1965).
m. 97 ff.. 161 ff.
in J.E. M & O C ~ and E.D. sylla, eds.. The cl~etunae context 06 Medieval
~ea;ning, (Dordrecht - HoGd, 1975) pp. 87-111.
Van FSS, "The Beginnas of Islamic Theology" in he Cut2u.d Context 06
Medievd Leanning, op.. cit. p. 96. top.
Ibid., middle.
Ibid.. p: 95. bottom.
Ibid.. p. 96. bottom.
Ibid., p. 98. top.
Ibid.. p. 97, bottom.
.
lbid... D. 95.
--.middle.
Ibid., p. 95. bottom.
lbid, middle. ,[T& statement is debateable in the
id-
wt of Hasan b*
reflected in his vodcs

See lbn Sa'd. W b d-TabaqW d-Kabin ed. Edward Sachau and others
(Leiden, 190L-LO). V. 66-68, entry on Mui!ammad b. al-Wfiyyah, parti-
cularly pp. 69ff.. 73ff.. 77ff., 81ff.
Quoted by Van FSS in "Beginnings", p. 94, top.
Ibid.. mid&.
See W. Montgomery Watt. The F o a m h e P h d 06 Lbeamic Thought
(Edinburgh. 1973). p. 80.
Ibid., p. 83; also see his "God's Caliph. Qur'kic Interpretations and
Umayyad Claims", l m n and Zdeam, ed. C.E. Bosworth (Edinburgh, 1971)
Pp. 565-74
Van Ess, "Beginnings", p. 98. top.
Ibid., p. 91, bottom.
See quotations in ibid., p. 941
Ibn Sasd, Tabaqa V. 68.
Van Ess. "Beginnings". p. 99. top.
Ibid.. p. 90, middle.
Ibid., p. 101, end of the article.
Ibid., p. 105, top and last-but-one paragraph.
Ibid.. top.
Ibid.. p. 106, top.
Ibid.. p. 105. t"P.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 106, top.
Ibid.. D. 110. bottom.
1bid.ipp. 90f.. 98f. and 105f.
Ibid., pp. 106f.
Hasan al-ws R&t!uh, by the way, is the only writing of the kind,
ksides perhaps Ibn IbZ$s letter to . A M al-Malik, for which we have
positive evidence that it was written in response to a query from ' A M
al-Malik, we have not read 1bn IEd's letter to be able to make any
judgment about it, but I;lasan's RidiiPnk obviously did not serve, i f it was
expected to, any of ' A M al-Malik's political intentions. This,
incidentally, should make us a bit wary of imputing political motives to
every move that a caliph made-even as worldIy-wise a caliph as * A M
al-Malik.
Van Ess, "Kadariyya", p. 369, bottom-left; Van FSS would probably now
supplant I$san al-ws Riddieah by f+n b. b@ammad b. a l - w -
fiyyah's Radd which he was able to authenticate and date onIy after the
writing of this article, that is, unless he may not regard the Qadari
doctrines refuted in the Radd as "theoretical formulations".
204 ISLAMIC STUDIES, 26:2 (1987)

lbid.; cf. also idem. "Beginnings" p. 97, bottom.

ldem. "Kadariyya" ~ncy&paed& 06 l&m, 2nd. ed. vol. iv, p. 369.
top-right .
ldem, "Beginnings", p. 97. bottom.
ldem, "Kadariyya". p. 371. bottom-right.
Ibid., p. 368. bottom-right.
lbid.. p. 369, topright.
lbid.. p. 371, middle-left.
David Ede, "Some Considerations on the Freedom-Determinism Controversy
in Classical lslamic Theology", unpublished Master's Thesis. McGill
University. Montreal. 1967. p. 157. and the preceding pages. and the
whole of Chap. 111.
Ede tries very hard to disclaim any "exegetical" position of his own.
while claiming i t for others ("Freedom-Determinism" pp. 74f. 40); we
believe that anyone who writes more than an index of the Qur'G is
bound to adopt an exegetical position, be it Fazlur R a m or Da'iid
Rahbar, Louis Gardet or von Grunebaum, or even Toshihiko lzutsu.
lbid.. pp. 82f; cf. Watt, R e e W Z and Redeatination in E@ l&m
(London, 1948) pp. 20-29. Watt. however, has perhaps modified his
position, in his later &nric Thought, pp. 90ff.. in that he now holds
that "The kerygma or essential message of the Qur'Zn presupposed the
thought world of the pre-Islamic Arabs even when it tried to modify
their ideas" and that "the QuG r' preserves some of the predestinarian
conceptions of the pre-lslamic Arabs, though i t modifies them. . .";
although Watt perhaps d i l l does not regard them as part of the Qur'Gic
keryp.
Ede, "Freedom-Determinism", p. 106.
Ibid., pp. 88. 91. 102f.
Fazlur RalpGn. Z&nric MethodoPogy in Hiatoy (Karachi, 1965) pp. 6,
12, and passim.
.
Grdet, "All&". E l 2 p. 408.
Ede, "Freedom-Determinism", p. 44
Ibid.. pp. 40. 42. 44.
Ibid., chaps. 11, 111, particularly p. 90.
Ibid., pp. 152ff.. particularly p. 157.
Ibid.. p. 90.
Tirmidhi, "Babu mZ JZ'a min al-Tashdidi fi al-Khawqi f i al-QadariW,
Swan, Ibn K i a . "Babun f i al-Qadari". Sunan.
Ibid.
Bukhk-, "=u TakpTGi al-Nabiyi, sal'am. 'a16 SalZti al-Layli wa
al-NawZfili min ghayri 'TjSbin", $a&; NasZ'i, *&' $NJ Targhibi f i mi
al-Layli". Sunan.