Did the Salaf Reject Rational Kalam Arguments in Establishing Belief?

Answered by Shaykh Abdul-Rahim Reasat

Question

I was listening to a contemporary Isma‘ili philosopher engaging in debate with a Salafi debater, and he quoted statements of Hanbali scholars, including Imam Ahmad, which suggested that using logical methods in establishing religious doctrines was rejected. This caused me to be filled with doubt that the Salaf may have rejected logical Kalam arguments, since I have a fondness for the beautiful and simple logical arguments we have in our tradition.

Answer

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful.

All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all beings, and may peace and blessings be upon our master Muhammad.

I pray you are well.

Yes, many of the scholars, such as Imam Shafi‘i, Imam Abu Yusuf, and others, disliked people engaging in ‘Ilm al-Kalam. A number of scholars, such as Imam Suyuti, Imam Nawawi, and Imam Ibn al-Salah, supported this view. This was because of a number of reasons, one of which was the use of logic. Many early logic texts translated from Greek mixed aspects of idolatry and incorrect beliefs into their explanations of syllogisms. Muslim scholars later addressed this by refining these works and removing the problematic content.

Others said they were impermissible because of the effect they had on those who studied them. The science usually leads to argumentation. Imam Ghazali said it should be used like medicine, only when required and in the right amount. [Ghazali, al-Iqtisad fi’l-I‘tiqad] Please read this answer for more details.

A number of these arguments were listed and summarized by Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari, including Imam Ghazali’s discussion on the matter from his Ihya’ Ulum al-Din. The summary is that the science has praiseworthy aspects and should be studied and taught appropriately. There is also a recognition of it being potentially detrimental and harmful, and those elements should be avoided. [Qari, Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar]

Focus on What Benefits You

Listening to this kind of debate is likely to be detrimental. Philosophical and polemical debates of this kind do little good. They may satisfy some intellectual curiosity, but they’re likely to spark doubts and questions that needlessly drain one’s energy.

Our goal here is to please Allah and to become people who Allah and His Messenger love. Arguing, debating, and delving into such matters may seem religious and intellectually stimulating, but they usually don’t enhance one’s faith. As for the communal obligation element, scholars are trained to handle it, and you would be better off focusing on practical matters that bring you closer to Allah and help you achieve salvation in the afterlife.

In the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace): “Be keen for that which benefits you.” [Muslim]

Shaykh Abdul-Rahim Reasat

Related Answers

One. Was Imam Ghazali against the Science of Kalam (Islamic Theology)? — Shaykh Dr. Muhammad Abu Bakr Badhib: Ghazali’s warnings against kalam concern laypeople; for scholars it is a communal obligation.

Two. Is It Obligatory to Believe in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? — Shaykh Faraz Rabbani: Detailed rational proofs are a communal obligation; no single argument is a personal duty.

Three. Is Rational Inquiry (Nazar) Obligatory, and Is the Faith of the Simple Believer Sound? — Shaykh Faraz Rabbani: The early generations did not all engage in formal kalam, and their faith was sound.

Four. What Does Ash’ari Creed Say about the Proof of God’s Existence? — Shaykh Abdul-Rahim Reasat: The Ash‘ari rational proof of God’s existence (video).