Abdulrahman Al-Salimi
al-Tafahom Journal, Sultanate of Oman
The Baghdadi physician and philosopher, Sa’d ibn Mansur (Izz Al-dawla) Ibn Kammuna (d. 1284), modeled a form of inter-religious scriptural inquiry that may have been even more radical than scriptural reasoning. But, like only a few like-minded spirits in this era, he did so against the weight of both Muslim and Jewish classical teaching. After setting the context for ibn Kammuna’s work in 12th to 14th century Muslim-Jewish diatribes, this essay introduces his efforts to transform diatribe into dialogue by illustrating and analyzing the central principles of his dialogic method.
1
When we think of the religious and theological debates that took place during the Islamic Middle Ages, a stereotypical picture comes to mind of a Muslim thinker wrangling with the People of the Book—the Jews and Christians—in an attempt to prove the superiority of the Islamic faith over other belief systems. To be frank, this image is not totally devoid of truth, as the combative character of the titles of books on that subject shows. The nature of the debate was essentially inspired by a desire for victory and triumph over the opponent; consider, for example, the title of the debate with the Jews, Badhl al-Majhud fi Ifhami ’l-Yahud (Striving to Silence the Jews through Argument), by Samaw’il al Maghrabi (b. Baghdad 1130, d. Maragha 1180) and Al-Intisarat al Islamiyyah fi Kashfi Shibhi ’l Nasraniyyah (The Islamic Victories in Exposing Quasi-Christianity) by Najm al-Din al Tawfi (1259-1316).
In regard to the activity of ‘scriptural reasoning’, some Islamic texts insist that it is totally unacceptable to attach any weight to the scriptures of ‘the People of the Book’ on the grounds that they are either corrupted or liable to mislead and promote apostasy. The majority Muslim view is that Muslims have their own Holy Book and, therefore, have no need for anybody else’s scriptures. This position is exemplified by Ibn Yafi’i’s (d. 1367) comment on the story of Ibn Yunis/son of Jonas, as it appears in the teachings of Jewish and Christian scriptures:
- I said: This is how [the story] appears, and it is well known that this kind of thing is haram (prohibited) and false, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the [correct] ruling is that it is unacceptable to teach books that are false and have been abrogated. Secondly, it amounts to cultivating friendship and consorting with the enemies of Allah, despite the fact that it is obligatory to shun and abhor them. And thirdly, it tempts [Muslims] to follow what is contained within them, and our imams have stated clearly that this is damaging
Those who prohibit the perusal of non-Muslim scriptures justify their position on three grounds: (1) that the scriptures are corrupted, (2), that examining them amounts to cultivating friendship with non-believers, and (3) that examining them tempts one to unbelief. However, the tradition also offers grounds for another, more moderate image: that of the Muslim thinkers whose aim was not so much “silencing through argument” as it was “understanding”nor “getting one’s point across,” and whose purpose was the “encouragement of studies” rather than the “achievement of victories.” They tried to take as objective a view as possible of different paths and belief systems, to the point that they actually explained and taught them to their own adherents. One prominent example was the Shafi’i scholar and jurist Kamal al-Din bin Yunis (1156-1242), of whom the historiographer Ibn Khallikan (d. 1211) wrote: “The People of the Dhimmah (the people under the protection of the Islamic state) used to read the Torah and the Gospels to him. And he would provide them with explanations of those books in such a way that they recognized that they could not find anyone else capable of giving them such a clear exposition.”
In his biography of Kamal al-Din bin Yunis, al Dhahabi (d.1348) wrote:
- Ibn Khallikan—who was one of his pupils—said, ‘Our sheikh was more conversant than anyone else with jurisprudence, the roots of doctrine and faith, comparative jurisprudence, logic, natural sciences, theology, astronomy, Euclidian geometry, physiognomy, arithmetic, algebra, surveying and music. And he taught in Arabic linguistic literature Sibawiyh’s Kitab (d. 796) and al Zamakhshari’s Mufassal (d. 1143). He was also well versed in exegesis, Hadith and the biographies of eminent men. Our shaykh Ibn al Salah used to praise him and extol him.’aIbn Khallikan also said that he—may Allah forgive him—was accused of being untrue to his faith since he laid particular emphasis on the intellectualsciences.
Considering the age in which he lived, this sheikh was indeed a rare phenomenon, spending much of his time teaching the Torah and the Gospels and attaching great importance to the intellectual sciences. That was why he was accused of being untrue to his faith, the fate of anyone who failed to embrace a triumphalist approach to inter-religious debate. Like al-Din bin Yunis, al Jassas (d. 980)—the “Sheikh of the Ascetics”—also “used to read the Qur’an, the Torah, the Gospels and the Psalms, and was able to expound them correctly.”
There were also theological discussion groups. If their attitudes to other faiths lacked objectivity, they did at least invite followers of other schools and sects to expound their beliefs and defend them. Baghdad in the 10th-11th centuries offered an ideal forum for people to discuss their beliefs in an objective manner. In his biography of Abu ‘Umar Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa’adi, the author of Jadhwat al-Muqtabis (Firebrand for the Seeker of Illumination) reports the following:
I heard Abu Abd Allah Muhammad bin al Faraj b. ‘Abd Allah, al-Wali al Ansari, say: ‘One day I heard Abu Muhammad bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Zayd ask Abu ‘Umar Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa’adi al Maliki when he arrived in Al Qayrawan from the Eastern Lands (Abu ‘Umar had gone to Baghdad during the lifetime of Abu Bakr Muhammad bin ‘Abd Allah bin Salih al Abhari): “Did you attend the gatherings of the theologians?” He replied: “Yes, I attended them twice. Then I left their gatherings and did not return to them.” Abu Muhammad said to him: “Why?” He replied: “I found that the first gathering I attended had brought together all the groups —Muslims, both Sunnis and heretics, unbelievers including Magians, atheists, infidels, Jews, Christians and all other varieties of unbelievers. Each group had a leader who spoke and debated on behalf of his sect. And if the leader of any group entered, everybody stood up and remained standing until he had sat down, after which they would resume their seats. When the place was full and they saw that they were not waiting for anyone else to turn up, one of the unbelievers said: ‘You are now gathered together for the debate, and the Muslims will not be arguing against us on the basis of their Book or the words of their Prophet, since we do not believe in it or endorse it. Rather, our debate will rely upon intellectual arguments and such as can be sustained by rational opinion and analogy.’YThey replied ‘Yes. We grant you that.’”eAbu ‘Umar said: “So when I heard that, I did not return to that gathering. Then it was suggested that I should attend another theological gathering, so I went to it and found it was the same as the [first one]. So I abandoned the theologians’bgatherings and did not return to them.”
‘Then Abu Muhammad b. Abi Zayd said: “And did the Muslims accept this conduct and speech?” Abu ‘Umar replied: “That is what I saw from them.”
‘Abu Muhammad was amazed when he heard this and said: “The scholars and Islam’s inviolability and rights are no more. How can Muslims condone a debate between Muslims and unbelievers? It is not acceptable to do this even with heretics who are Muslims and affirm the truth of Islam. By Muhammad, peace be upon him, a person who embraces heresy and claims to be a Muslim should be called upon to return to the Sunnah wa ’l-Jama’ah (orthodox Islam). If he returns to it, he should be accepted, and if he refuses, his head should be struck off. As for the unbelievers, they should be invited to embrace Islam. If they accept, they should be left alone, while if they refuse but pay the jizyah (tax payable by non-Muslims) in an acceptable form, they should be left alone and accepted. However, that they should debate on the understanding that the argument should not be based on our book or our Prophet…that is unacceptable, for ‘surely we belong to Allah and to Him shall we return.’