Islamic Philosophy and Theology
eBook - ePub

Islamic Philosophy and Theology

W. Montgomery Watt

Share book
  1. 219 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Islamic Philosophy and Theology

W. Montgomery Watt

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

Events are making clear to ever-widening circles of readers the need for something more than a superficial knowledge of non-European cultures. In particular, the blossoming into independence of numerous African states, many of which are largely Muslim or have a Muslim head of state, has made clear the growing political importance of the Islamic world, and, as a result, the desirability of extending and deepening the understanding and appreciation of this great segment of mankind.

Islamic philosophy and theology are looked at together in a chronological framework in this volume. From a modern standpoint, this juxtaposition of the two disciplines is important for the understanding of both; but it should be realized at the outset that it is a reversal of the traditional Islamic procedure. Not merely were the disciplines different, but in the earlier centuries the exponents were two different sets of persons, trained in two different educational traditions, each with its own separate institutions. There was little personal contact between philosophers and theologians, and the influence of the two disciplines on one another was largely by way of polemics. Eventually while philosophy died out as a separate discipline in the Islamic world, many parts of it were incorporated in theology.

This work is designed to give the educated reader something more than can be found in the usual popular books. The work undertakes to survey a special part of the field, and to show the present stage of scholarship. Where there is a clear picture this will be given; but where there are gaps, obscurities and differences of opinion, these will also be indicated. This work is brilliant in its design, style, and intimate understanding. It is a must read for specialists and policy makers alike.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Islamic Philosophy and Theology an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Islamic Philosophy and Theology by W. Montgomery Watt in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Philosophy & Philosophy of Religion. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
Routledge
Year
2017
ISBN
9781351511414

PART One
THE UMAYYAD PERIOD

CHAPTER 1
THE BEGINNINGS OF SECTARIANISM

BETWEEN Muḥammad’s migration to Medina in 622 and his death in 632 he was able to build up a state of considerable power. A measure of the size of the state is that on an expedition towards Syria at the end of 630 Muḥammad had 30,000 men behind him. Many, perhaps most, of the nomadic tribes of Arabia were in alliance with him, the chief exceptions being those in the Byzantine sphere of influence. The immediately following period, from 632 to 661, is known as that of the “rightly-guided caliphs”. Abū-Bakr (632-4) was mostly occupied in quelling the revolt of certain tribes against the Medinan political system. Under ’Umar I (634-44) a phenomenal expansion took place; Syria and Egypt were wrested from the Byzantine empire and Iraq from the Persian. For the first half of the reign of ’Uthmān (644-56) expansion continued into North Africa and Persia; but about 650 it slowed down, discontent appeared among the troops (who were identical with the citizen body), and in 656 ’Uthmān was killed by mutineers. ’All, the cousin and son-in-law of Muḥammad, was then acclaimed as caliph in Medina, but Mu’awiya, governor of Damascus, among others, refused to recognize him. In the struggle between ‘Alī and Mu‘āwiya the latter was slowly gaining the upper hand when in 661 ‘Alī was murdered for a private grievance. Mu‘awiya’s caliphate was then generally recognized, and the Umayyad dynasty thereby established.
This recital of historical events is not irrelevant to our theological concern. Exponents of the sociology of knowledge would hold that all theological and philosophical ideas have a political or social reference; and the standpoint of this survey is in accordance with such an outlook. The connection between theology and politics is particularly close and obvious in the Middle East. The Old Testament is full of it. In the early seventh century the disaffection of the native Christians of Syria and Egypt to the Byzantine emperor found a focus in the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies. It is therefore not surprising that in the discussions in chapters 1-3 it will be difficult to say what is politics and what theology. Nevertheless, apart from the “false prophets” who inspired the revolts, known as the Ridda or “apostasy”, from about 632 to 634, no theological element is discernible in the political conflicts within the Islamic state until just before the beginning of the Umayyad period. This was not due, either, to the absence of strife and tension. The rivalry between the two main tribes of Medina continued almost to the time of Muḥammad’s death; in the appointment of a successor the jealousy of the Medinans towards the Meccans came to light; in the wars of “apostasy” certain nomadic tribes were opposing the Medinans, Meccans and certain other nomadic tribes; and the accession of’AH brought into the open a clash of interests between at least three different groups of Meccans.
A theological factor first comes into contact with politics in certain disputes which took place among the followers of ‘All. These were mostly men from nomadic tribes, now settled in military camp-towns in Iraq; and the disputes occurred when ‘All, after defeating one group of Meccan opponents in a battle near Basra, was trying to collect a sufficient army to meet his more serious rival, Mu‘āwiya, who had at his disposal the army occupying Syria. Among the troops under ‘Alī’s command were some who were deeply attached to him; they are said to have sworn that they would be “friends of those whom he befriended and enemies of those to whom he was hostile”. In other words, these men believed that a leader or imam such as ‘Alī could make no mistakes and do no wrong. The opposing group not merely thought that ‘Alī was capable of making mistakes, but regarded him as actually in error because he was not sufficiently definite in his support of those responsible for the murder of ‘Uthmān. This second group considered themselves in a sense the spiritual descendants of the men who had killed ‘Uthmān (though there does not appear to have been much personal continuity). ‘Uthmān, they held, had sinned in that he had not punished the crime of a prominent member of his administration; and by this sin he had forfeited the privileges that went with membership of the community, thereby rendering it not merely no sin but even a duty for Muslims to kill him.
There were probably many men in ‘Alī’s army whose views came somewhere between these extremes; but it is the extremes that are important for the later theological developments. The two groups described are in fact the beginnings of the two great sects of the Shī’ites and the Khārijites. The Shī’ites derive their name from the fact that they are par excellence the “party” (shī‘a), that is, of ‘Alī. The Khārijites (in Arabic usually Kha-warij, singular Khārijī) were so called because they “went out” or “seceded “(kharajū), first from ‘Alī and then from Mu’awiya and the Umayyads. The best-known instances of such “secessions” are two which occurred while ‘Alī was getting ready to march against the army of Syria. The first party, who went to a place called Harürā’, returned when ’ Alī met some of their grievances; but some of the second party refused to be reconciled and were eventually massacred. The frequency with which the story of these events is repeated should not be allowed to obscure the fact that there were five other small risings against ‘Alī and about twenty during the reign of Mu’awiya (661-80). There were also, of course, several more serious Khārijite risings at various times during the Umayyad period, and some historians have suggested that “Khārijite” simply means “rebel”; but a study of the theological side of the movement will show that this is not so.
The occurrence of risings under both ‘Alī and Mu ‘awiya proves that they were not due to personal dislike of the rule of either man, but must have resulted from some general features of the situation. Reflection suggests what these features were. The men concerned in the Khārijite risings were not of Meccan or Medinan origin, but men from nomadic tribes. Thirty years earlier these men and their fathers had been living the free life of the desert. Now they were caught up into the vast organization of the Muslim army. When the campaigns were over, they went back not to the familiar desert but to camp-cities in Iraq or Egypt. At this early period all Muslims were expected to take part in military service, and in return they received a stipend from the state. The amount of the stipend varied according to the priority of the family in adhesion to Islam. Though there is scope here for many economic grievances, there do not appear from the records to have been any such. It therefore seems probable that the underlying reason for the risings was the general sense of malaise and insecurity consequent on the rapid and abrupt changes. It is further probable that the incipient Shī‘ite movement is a different response to the same sense oī malaise and insecurity.
This hypothesis makes possible an explanation both of the different responses to the situation of the Shī‘ites and the Khārijites, and also of the intense hostility between them. In a time of change, insecurity and crisis men tend to look for salvation to the thing in their past experience that has proved most fundamental and satisfying (whether they are fully conscious of what they are doing or not). It appears to be a fact that some men believe that salvation (or the attainment of the supreme end of human life) is to be found in the following of a leader who is endowed with more than human qualities. Such qualities are usually believed to be the gift of a god, though occasionally they may be thought of rather as a natural endowment. It is convenient to use the sociological term “charismata” and to speak of a “charismatic leader”. It also appears to be a fact that other men look for salvation not to a leader but to a community possessing certain charismata. By being a member of such a community (and by doing nothing to forfeit one’s membership) a man attains salvation. The negative form of this belief occurs in the tag: extra ecclesia nulla salus. The positive aspect was prominent in the thought of many Muslims, for they spoke of the Islamic community as “the people of Paradise”, implying that all the members would eventually attain to Paradise.
The existence of deep-seated beliefs of this kind explains the appearance of the Khārijite and Shī‘ite movements during the caliphate of’Ali. In the stresses and strains of the completely new life into which they had been plunged, men were in need of something firm and secure. Deep, probably unconscious, impulses made them seek this security, some by following a leader with the charisma of infallibility, others by trying to ensure that the community of which they were members was a charismatic one. For the first group the old Arab belief that special qualities of character were handed down in certain families justified them in taking ‘Alī as a leader of infallible wisdom, even when his actual political decisions were hardly in accordance with this belief. The second group had a certain advantage in that the community of Muslims had undoubtedly been founded by a divinely inspired prophet and possessed a way of life supernaturally revealed to it; to ensure that this community remained the people of Paradise, however, it was necessary, some of them felt, that those who broke the rules should be excluded from it. In this way there arose the distinctive Khārijite tenet that those who have committed a grave sin are thereby excluded from the community. Positively the Khārijites were seeking security in the knowledge that the community to which they belonged was a supernatural or charismatic one.
Further reflection along these lines shows why there was such bitterness between Khārijites and Shī‘ites. For both groups the question was one of whether they were going to attain salvation or realize their supreme end; one might say roughly that it was a matter of life and death. In this situation the beliefs of each group contradicted those of the other; and so each group was in the position of preventing the other from attaining salvation. The Khārijites, not convinced of the infallibility of the leader, saw rather that he might make a mistake and thereby lead the whole community into a course of action which would cause them to forfeit their status as people of Paradise. The Shī’ites, on the other hand, were horrified at the prospect that ordinary uninspired members of the community might, by their interpretation of its scriptures (which the Shī‘ites did not regard as infallible), cause the inspired leader to adopt a course of action which he knew to be wrong. In this way each group’s chance of salvation, as they saw it, was endangered by the other group. It is not surprising that there was bitter hostility between them.
What has been said so far is fairly well established. When it comes, however, to the question why some men should turn to the charismatic leader and others to the charismatic community, there is an explanation that can be given, but for the moment it must be regarded as a hypothesis needing further examination (chiefly by comparing parallel instances in other cultures). It is conceivable that the two reactions to the same situation are due to ultimate and fundamental differences in the human constitution; but this is a dubious theory with serious consequences, and so it is preferable, ifit can be done, to explain the differences by hereditary or environmental factors. There are two points which help towards an explanation.
The first point is that there are resemblances between the little groups of Khārijite rebels and the effective units of nomadic society. In the risings during the reigns of ‘Alī and Mu‘āwiya we are usually told the number of men involved, and it varies between thirty and five hundred, with an average of about two hundred. They did not retire to the desert, so far as we can judge, but merely withdrew to a safe distance from the towns of Iraq, and presumably kept themselves alive by raiding or by levying food from the countryside, until a government force suppressed them. Each little band presumably regarded itself as the core of the community of genuine Muslims, though not denying that there were genuine Muslims apart from the band. Most other men, however, were not genuine Muslims and therefore could be killed with impunity. Thus in various ways the little revolting bands were creating a form of life not unlike that of the divisions of a nomadic tribe. It was not exactly regression to desert conditions, for the basis of the Khārijite group was religion and not kinship. Yet it is significant that the Khārijites, like the nomads in earlier days, became noted for their skill as poets and orators; and, despite their Islamic faith, the sentiments expressed in their poems are close to those of the pagan nomads.
The second point to be noted is that, when one asks to which tribes the early Shī‘ites and Khārijites belonged, a definite difference is found. The difference is not absolute, for a great many tribes are mentioned on both sides; but what can be asserted is that (i) a significant proportion of the early Shī‘ites came from the tribes of South Arabia, and (2) the doctrinally important individuals and sects among the Khārijites (during the Umayyad period as a whole) were mainly from three northern tribes. Moreover, there does not seem to be anything in the history of the period from 622 to 656 to explain this difference of reaction. The northern tribes as a whole had been earlier in joining the Muslim raids into Iraq; but at least one tribe prominent among the Shī’ites had shared in the early raids. ‘Alī had been sent by Muḥammad to perform special duties in South Arabia, but there is no mention of his gaining the special affection of the people. Whether the environments from which the members of these tribes came had been deeply influenced by Judaism or Monophysite or Nestorian Christianity is a point that could be further investigated; but, even if some such influence can be proved, it does not look like giving the whole explanation.
The hypothesis to be put forward is that the difference in reaction is due to century-old traditions. The South Arabian tribes stood somehow within the tradition of the ancient civilization ofthat region, more than a thousand years old. In this civilization there had been divine or semi-divine kings. Even if the Arab tribesmen of the seventh century had not themselves lived under kings, they must unconsciously have been affected by the tradition, within which it had been usual in times of danger to rely on the superhuman leadership of the king. Because of this they in their time of crisis looked about for a leader of this type, and thought they had found one in ‘Alī. The members of the northern tribes had not been within the sphere of influence of the belief in divine kingship. On the contrary, the normal practice in the desert tribes was for all the adult males to be regarded as in certain respects equal; and there are traces of “democratic communities” of this kind far back in the pre-history of Iraq. Along with this practice of equality went a belief that outstanding excellence belonged to the tribe and the tribal stock, so that merely to have the blood of the tribe in one’s veins gave one a place of honour in the world. The Arabs of the time just before Muḥammad gave this belief a this-worldly interpretation; but in the crisis round about 656 it would not be surprising if the idea of a small community of genuine Muslims evoked a deep unconscious response from those who had lived in this “democratic” tradition. This at least is the view that is here propounded as a hypothesis.

Bibliography

The views expressed here are formulated with greater detail in my previous writings: “Shfism under the Umayyads”, Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society, 1960, 158–172; “Khārijite Thought in the Umayyad Period”, Der Islam, xxxvi (1961), 215–231; “The Conception of the Charismatic Community in Islam”, Numen, vii (1960), 77-90; Islam and the Integration of Society, 94-114. These are also relevant to the next two chapters.1
M. G. S. Hodgson, art. “‘Abd Allah b. Saba’” in EI2.

CHAPTER 2
THE KHĀRIJITES

MU’ĀWIYA reigned as universally recognized caliph from 661 to 680. His power rested chiefly on the army composed of the Arabs settled in Syria, and he made Damascus his capital. In the practice of the nomadic Arabs a chief was usually succeeded by the best qualified member of his family; primogeniture and even sonship gave no special rights. This gave little guidance in arranging for the succession to the caliphate. Mu’awiya tried to have his son Yazīd acknowledged as successor before his own death, but even so there were some who did not accept Yazīd. The opposition led to a catastrophic civil war when Yazid died in 683, leaving only a minor son.‘ Abd-Allāh ibn-az-Zubayr (or, more simply, Ibn-az-Zubayr), who had defied Yazid from Mecca, now gained control of much of Iraq as well as of the region of Mecca and Medina. There was widespread confusion, and vast tracts of the caliphate were under the effective control of neither the Umayyads nor Ibn-az-Zubayr. Under the leadership of a member of another branch of the family the Umayyads fought back; in 691 they completed the recovery of Iraq, and before the end of 692 extinguished the last flames of revolt in Mecca.
The expansion of the caliphate, which had continued under Mu’awiya but had been stopped by the civil war, was now resumed. In the east the Muslims extended their sway to Central Asia and north-west India; while in north Africa they pressed westwards into Morocco, and in 711 crossed the straits into Spain. To the north there were frequent expeditions against the Byzantines, but no permanent occupation of territory proved possible. The vastness of the territories ruled led to ever-increasing internal tensions, and the clumsy administrative machine lumbered along with creaks and groans. From about 730 or 735 it must have been clear to acute observers that the empire was slowly breaking up, and some of these observers attempted, by staging a revolt, to create an alternative government. None was successful, however, though they played a part in weakening the Umayyads, until eventually in 750 the armies of the ‘ Abbāsid movement from the east swept into Iraq, liquidated the Umayyad regime, and established the new dynasty of the‘ Abbāsids.
Two Khārijite movements which greatly stimulated theological development sprang up and grew to a considerable size during the civil war of Ibn-az-Zubayr. The first of these is the sub-sect of the AZRAQITES (Azāriqa), so named from their original leader, Nafī‘ ibn-al-Azraq. Some of the Khārijites from Basra had sympathized with Ibn-az-Zubayr (as an opponent of the Umayyads) and had given him active help. In time, however, they seem to have realized that, even if successful, he would not rule according to their ideas. When Basra went over to him in 684, the Azraqites took to the mountains eastwards. Though their leader was killed in the following year, they were able to increase and maintain their strength, so that for a time (about 691) they were a threat to Basra. After the ...

Table of contents