& ANALYSIS

A TRANSLATION
OF
tABD AL-JABBAR'S

CRITIQUE

OF
TRINITARIAN

AND CHRISTOLOGICAL
DOCTRINES
BY
ABDUL

RASHID

Presented

Ph. D. Thesis
in the Department
of Islamic
Middle Eastern Studies
Faculty of Art,
University
of Edinburgh
September

1986

and

Table of Contents
Page No:

Declaration
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Textual
Transliteration,
Abbreviations.

Introduction
Part one
Part two

11
111
iv

Notes

and

An Annotated

1
18
95

Translation

Chapter

Commentary
on the Christian
'Abd
Doctrines
al-Jabbr
alluded%y
in the translation
of al-Mughni.

96

Chapter

II

14
Muslim and Christian
views of,
Meaning of Jawhar and A.. ganim.

110

Chapter

III

The Sift
Theology.

and Christian

115

Chapter

IV

'Abd
A Comparative
Analysis of
Critique
al-Jabb r
of Trinitarian
Doctrines.

128

Chapter

The Theology

141

Chapter

VI

A Comparative
al-Jabbr'Critique
Doctrines.

Conclusion
Appendix

Recent

in Islamic

Studies

of Incarnation.
fAbd
Analysis of
of Christological

on

'Abd

al-Jabbr

164

and his

18Z
184

work.

Bibliography

188

11

DECLARATION

thesis is the result

that the following
and was composed entirely by myself.

I declare

-0

&j

ASHID

of my own research

work

iii

Abstract
"Abd

doctrine

of

'Abd
It starts with an introduction
account of
a biographical
containing
'Abd
by
Christian
Jabbr and his works, a survey of
sects mentioned
'Abd
before
literature
Christian
Jabbr in his al-Mughni
and Muslim
Jabbar which is available.

alalal-

The study is based on

God with special reference

Part
Christianity

understanding
al-Jabbr's
Vol. V.
to his al-Mughni,

I of the thesis is an annotated

in al-Mughni,
Vol. V, PP. 80-151.

Part II is concerned
with
and Christological
of Trinitarian

an exposition
doctrine.

Christian
of

translation

of

the

Abd
al-Jabbr's
of

on

treatment

described
doctrine
from Christian
and

Christian
Chapter I presents a commentary
the
on
by 'Abd al-Jabbar
together
about them
with evidence
Muslim sources.
Chapter U is devoted to Muslim-Christian
views
(hypostasis)
(substance)
two terms jawhar
and aaanim
essence of God.

section

about the meaning of

the
when describing

(attributes
God)
it
In Chapter III, there is a comparative
of
study of sif
in the light of Christian
and Muslim theology and how the use of the term
the whole debate.
sifdt affected
Chapter N discusses and analyses '(Abd al-Jabbr's
of Trinitacriticism
them in the light
toward
and his approach
of Christian
rian doctrines
literature
in Arabic and Muslim sources.
written
Chapter V provides
on as it was presented by
Christian
heresies in the
finally
and
an expression
Muslim environment.

a description
and explanation
of union of incarnati
early Church Fathers, the nature of that union and
eastern church, such as Nestorians
and Jacobites
presented by Christian
scholars who lived within a

Critique
Chapter VI discusses 'Abd al-Jabbr's
Doctrof Christological
literature
ine and their analysis in the light of Christian
in Arabic and other
Muslim sources.
The
study.

thesis

finishes

with

a conclusion,

summarising

the

result

of the

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express

first

introduced

I am

possible.

also

for their

department

who helped

I am indebted

the embassy

facilities

best wishes and moral

assistance

in continuing

support,

secretary

education

attachi,
in

officer

this research.

University

Bahouralpur

authorities

Dr. Qibla

Ayz

(Peshawar)

for their
who was

down in Edinburgh.

of University

in particular.

to Mr Akhtar

thesis and Mrs J. Porteous

time

education

library

I owe a special

in general

and inter

debt to the departmental

Miss I. Crawford.

I am also grateful

Finally,

for

of Pakistan

here in UK and in Pakistan

especially

are also due to all staff

loan section

library

this

my studies.

kind enough to help me in settling

My thanks

former

and Mr Syed M. Salim,

debt to all my friends

I also owe great

of

staff

Egypt.

in London

to pursue

thesis

also to Dz M. F. al-

Government

Nizmni,

to Islamia

this

abroad.

education

Khan

my thanks

also extend

for providing

'All

time

teaching

of

who

precious

make

work

My thanks

of Education,

for higher

to Mr Murd

members

some books from

me to provide

for their

all

in this

and assistance.

guidance

of Pakistan

embassy

to

his

devoted

and

and keen interest

grateful

me a scholarship

granting

al-Jabbr

to the Ministry

I am also grateful

I would

to

His knowledge

generously.

Shayyl

me

my gratitude
'Abd

Dz L K. A. Howard,

to my supervisor

I must

thank

who is waiting

'Ali

for typing

my wife

patiently

who made arrangements

of typing

the

the manuscript.

and children

back home.

who stayed

with

me for

a long

Transliteration
The system of transliteration
Service,
Congress, Cataloguing
Textual

used
Bulletin

in

this thesis is that

1958.
49, November

of

U. S. Library

of

Notes

All Biblical
quotations
London 1952.

are

All QuAnic
are
quotations
from,
The Koran interpreted"

from

the

standard

revised

version

from Egyptian
version,
standard
(OUP) 1964.
by A. J. Arberry

Abbreviations
E. I1

E. I1

E. I(S)
E. R. E
N. D. C. T
J. A. O. S
M. W
B. J. R. L

First

Encyclopedia
of Islam,
Leiden, 1913-1938.

Encyclopedia
of Islam, New edition
Leiden and London, 1960 continuing.

Supplement

Encyclopedia

-A

of Encyclopedia
of Religion

New Dictionary

Journal

of American

Muslim

World.

Bulletin

edition

of Islam.

and Ethics.

of Christian
Oriental

of John Ryland

Library.

Theology.
Society.

of

the

Bible,

and translation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose

of this

understand

and methodology

structure

of a non-Islamic
Christian

This

the

means

Christianity,

on

literature

polemical
time

This thesis

of

a summary
discussions

will

4Abd

vol. V which

will

1.

2.

up to

later

a comparison

with

as generally

to

up

of his

presented

dealt

with,

is devoted

life

Muslim-Christian

earlier

and
there

be

will

fi Abwb

in al-Mughni

and work and

an

annotated

al-'Adl

wa al-

faiths.

for non Islamic

'Abd
al-Jabbr
of

of his life

Mu'tazilite

born.

writers
But

b. 4Abd al-Jabbr

b. Ahmad

usually

most

traces

and

refer

to him

consider

by honorific

preceded

it

as Qdi.
as the

Mustaf al-Sdiq

this name back to Hamdn,

b. Ahmad

introduction

a Yemeni

tribe.

the details
'Abd

where

b. Khalil

b.

Qdi al-Qudt.

title

As regards

region

in the

of al-

al-Jabbr

to part

XIV

was
of

al-

iallifin,
Kahhla,
Mu jam
Vol. V, P. 78, Ibn al-Amid,
Shadhrt,
al-Mu
Vol. III, PP. 202-3, Ibn Murtad, Ta_bagt al-Mu'tazila,
PP. 112 Encyclopedia
(New
Islam,
I,
59
Vol.
PP.
edition).
of
_60
4iyya,
Subki, Ta bagat al-Shafi
Vol. III, PP. 219-220, Zarkaly,
al-A'lm,

-6
Vol. III, P. M.

3.

century

sects,

on Christianity

Ab al-Hasan
al-Jabkiar
1
'Abd-Allh
frequently
al-Hamadni,

Mughni,

and Muslims
even

and

al-Jabbir's
and

{Abd al-Jabbr's
discuss
also

al-Jabbr

Abd

probably

Christians

the doctrine

with

doctrines

of the section

summary

Hamadn,

by both

Christian

apologetic

general

be
concerned
also

Background

The

the

of

eleventh

doctrine

which

Christian

which

translation

Brief

to

of

scholars.

this introduction

Tawhid,

is made to understand

Abd

Arabic

framework

i. e.,

of the Christian

by Christian

present

was produced

al-Jabbr,

century.

understanding

After

an attempt
within

which

'Abd

of

thirteenth

that

the reference

through

study

their

in

writing

especially

his general

the refutation

towards

approach

It is a comparative

religion.

scholars,

doctrine.
section

intellectual
his
and

to

was able

determine
to
and

doctrines

and Christological

Trinitarian

how

is to demonstrate

study

Abd al-Jabbr

Peters,

God's Created

Speech, P. 8.

have

biographers

Some

of

name;

this may be his birth

the

His biographers

place,

of birth.

his date

It is stated

and 4166/1023-5.

The year

to his

death
his
of

is

a long life

of

he had lived

that

320

between
back
to
goes

his birth

that

so one can conclude

years,

about ninety

Abdi4
al-Asad
5
are a number of variations.

but there

are not sure about

as 414,415

given

added

(lagab)

title

the

and 330/932-941.

After

studies

elementary

studies

Qazwin

the circles

to join

he went

with

famous

Mu'tazilite

to Baghdad

369/969),

another

According

to Ibn Murtad,

something

about

and he himself

Ab Hshim

master

he became
pupils

Mutazilites.

There

in southern

he started

360/970

Persia,

to dictate

(d.
10

him

to teach

he must stay as Shfi'i

that

suggested

al-Basri

him in his house.

with
AAbd-Allah
Ab

when asked his master

town

Afterward

4Abd-Allah
of Ab

and even stayed

law, his teacher

l l
In about
as Hanafi.

a small

of the

teaching

(d. 320/932).

al-Jubbli

a disciple

Hanafi

Rmhurmuz,

theological

the Mu'tazilite

scholar,

Ab Hshim's

he

he
For
studied
a
while
circle.
'Ayysh
(d. "" 9o), the pupil
Ab Ishq Ibrahim b.

to join

where

visited

340/951,

of the

by the

influenced

he became

He also

In about

there.?

traditionists
he became

where

of Basrian

and successor
he went

to Basra,

and decided

Mu1tazilites

in Baghdad.

and later

follower
a
where
8
in
jurisprudence.
Shafi'ite
and

school of the Ash1arites

Later

famous
of

and Isfahan,

to Hamadan

went

in Basra

first

his theological

to Iraq, where he continued

he went

in his home town,

he left

Baghdad

to

in

stay

to be many

where

there

seemed

his famous

book

of twenty

volumes,

i. e. al-Mughni.

(about
In the meantime
'Abbd,
(d. 385/990)
b.
opportunity
himself

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

of teaching

learned
was a

362/972-3)
invited
Mu'tazilite

him

the Chief
to

come

theology

man and influenced

Minister
to

of Buwayhid
Rayy

and religious
4Abd
by
al-Jabbr's

and
law.

ruler,

gave

him

Sahib
the

Shib b. 'Abbd

ability

and talent.

Asad Abd is a city, very near to Hamadn, popula-L.ed by Asad b. dhi al(Yqt, Mu5am al-Buldn, Vol. I, P. 25.
Sarw al-Himyari.
(Uthmn,
Qdi al-Qudt,
K.
P. 11.
A.
Ibn Murtad, Ta,bagt, P. M.
Uthmn,
Qdi al-Qudt,
PP. 55-57.
A. K.
Ibn Murtad, Taba t, P. 112, Subki, Tabagt al-Shfiliyya,
Vol. III, P. 220.
Khatib Baghda i, Trikh Baghdad, Vol. II, P. 113.
Ibn Murtad, Ta,bagt, P. M.
Ibid., P. M.

'Abbd
In about 365/975 Shib b.
appointed
for

The holder

Rayy.

Zanj in and Jurjn

of

It seems that
'Abbd.
b.
Sihib

tAbd al-Jabbr

who

authorities

the post of Qdi al-Qudt

held

al-Jabbr

In 385/990,

to

come

Qazwin,

He

until

of

the post by anti-

the

spent

his death

the death

until

leave
to
asked
was

power.

and teaching

on studies

concentrating

of

was chief

post

in Rayy,

all judges

and Tabaristn.

'Abd

Mu'tazilite

this

of Qdi al-Qudt

him to the office

life

of his

rest

in 414,415

in Rayy

or

416/1023-25.12

'Abd al-Jabbr's

During

theoretically

were

No doubt
outstanding

in which

scientific,

scholarly

of Ikhwn

epistles

his bibliography
famous

1050).

Ash'arite

of

school

Mu'tazilites

Watt

in his

1023),

by

as Ibn Nadim

period

historian

the

(d.

al-Mufid

1022)

has been

of

philosopher
(d.

(d. lezi)

as head

of

(d. 1058) theological

as

Shi'ites.
work

of

as the leader

of

(d. 1037).

the Islamic

throughout

arranged

It was the time

Ab-u Ishq al-Isfrlini

of al-Mwardi

and

The encyclopedic

(d. 1035) and al-Birni

Ibn al-Haytham

and Shaykh

lifetime,

can be characterised

about 988 AD.

(d.

al-Tawhidi

famous
was

himself

was

century

(d. 1013) and Abd al-Qi hir al-Baghdadi

al-Jabbar

original

state

by his

credited

amazing

and

productivity.

expressed

his view

about

there were
of the Mu'tazilites
13
4Abd
"
the Qdi
al-Jabbr.

During

his lifetime

active

intellectually,

12.
13.

in Baghdad

writings

world

regime

achievements.

in tenth

we see in this

that

was also political

al-B-agillni

the

and literary

scientist

of Islamic

parts

the Buwayhid

lived

al-Jabbr

There

1Abd

with

the

in fact

while

were written

Hayyn

Abi

(d. 1030),

Along

head

al-Saf

and eastern

state.

4Abd

of the knowledge

essayist

Miskawayh

rule,

areas of the Islamic

period

the

the central

Abbasid

under

large

controlled

lifetime,

4Abd

him

and said, "Even in the period

still

first
some

al-Jabbar

and his work

composed
virtually

class

mind

numerous

covered

among

writings.

them

notably

He was very

most of the different

Subki, Tabagt al-Shfifiyya,

Vol. III, P. ZZO, Ibn Murtad,
Watt, Formative
Period of Islamic Thought, P. 303.

of the decline

Ta_bagt,

kinds

P. 112.

of Islamic

Ibn Murtad

sciences.

the work composed

14
A. K. Uthmn
paper.

of his works
his lifetime

during
many

questions
l6

Egypt.

with

the subject

of al-Mughni,
wrote

he argued

and the refutation

of Imama.

In his famous
al-Jabbr

important
and

When it was first

discovered

information
of
to present

attempt

book

detailed
describing
there

that
the

about

a book

by

tAbd al-Jabbr,

five

famous

al-Jabbar
of

refutation

'Abd

about

'.,

through

of fact,

in great

an enthusiasm

ideas,

detail.

among the

but also it is an
In his Sharh

manner.

to write
Hajji

that

Hajji

al

in detail.

a separate

of Christianity,
seems

of

does not lie in the great

was able

It

He also

wa al -Adl,

of Mu'tazilites

the refutation

al-Jabbr.

al-Tawhid

principles

Christianity.

work

Khalifa,

and
while

reported

that

Khalifa

was

is a chapter about the Christians

in his
In the same way A. K. 4Uthmn mentioned
such book in the list of

As a matter

books.

t-1R

the Mu'tazilite

in a comprehensive

Abd

the books written

was

confused.
three

sure

it created
of the work

about

doctrine

their

he has discussed

usl al-Khamsa,

We are not

it contains

concerned

the refutation

of the MuFtazilites

and published,

The importance

Islamists of this century.

amount

the doctrine

sects like

to

and even

are remarkable.

fi Abwb

al-Mughni

work,

has presented

against
17

other

Iraq

the famous

among them

al-Khamsa

known

answers

contained

are directly

twelve

sheets of
l5
nine.

well

was very

in Persia,

places

(kalm),

al-Usl

many books in which

al-Lum',

1Abd

and Sharh

al-Muhit

many

theology

of speculative

His works

by al-H-Kim,

mentioned

to be sixty

1Abd al-Jabbr

world.

from

sent

were

of 400,000

came to a total

that

the Islamic

through

books

Of the numerous

the fact

that he had heard

as saying

the list of his works

has described

reflects

which

records

iAbd
by
al-Jabbr

that

The list

Aiim
al-H.

there

the reference

of Hajji

Khalifa

and Ibn Taymiyya.

That

is

14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

Ibn Murtad, Ta,bagt, P. M.

'Uthmn,
K.
Qdi al-Qucit, PP. 57-7
A.
like
The
treatises
al-Tarmiyyt,
al-Khaw. rizmiyyt,
al-Ashariyyt,
do indicate
that
those
al-Kwfiyyat
and al-Misriyyt
al-Qshniyyt,
in
as
answer
written
response to the enquiries sent from these cities.
were
tthmn
listed
by
K.
in his Qj4i alA.
All these are
PP-66-69.
A. K. Uthman, Qdi al-Qudat,
P. 71.
Kashf al-Zuwnlin,
Hajji Khalifa,
Vol. I, P. 338.

totally

19

wrong.

.,

In the volume V of al-M=,

the Unity

not accept

It is noteworthy

much

doctrine.

Christianity
monothestic

By including

part

religion,

he shows that he regards

2. In his Sharh al-Usl

he has endeavoured

thesis.

al-Khamsa,

to refute

what

3.

fi al-Muhit

A1-Majm'

Christianity.
21
books.

4.

Finally,

Tathbit

different

quite
books,

bi-al-Taklif,

Its contents

in style

Tathbit's

Nubuwa

have been subject

notably

to much
22
Stern and Pines.

Christian

Doctrines

In his al-Mughni
have

been

Christianity.

19.

20.
21.
22.

study

He

and debate

much

section

modern

about

mentioned

in two

and Apocryphal
among

discussion

shorter

to his three

to the

regard

to above

similar

of God),

volumes

above

is

mentioned

Gospels.
Western

These
scholars

and Sects

Vol. V, while

concerned

Contrary

seem to be scriptural

with

Muhammad,

Sayyidin

and arguments.

sources

are very

on

as a non-

(Unity

a very small

also contains

and arguments

DalVil

believe

in a very

of Christ in the Godhead

2
than the one in al-Mughni.

section

as polythism.

the tawhid

the Christians

and Union

Trinity

this

of

is

chapter

Christianity

the Trinity

discussing

while

and their

religions

translation

annotated

religions.

The longest

Christianity.

is main

this

different

and analysing

The

of

to non-monathist

reference

toward

attention

do
the
of
opponents who
P

the doctrines

special

criticising

while

Christian

the

about

of God, with

that

he paid

doctrines,

he refutes

with

the

specifically

the Christians,

discussing
doctrines
mentions

of three
them

4(Abd al-Jabbr

main
by

sects

names

of
as

the
the

seems to
oriental
Melkites,

'Abd
knew
through the reference
No doubt that Ibn Taymiyya
al-Jabbr
of
'Abd
book
his books, but he did not mention
of
al-Jabbr
any
about the
'ala
Christians.
his
In
he
al-Radd
of the
al-Mantigiyyin,
refutation
Greek
described
logic
the books of early
scholars
who refuted
and
4Abd
Here
he
mentioned
al-Jabbr
without
philosophy.
naming his book
about Christianity.
Kitb al-Radd 'al al-Mantigiyyin,
Ibn Taymiyya,
P. 142.
'4Abd al-Jabbr,
Sharti al-Usl al-Khamsa,
PP. 291-8.
Fi al-Muh-it, Vol. 1, PP. 222-225.
Idem, Al-Majm`
For further study see the Appendix.

Nestorians

and Jacobites.

occasions.

In addition

sect

he

which

He does,

however,

he described a doctrine
23
have
Walyniyya,
which

to that,

named

to the Maronites

also refer

Christian

of an obscure
been

on

identified

as

the

Julianists.

in his al-Mughni,

five

On the
sects are described.
Z4
i.
in
hand,
his
he
Sharh,
two
and
e., the Nestorians
other
only
sects
mentioned
25
fi
Christians
in
his
he
Jacobites,
the
al-Muhit,
and
al-Majm'
criticised
Consequently,

without

any sect.

naming
famous

the three

them a1-Taw'if

As far as his Tathbit

sects i. e., Melkites,

three

al-thalathaZ6

Abd al-Jabbr's
Church,

from

separated

main

doctrine

order

to understand

some

idea

of God,

in 431 AD,
Z8

'Abd

i. e. Trinity,

his criticism

fifth
and

in the eastern
of

by

divinity

in

to

his

it will

that

separated

history

the

Jacobites

discussion,

and the nature

the reference

with

in his Tathbit

the

while

al-Jabbr

and arguments,

doctrines

according

he called

where

the Jacobites

because

only

of oriental

of
were

is

of Christ.

be necessary

and

the
In

to present

sects

on the

the area concerned.

within

doctrine

to

referred

of Christian

The fourth

in 451 AD.

the orthodox

problem

Christian

subject

is incorrect,
C'
was declared heretic

he mentioned

and Jacobites,

First

sects.

reporting

Nestorians

is concerned,

He also claimed

groups.

of these Christian
27
them the Nestorians.

after

Nestorians

is the origin

Rome

The

Vol. V, these

were famous

centuries

churches.
Trinity)

These were,

and how

for prolonged

controversies,

how the Son of God was Himself

Christ

was both

man

(the
God
and

mainly
God (the

doctrine

of

person of Christ).

Numerous

councils

Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon

of

eastern

biblical

Christianity.

origins

(325) Constantinople

of bishops were held as in Nicaea

were

(451).

Their

Concerning
made

key

words

decisions

these

were rejected

councils,

in authoritative

23.
24.
25.
26.

`Abd al-Jabbr,
Vol. V, P. 146.
al-Mughni,
Shark, PP. 291-298.
fi al-Muhit,
Al-Maimal
Vol. I, PP. 222-25.
Tathbit,
Vol. I, P. 91.

27.
28.

Ibid., P. 164.
John Henry Blunt, Dictionary

technical

(381)

in some parts
terms

statements

of Sects, Heresies, P. 347 and 332.

6

without
of

belief.

Their

led the Latin-speaking

use, sometimes

misunderstandings
disputes

and

contributed

As far as the orthodox

Christ

was a single

Christ

and his human

person

but in their

Christians,

It can be said, that

God while
by

possess

faith

simple

Arius

they

(d. 336) first

to the

never

had to met

of
the

of

generations

earlier

these philosophical

or

any

right

wisdom,

perfect

the

of

goodness

from

different

the Father

that

of all claimed

the Son was essentially

nature

sovereignty,

unknown

deity
the
of

difficulties.

and theological

really

were

nature

the incarnate

that

The doctrine

at once God and man.

these

world.

they believed

is concerned,

doctrine

east to

Consequently

another.

in the Christian

discussion

to major

west
one

misrepresenting

Greek-speaking
and

divine

He did not

his father.
of

qualities
The Father

and purity.

alone was

immortality,
him

produced

as

God,
Father
in
being
did
the
he
the
and
of
a creature.
not share
29
Nor can he be called the true and natural Son of
did not know Him perfectly.
30
God, at best, he is the adopted Son.
Nevertheless

through
true

the ages has served

faith

Council

was the first

Creed

The Nicene

its

produced

On the other
principle
However

of

postulate

his doctrine

minimizing

Constantinople

was condemned

and

It was held to defend

by his own word.

The

stressing

the

statement

death

redeeming

the divinity
the human

are one and the

31
It
and Resurrection.

than the Father.

the human

polemic.

used by the Monophysites.

that

at the Council

if God in Christ

Councils and Creeds, P. 154.

Z9.

D. F. Wright,

30.
31.
32.

Encyclopedia,
Vol. X, P. 431.
The New Catholic
Ibid., P. 437.
Encyclopedia,
Vol. I, P. 666.
New Catholic

Arian

The

accepted
of the Word, he actually
32
in
Christ.
He maintained
nature

in east and west and conclusively

the argument

in
Christ.
soul

of his anti

as a result

as were afterwards

in 381, through

Church

is the Son and the Father

arose

to defend

this by the same argument

This heresy

is a Trinitarian

(d. 390) denied

Apollinarius

in attempting

the Arian

was condemned

the Son was no less divine

hand,

thesis

that

own creed,

his incarnation,

same in substance),
that

In it, Arius

the Son (that

of

consubstantiality

was decided

as a sign of the orthodoxy.

Arianism.

against

of the Christian

definition

dogmatic

had not

of
laid

hold

full

of

humanity,

incarnation

then

seem like

saved.

man was not

humanity

of God and Christ's

a mere appearance

had made

Appollinarius

the

was not

real.

The

theology

of

to that

opposed

the

early

with

clashed

Christ.

of the incarnate

nature

Antiochene

Alexandrian

the
33

Antioch

of

to

tendency

as

considered

was

of Christ.

the humanity

it emphasized

because

of Alexandria,

it

Consequently

Church

Christian

divine

the

stress

was one of the representatives

Nestorius

of

theology.

Nestorians

Nestorius

II in 4Z8.
the

be called

rather

and it was impossible

On the other

Christ

nature
nature

(ousia)

the human

nature

While

distinguishing

He would

not

voluntary

union.

be called
Hypostatic

applying
(hypostasis).

Nestorius

Nestorius

the natures,

was

Union.

of

the

33.

Dictionary
Oxford
of the
Vol. I, P. 625.
Encyclopedia,

34.

Ibid., Vol. X, P. 348.

35.

J. H. Blunt,

Dictionary

and Nestorius

city

to attribute

to the

denial

Christian

of

union.

the unique

was declared
what

P. 368.

of a conjunction,

and clearly

In 431 AD. Collestine,

Church,

of sects Heresies,
8

to

their

affirmed

still

two

the

of the Gospel.

Christ
Jesus
one

in terms
35

Nestorius

but
he
spoke
sons,

to reduce

unable

held a synod in that

heresy

of two

between

of Christ.

acts and suffering

to speak

human

the

the distinction

refused

in the

a nature

between

precisely

in his Christology

between

consent

undifferentiated
of Rome,

and distinguished

nature,

and person

divine

against

"two
spoke of

and never

But he defined

as a man.

simply

or substance,

and the divine

However,

of Christ

hand, he did not deny the deity

ousia

by preaching

debate

a new theological

God should be born of woman.

that

Sons" nor he considered

sense of

by Theodorius

Mary,
God,
to
she
claiming
virgin
given
or mother of
34
Mary
Christ.
He
that
was a woman,
argued
mother of

"Theotokos"

title

would

introduced

Nestorius

He was a famous

of the Nestorians.

made bishop of Constantinople

being

before

at Antioch,

preacher

founder

to be the

is claimed

is called

PP. 65-66.,

bishop

heretic.
a
in

It can

theology

New

the

Catholic

his exile

After

"The

title

asserted

that

F. Loofs,

he persistently

declared

In rejecting
that

maintains

are two

the

1910 by

Bethune-Baker

that

'two

persons'

he said,

the theory

there

under
in

and published

his book thoroughly,

of Nestorius.

was not the teaching

in the

substances,

one

"37
God.
is
Word
Son
the
one
and
of
who

Christ,

and justified

He also argued

all who believe

against

In other

words

together,

things

(substances)

However,

Godhead

whether

or

the

not

the fact,

doctrine

of those

be concluded

Nestorius

in himself

their

originated

the two distinct

(natures)

it

Nestorius,

called

Nestorians,

and they

divided,

as to

the

who were

persons

characteristics

with

clearly
believed

his doctrine.

that

opinions

are

far
it was heretical.
how
was and

really

be brought

of two distinct

did not think

Nestorius

fairly

equally
38

was in two natures.

though

they were following

can

Christ

might

and manhood with

39
united in him.

the doctrine

became

the charge

but of a single person who combined

and intact

complete

that

that

one can say that

joined

It

was translated

historians

who has studied

Bethune-Baker

in Syriac

surmises

which

such as A. Harnack,
36
he was not necessarily
a Nestorian.

Some modern

that

It

of Heraclides".

Barzar

Bedjan.

"Though

his apology

in 431, he wrote

that he repeatedly

to speak of conjunction

doctrine

of

But one must not overlook

the oneness of Christ,

affirmed

rather

what

though

he preferred

than of union.

Melkites:

described

Abd

al-Jabbr

king,

and sometimes

Malk)iyya
Milkiyya,

which
from

Ibid., P. 3lo.
Bethune-Baker,
Ibid., P. 84.

39.

Ibid., P. 87.

as Malakiyya,

incorrect.

is

member

Al-Shahristni

as al-MalWiyya.

which

36.
37.
38.

them

40

Whereas

the
41

"Melchite"

is derived.

Nestorians

and his teaching,

of the religion

also mentioned

normal

form

of the
them

is Malakiyya

as
or

P. 83.

_
Vol. V, P. 81, P. 13
al-Mughni,

40.4Abd
al-Jabbr,
A Muslim
Watt,
41.
Vol. VI, P. 67.9

account

of

Christian

doctrine,

Hamdard

Islamicus,

According
Arabic

both

malik,

of Syria

accepted

the decision

was adopted
p

wu

ka

The Council

of Chalcedon

of the incarnation,

Father

The term

Syriac

malaka

or

to the

was applied

a formula

and consubstantial

of faith
God

perfect
with

man,

division

or separation

and without

suppress

the difference

in natures,

It

of the dogma

in the history

and

man,

consubstantial

one sole

being

in two

however,

their

without

natures

remain

properties
45

the

with

does not

The union

or change.

confusion

The

and approved.

was prepared

in one person or hypostasis.

together

and Egypt.

Palestine

name for the Orthodox.

a culmination

represented

Christ,

one

and they joined

comes

in Syria,

rite

as the ordinary

because

defined

Council

of the Byzantine

d w,
ly

jC'

from

Monophystism
Nestorianism
and
and
who rejected
43
The term applied also to
of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

by the Jacobites
,

word Melchite
42
or emperor.

and Egypt

Catholic

speaking

king

meaning

Christian

Arabic

the

to some scholars,

untouched

Jacobites:

The Jacobites

are the representatives

Monophysites

The

condemnation
Chalcedon.

of

heresy

maintained

that

in the incarnation

nature
that

the glorified

held

that

the

is wholly

natures

were

orthodox
in

the

the union

in the ultimate

resulted

saviour

two

the

Eutychian

the

Eutyches

of monophysitism

from

separated

in the Syrian

and only

so united,

eastern
year

that

by

of Christ's

while

although

the

divine

extinction

Divine,

upon

the

Council

of

church

451

church.

and human

of the latter,
the

so

Monophysites

the 'one Christ'

was

became
by their union only one
divine,
human
His
two
natures
and partly
partly
46
divinity
The
According
to them Christ's
absorbed the humanity.
nature.
leaders

of theological

Mongus,
appears

Peter
after

the

thought
Fuller

the Monophysite

Jacob

Baradeus

offered

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.

a life

and Jacob

Baradeus.

from the Jacob

47
Church.

575 AD comes

within

in Monophysite

the Monophysites

among

(d. 587) was brought

theology
of luxury

as a helper

Baradeus

and Syriac

of Empress

Peter

title

Jacobites,

which

who organized

where

literature.

Theodores,

Encyclopedia,
New Catholic
Vol. IX, P. 627.
Church, P. 647.
Dictionary
of Christian
J. H. Blunt, Dictionary
of Sects, Heresies, P. 305.
Encyclopedia,
New Catholic
Vol. III, PP. 425-6.
J. H. Blunt, Dictionary
of Sect, Heresies, P. 332.
Encyclopedia,
New Catholic
Vol. VII, P. 795.

10

as Aelurus,

The

in
a monastery,
up

and Greek

were

his group

he was educated
Although

he preferred

he was
to retire

to a monastery

near the city

of a complete
foot

of fact

As a matter
Ghassn,

two

Christian

Arabs.

extended

the

numbers

One

them

of

that

Baradeus

the Syrian

Jacob

was a greatest

became

the
and

decreasing

in

It was because
49
as Jacobites.

emperors.
known

of its distinctive

propagator

for

reorganised

was in fact

which

the Byzantine

Monophysites

He

on

of Band

tribe

specifically

Baradeus.

of Syria,

from

opposition

consecrated

were

was

Church

of the Arab

at the request

bishops

Monophysite

Monophysite

of his efforts

Jacob

in the 5th century

due to strong

and travelled
48
as far as Persia.

Syria and Mesopotamia,

Asia Minor,

the life

his way of life

he
changed
on

Later

recluse.

through

where

living
years

for fifteen

he remained

in Syria

principles

and Egypt.

He spent

the rest

of his life

died in 578 AD and after

As

a matter

of

great

Jacobites

are

not

later

Monophysites

in Syria.

the Monophysites

organising

his death the Monophysites

fact,

because

Monophysites,

secretly

from

were driven

the

only

Antioch.

the

of

representatives

on consolidated

He

in three

themselves

Churches.

1. The Copts

and Abyssinians.

Z. The Syrian

Jacobites.

3. The Armenians.

in the doctrine

They believed
but a single

nature,

divine

natures,

that

ie, divine

and human,

in the person

nature,

as against

of incarnate

Christ,

the orthodox

there

teaching

was

of two

the incarnation.

after

a
The Jacobites
his divine
resulted
Glass
divine

48.
49.

strongly

nature.
one.

is made
nature

in the absorption

believed

They

think,

that

They have explained

of sand, but
has absorbed

of the humanity

in the incarnation,

from

two natures

in

there

it by an example:
whole

is only

glass,

the humanity

so that

the two are one.

the

of Christ

no longer

De L. O'Leary, The Syriac Church and Fathers, PP. 119-120.

Churches of the east, P. 204.
The Christian
D. Attwater,

11

sand, thus

the

'Abd

al-Jabbr

precise

discussing

while

Christian

the

about

discussion

in his al-Mughni.

refutations

in detail

On the
Jacobites,

that

probably

into

indicate

the divine

by using the term

which

Along

it

without

naming
Nestorian

other

them

and refuted
given proper
invalidate

at the

the doctrine

of Monophysites

In his detailed
in a single

while

that

discussion,
that

argument,

to the sects.

and this

was a

seems to

the Nestorians,

with

of union.

describing

he mentioned

is obvious

It

instead

of Christ

the nature

(Mujwara)

to conjunction

in his al-Mughni,

attention

that

of incarnation

moment

that

and gave his

the- doctrine
of
50
is
This
essence.

the

argument

applied

long

he mentioned

his reference

Nestorians

any sect.

the doctrines

through

union

is also noticeable

doctrines,

Christian

nature

However

that,

the

his

sect.

where

to the Monophysite's

he has muddled

that

with

in

believed

they

of essence.

union

we see in his Sharh:

a reference

subsumed

any specific

is not

sects,

examine

we

when

He only described
naming

Christian

the

of

especially

sects,

without

hand,

other

doctrines

the

the

two doctrines

he mixed

both

indicates

"Abd

His only purpose

about union5l

was Jacobite

one of them

of

summary

and

these doctrines52
had not

al-Jabbr

was to try to criticise

and

the doctrines.

Maronites:

'Abd

al-Jabbr
53
Mriiniyya.

them

historian
the

The scholars
that

maintained

heresy

of one will
preferred

disciples

death,

around

Church

later

During

the.

this sect twice

mentioned

who

have different

it was named

in Christ.
the first
gathered

in his discussion

Others
option.
around

the monastery

erected

after

opinions

during

its name.

Some of

Maron,

it was a city

Consequently
Maron

Vol. V as

about

the hermit

say that

in al-Mughni

to his memory,

the

who

near Antioch.

Maronite
his

4'

means a group

lifetime,
that

54

and

was called

after

The
of
his

Maronite

on.

early

6th

century

the

Maronite

monks

were

Sharh, P29650.4Abd
al-Jabbir,
'Abd al-Jabbr,
Vol. V, P. 83.
51.
al-Mughni,
Ibid., P. 123.
52.
Ibid., P. 84, P. 146.
53.
_
Tarikh al-T? if a al-M. rniyya,
Istif n al-Duwayhi,
54.

P. 3.

12

defenders

of

the

doctrine

of Chalcedon

been informed
that

(that

Monothelitism

along with

to them,

according

Christ.

On

practical

will,

55

it.

about

the

In 8th century,

Council.

as ontologically

is equivalent

which

to

as heresy was merely controversy

Maronites
Sacd b. Bitriq,
are remembered""
to Martin,

attributed

a priest

in Christ.

and two natures

one will

in

'Y!

one

about one will,

two

were

they

will,

in

wills

mean

one

What was
terminology.
56
But according to
over semantics.

regarded

`I

there

of

heretic
as

But they had never

doctrine

their

speak

in the

action

A'

were

speaking,

they

when

declared

of one will).

justified

Some scholars

hand,

other

is the doctrine

they

by
,,

this

name,

,E.. hA %L .PJ

57

they

c"., ,f7 hd4

He '4t

because

are
,5

&u

'L`_

Julianists:

fifth

The

and last

he

which

called
59

Yliyniyya.

Actually,

they

Christian
it

mentioned
58
Walyniyya,
while

as

It is one of the two groups,

in Egypt

Julianist,

being

After
he

took

refuge

As far

55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.

they

to
61

from

incorruptible

language

of the sect,

Alexandria,
(teacher

and

or Aphthartodocetae.
were

(d. after

From
as

527), was a Monophysite.

by the Byzantine

became

the

preacher

emperor

of

I,

called
62
)
body
Christ.
the
of
of

and death
63
of His will.

that

Christ's

were real,

New Catholic
Encyclopedia,
Vol. IX, PP. 245-6.
Ibid., P. 246.
_
Trikh al-TWifa al-Marniyya,
Istifn al-Duwayhi,
PP. 9-11.
detail see translation
footnote
P. 24 ).
For further
6o,
'Abd al-Jabbr,
Vol. V, P. 146.
al-Mughni,
Dictionary
of Sects and Heresies, P. 38.
Encyclopedia,
Vol. VIII, P. 48.
New Catholic
Church, P. 766.
Oxford Dictionary
of the Christian
Encyclopedia,
New Catholic
Vol. VIII, P. 48.

13

divided.

in Caria

His passion
choice

is

pronunciation

and its neighbourhood

60
as Aphthartodocetae.

he maintained

are concerned,

of a free and extraordinary

as Julianist

of the incorruptibility

and that

correct

is Julianist,

in Armenia

and in general

Halicarnassus

the

Monophysites

the

which

were called

leader

as his doctrines

essentially

into

Gaiamitae

expelled

Apthortodocetism.

result

leader

of Halicarnassus,

Julian

sect,

in Western

are called

the name of their

by 4Abd al-Jabbr

so

body

but were

was
the

He further

argued

sin, while

Christ's

that

was real,

suffering

the

other

Monophysites
Their

hand,

leader

there

though

sect,

that

the

that

earthly

bodyof

believed

Christ

fact did/prevent
66
by a free act of his will.
though

him

this

(Abd
to note that
al-Jabbr

It is interesting
sect,

maintained
67
human being.

they believed

that

So He would

knowledge

about

that

be adored

an obscure

Aphthortodocetae
Christ

ought

even

as human

that

not to be spoken
he should

have been a proper

Muslim-Christian

the Umayyad

64.
65.
66.
67.
68.

69.

one part

object

its

nature

while

describing

the doctrine

is a deity

It does reflect

maintained
being

as a created

in terms

and death

Because

attributed

So he described
that

after

as regards

God and Creator,

the very beginning.

of this

of his being a
'Abd
that
al-

and sound.

the writer

of

incorruptable,

suffering

sect is accurate

from

moment

accepting

in reality.

be designated

nature.

from

Christ

of them

of worship

in

the

not

from

separated

from

that

was

see in the Dictionary

of sects and heresy, where
'Abd
doctrine
has mentioned.
same
as
al-Jabbr

The earliest

also

of

Julianists

the

which

it was naturally

human
Christ's
corruptibility
which maintained
65
was Severus and they were called as Severianists.

incarnation,

Jabbr's

death,

the

can be concluded

immortal,

of original

due
his
to
act
of
an
will
was

another

was

to the effects

was not subject

for his body to experience

64
to suffering
or corruption.

subject

It

Christ

because

it possible

made

On

that

we

to them
under

the

the incarnation,
his humanity,

and must
68

but

therefore

discussions:

recorded
Caliph

debate

polemical
'Umar II (682-720)

took

place

and the

by correspondence
Byzantine

emperor

between
Leo III69

Ibid., PP-50-1Dictionary
of Sects and Heresy, P. 334.
Church, P. 69.
Oxford Dictionary
of Christian
Vol. V, P. 146.
Al-Mughni,
Dictionary
of Sects and Heresy, P. 39., see also - D. K. Crow, The death of
i
Immate,
in al-Sert,
B.
Ali
Shi
the
Vol.
and
early
al-Husayn
view on
XII, (1984) P. 80.
to Umar II is supposed to be the answer by Leo III to the caliph
The letter
Umar II, in which the Emperor refuted
the claims of Islam.
An American
letter
has
been
this
by A. Jeffrey,
of
preserved
version
and translated
Text of the Correspondence
Ghevond's
Between
Umar II and Leo III.,
Review, Vol. XXXVII,
(1944) PP. Z69-332.
Harvard Theological

14

(C. 680-741).,

dlthough

its

been

has not

authorship

established

with

absolute

certainty.

About

781 AD Timothy

Mahdi

the third

report

records

about

from

that

However,

with

took

is essentially

this

friends,

two

and was later

al-Hshim

and

The full
70

and Syriac.

between

place

Christians

each other.

side in Arabic

and the Muslim

al-Kindi

215/830.71

debated

the Christian

discussion

religious

Christian

Nestorian
down

caliph

of the eastern

patriarch

(775-785)

of Baghdad

the debate

famous

Another

I, the Nestorian

the

written
of

piece

a propagandist

work.

In ninth

century

doctrine

turned

we see for first

from

that belong

b.

Al-Qsim

2.

it is the earliest

'Ali

b.

treastises73
written

Rahban
defending

during

large
a
number

70.

71.

72.
73.

al-Tabari,
Islam.

the reign
of Biblical

The longer

of al-Mutawakliil,

work,

inclined

toward

Convert

around

to
al-Din

the

it
be
can
and

al-Nasr,
72
polemic.

Kitab

Among

method.

al-Raddall

a Nestorian

Christian

towards

group of Mu1tazilites.

but

Zaydie,

anti-Christian

references,

systematic

to the rationalist

He wrote

surviving

approach

to a more

al-Hasani,

He died in 246/860.

Multazilites.
said that

Ibrhim

Muslims

that

debate

a simple

them are those polemics

1.

time

Islam,

wrote

two

wa al-Dawla,

was

the year 240/854.

and one can say the Muslim

It contains

scholars

were

by A. Mingana from Syriac to English, as an official

It was translated
See John Ryland library Bulleton, Vol. XII (1928),
Apology of Christianity.
(ed) by P. L. Cheikho,
PP. 147-226 and its Arabic version in Trois Traites
PP. 1-9. Hamdi Bakri, an Egyptian scholar has suspected its authenticity.
Kulliyya
Majalla
Muhwara
For detail
alma'Timiitwis,
see
al-Mahdi
Adb, Vol. XII, Part 2, (1950) PP. 41-57.
_
b. Ishaq al-Kindi,
in
Its Arabic text was published as, Risla'Abd
al-Masih
by
William
Muir
done
London 1870 and its translation
under the title
was
1887.
Hamdi
Bakri
London,
The
Apology
also claimed that
of,
of al-Kindi,
it was written
in late ninth century
to third
and attributed
actually
il
Kulliyya
Majalla
detail
For
Risla
al-Kind-i,
see,
al-Hshimi
century.
(1947)
I,
Part
9,
Vol.
PP. 29-49.
al-Adb,
it
in
by I. Di. Matteo,
translated
It was first published
edited
and
who
Italian. in Rivista Degli Orientali,
Vol. IX (1921-3), PP. 301-364.
by A. Mingana,
First book was translated
as The Book of Religion
and
19ZZ and its Arabic text was edited by A. Mingana
Manchester,
Empire,
Manchester,
1923.
at
published
and
fal
Al-Radd
by
K.
I.
Khalife
The shorter
one,
al-Nasr,
edited
and
in Melanges de L Universite
(1959),
W. Kutsch,
St Joseph, Vol. XXXVI,
PP. 113-148.

15

able to know the references

3. Ab tIs al-Warrq
74
became a dualist.
is preserved

which

(d.

Mutawakrfil,

al-Radd

his al-Mughni,

S.

Ab

Nasr.

Ysuf

6.

Ab

Nashi

b. Bahr

section

al-oAbbs

75.

76.

77.
78.
79.

are attacks

on the

known

wrote
a small treatise
at the request
of caliph
76
'Abd
'ala al-Nar.
It is used frequently
by
al-Jabbr

al-

discussing

al-Jahiz,

a very

well

scholar

in

the Christians.

(d. 864),

al-Kindi

he was not a theologian

on Christianity

who wrote

but famous

al-Radd

as a philosopher,

'(al alle

was

'Abd-Allh

and the approach

b. Muhammad

al-Anbri,

generally

known

as al-

died in 193/905.78
He was a Multazli.
His famous book, Kitab
79
fi al-Maglt,
is a small encyclopedia
of the doctrines
of Muslim
together

sects,

about the Christian

Abt

'Ali

important

74.

There

the

one sects of the Christians,

seen

of it.

min

is quite philosophical.
'Adi,
in the refutation
Yahy
b.
made by
a tenth
century
77
who analysed it in eleven short sections.

scholar

and non-Muslim

works

firaq

on he
75
al-Nasr,

al-Akber

al-Awsat

7.

and later

of

an attack

is preserved

Jacobite

these converts.

a Mu'tazilite

al-Thalath

Adi's
b.
refutation

Ya4qb b. Ishq

Although

able to write
It

869),

while

through

in this work.

Amr

Mu'tazilites

Al-Raddali

He wrote

in Yahy

'Uthmn

Abi

4.

(d. around 861) was basically

and incarnation

Trinity

Testament
New
and
old
of

about
'Abd
in

al-Jubbh
and
the

leaders

critical

remarks.

sects, but it is important

It

contains

as he has described

a small
twenty

most of whom are unknown.

(d. 933) and Abu- al-Hasan al-Ash'ari

(d. 935) are more
.
Unfortunately
their
own theological
school.
of their

Christian

al-Jabbr's

with

doctrines

work especially

have

t, but

the

former's

work

can be

in his al-Mughni.

(Dodge,
Khayyt,
Intisir,
Ibn Nadim,
PP. 419,804,
PP. 108,
al-Fihrist,
-'"
110.
by Armand Abel, for his doctral degree
This text is edited and translated
from
in 1949,
handwriting
is
Bruxelles
Arabic
not good.
o*lthough
PP. 1-68.
It was edited by J. Finkel and published from Cairo, 1926, PP-10-38He
few
its
See Journal of
also wrote an introduction
and translation
of
parts.
Oriental
Society, Vol. XLVII, (1927) PP. 311-334.
Americana
in French by A. Perier, as Un Traite De Yahja
It is edited and translated
Revue de L'Orient
Chretien,
Ben'Adi,
Vol. XXII, (1920-1), PP. 3-21.
Period, P. 224.
Watt, Formative
This book was first edited by J. V. Ess, who wrote a preface in German
from
Beirut,
1971.
Section
and published
about the Christian
sects,
PP. 76-87.

16

8.

Abu

Mansiir Muhammad
80
Tawhid.
He devoted two
Christ

about

9.

Al-Hasan

letter
a

al-Mturidi,
half
and a

b. Ayyb,

to his brother

a converted
'Ali, because

in al-Jawb

al-Sahih82

Jacobites

and declared

that

Ab Jalfar

Muhammad

authority,

died

sections

containing

like a substantial

11.

Abi

Bakr

Muslim's

to the opinion

pages

criticism,

Muhammad

theological

Kitib
views.

al-Qummi,

81.
82.
83.
84.

al-

Christians

about

between

Kitb

Muslims

than Shiite

and Christians.

It has a section

(d. 1025) four extant

Islam.

It is

severely

the

propaganda.

al-Bgillni,
84
that is devoted

al-Tamh3d,

wrote

It does not look

(d. 403/1013)

b. al-Tayyib

81

the son of well known Shi'ite

84
there are two
al-Tawhid,

about

workfon

an Ashtarite

to Muslim

Christianity.

it is a very comprehensive
so lengthy,
summary.
'Abd
discussion and others are quite
similar to
al-Jabbr's

12. IfAbd a1-Jabbr's

century,

He criticised
83
view is very close to Islam.

In his book

rather

fourth

of his misunderstanding

b. Bbawayh

discussion

in the early

Muslim,

not

80.

of Kitb

of the

by Ibn Taymiyya.

Arius's

381/991.

about

His book

theologian.

the author

and its refutation.

preserved

10.

(d. 333-944)

Some

and non-

Although

it is

discussions

are

new.

Christianity.

doctral
first
Khulef
by
Fath-A11"ah
thesis
as
a
edited
al-Tawhid
was
from
latter
1970.
Beirut,
published
and
Section about Christianity,
PP. 210-212.
P. Z46Ibn Nadim, Al-Fihrist,
H,
Vol.
PP. 312-363
For this letter
see Ibn Taymiyya,
al-Sahih,
al-Jawb
(Cairo, 1905).
from
Kitb al-Taw] id, was edited by Hshim al-Husayni,
Iran,
published
1957. See its section about Christianity,
PP. 270-275 and PP. 417-427.
first
Kitb al-Tamhid
from
was
edited by R. J. McCarthy
and published
1957. See section about Christianity,
Beirut,
PP. 75-103.
Kitab

17

PART

ONE

An Annotated

translation

of al-Mughni,

18

Vol. V, PP. 80-151

DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHRISTIANS

Section
-

Summary

Alit
Ab

Our venerable

scholar,

Christians
all

except

of everything

and the Creator

spirit

they

whom

a small

life

are those who say that

They

that

alleged

group

that it is one of the doctrines

of them,

is a living

God Almighty

that

entity

with

speech;

of

is the Creator

and His life

and His speech is knowledge.

is the

Among

them

is power.

God, His Word and His Power

Son who is the Messiah

body which

has mentioned

the Holy Spirit

call

doctrines

of their

Himself

was on the earth.

according

are Eternal.

to them,

They differed

about

The Word is the

who manifested
what

is entitled

(zahm)

in a

to the name

of Messiah.

Among

them

each other.
body.

Among

body (al-jasad

1.

'Ali
Abu-

are those who maintained

Among
them

them

are those

are those

al-muhdath)

that

it is the word and body united

who alleged

who alleged

that

and the word became

that

it

is the

it (the Messiah)
a created

Word

not

with
the

is the created

body when it was in

'Abd

i, one of the most

Muhammad
b.
al-Wahhb
al-Jubb'
He attended
of the Mu'tazila,
celebrated
was born at Jubba in Khuzistn.
the school of Ab Ya`qb Ydsuf al-Shahhm
at Basra, who at that time
He
Ab
the
al-llf.
chair
of
al-Hudhayl
succeeded al-Shahhm
occupied
to the
and it can be said that he was able to add a final brilliance
He died in 303 A. H. /915 A. D.
tradition
of the masters.
He thus held a place in the line of the Basra Mutazila who differ from the
human
In Basra
Baghdd Multazila
the
action.
of
especially
over
question
(whom
he opposed)
itself, he was particularly
at variance with al-Nazzm
'
and al-Jhiz.
His son Ab
had two pupils who later became celebrated.
Al-Jubbi
Abd
(the
in
3Z1 A. H.; 933
in
died
Baghdad
Hshim
teacher of
al-Jabbr,
'Abd
A. D. His ideas and views can be seen in the writing
of
al-Jabbr).
`ari
breaking
Ab al-Hasan
Secondly,
away, was to
al-Ash
who, after
"founder"
Mu4tazilism
become
devote himself
to refuting
the
of the
and
(Encyclopedia
Ash4ariyya.
of
school
so-called
of Islam, Vol. II, p. 569-570)
Watt,
Predestination
in Early
New edition.
Islam,
p. 83-7,136-7.
Kahhala, Mu 'am al-Mu1allifin,
Vol. X, p. Z69.

19

the womb of Mary

They

and became

that

all allege

Word is the Son.

visible

They

and they are from

one substance.

You

that

must

realise

of

[which

can be a distinction

and there
they

This is a summary

some of the Christian

only

agree

on and

doctrines

their

what
t.
/
e,

w-

and the

of what they said.

can be discussed,

doctrines

is possible

between

to understand]

they disagree

upon, and between

agreed

disagreed

c, -

Spirit

are one God and one Creator

all these three

that

allege

has the

is the Son and whatever

Word

the

for mankind.

the elements
be

can

which

upon

what

understood.

It is difficult

to be exact

based upon irrational

The famous

Z.

The

They

The Melkites,

also have

doctrines

We will

now report

these hypostases
Spirit.
living

and speaking.

the Father

Father

are old or more

proceeds

from

is not in terms

from

the intellect

from

the sun.

are

which

of three

The other

these

three

is always

of the

hypostases

is the life,

hypostases

begetting

and the Son.

of offspring

and heat

must be reported

Their

and which

is the Holy
is Eternal,

and the Father

in a state

of being

begotten

the Son, and the Spirit

by

is a state

The being of the Son as Son of the

like

fire

the fire

from

One of

are the same in substantiality

but rather

20

(agnim).

is the Son and the third

The Son is always

the Father

recent.

upon.

is one substance

in hypostasy.
and the Father

they

sects have been reported.

those three

doctrines

of their

is the Father.

All

Sometimes

Nestorius.

of which

The Son is the Word and the Spirit

different
and

which

deity

the Creator

of

of the king.

with

sects are in agreement

the three

Firstly,

sects,

those

statements.

of the religion

some

are in conflict

which

are

of Nistr.
I
members

further

arguments

of Jacob.

followers

the

followers

called
3.

the followers

Nestorians,

their

are as follows:

sects among the Christians

The Jacobites,

because

and incomprehensible

principles

1.

doctrines,

all their

about

the generation
light
the
and

of the word
of the sun

They

The person

There
In

that

agreed

the Son was united

is some disagreement
doctrine

their

hypostases

the

substance

that

is no fourth
deny that

They maintain

one.

it is a compound

hypostases

are

for three

(khawss)

hypostases

They also differed:

only named

also

hypostases
are

themselves

Kalima
the

differed:

substance

and

that

the

wrtis)

were

aspects

a single

them

(wu'h)

and

(existed)

substance

of others

are substance

are different

but we do say that

that

they are only one

that

alleged

is a doctrine

of these

each

of the

of some

on being

mentioned

by others

is that

and nothing

itself

the

from

reported

of

them

else.

21

through

Word

they maintained

and His knowledge

Some

itself.

(the Word) is knowledge.

it manifests

that

them

the Word is knowledge

that

of Kalima

doctrine

Him.

the

and the same in substantiality.

This

maintained

because

from

to

regard

nor speaking.

(the Word),

of

with

each of the hypostases

the meaning

some

maintained

they

God.

said that

are heterogeneous
different

they

Some of them

some of them

It is reported

knowledge.

that

them

of

and speaking

said that

hand,

other

and there

CY-thers considered

in hypostasy

again.

is not a God nor living

Some of them

are a simple

are the same in the fact

which

And the rest

individually

Some

differed

is a living

Nestorians.

thought

others

"We do not say that

they

hypostases

the

and hypostases

Some of them maintained

(Ki"'

differed.

They

Some

and for three persons.

said,

substance.

the

to the Melkites

the hypostases

characteristics.

Some of them

"

hypostases.

the

hypostases,

from

the hypostases

that

they were different

that

are three

is different

(This was) as if they were saying

further

hypostases

is

in three

that

maintained

have attributed

the hypostases.

and the

(sift).

they

Others

actually

(ashkhs)

Nestorian

substance

we have given.

which

substance.

regarding

attributes

life

the

yet the substance

Then they differed

They

the

is one substance

the Eternal

are the substance,

the

and

Messiah.

call

and killed.

was crucified

of the summary

and

they

whom

parts

this also to the Melkites.

doctrine

persons

about

Jacobites

the

are

attributed

Then

for the people,

himself

manifested

the person

with

them

(Father's
reported

Even

though

they

knowledge)
that

are not

is power.

spirit

that

On

speech.

and speech

that

It was

the

in terms

said

the

and His
hypostases
of

being

hypostases,

They illustrated

substance.
without

seeing

have in terms

what

Christ
both

which

one Messiah.

one out of two.

which

came

substance,

into

ad/ (incarnated)

taaannasa (became

The Melkites

after

it had not

instead

of ittahada

Christ

that

it did not

which

claimed
(aspect)
('t tOL
united pis

and unanointed

The sense of
in reality

to them

and the

other

of the deity,

is a created
Sometimes

existed.
(united)

is

the Messiah

i. e., the
substance

they

use the
they

and sometimes

said

(compounded).

man) and tarakkaba

believed

an ember,

The Nestorians

One of the hypostases

everlasting

existence

(aspect)

According

and two hypostases.

is Eternal

an attribute

and the union.

and became

Word,

and other

of Christ

An anointing

two substances

word to '

for it acquired

is a man and God.

He became

that

it
becomes
when

of

charcoal.

the nature

united

terms

regarding

made

not

of charcoal

an example

of being simply

is

which

it was before,

They vary regarding

that

a distinction

is

there

had two

is Eternal

one of them

substances,

is Created.

The

majority

that

He is (formed)

of

Jacobites

the

out of two

Eternal

deity

became

one substance

Christ

that

alleged

One of them

substances.

is the substance

and the other

has one substance,

of human

and one hypostasis.

except

is the substance

being.

Some of them

They united
said,

"He

of
and

has one

"
nature.

After

agreeing

by which

Messiah

was and according

Word (Kalima)
of them
temple

to what
with

that

asserted
and locus.

kind

became

united

Word was covered

that

the union

that

it

Messiah,
aspect

(the

the appearance
seal) without
(of the design)

into

it existed.

by him and his body.

of the design
the (actual)

the form
that

being

maintained

of a seal in clay

design being removed

in the clay.

22

(amr hid-th)

the incidental

event
that

maintained

of a human

(the Word) inhered

Some of them

of a human

Some of them

on what

in time

by means of intermingling.

being

maintained

occurred

Some of them

Word) adopted

Some of them

it.

which

differed

they

human

that

but it is as a picture

when he looks

was an event

said that

appears
that

which
from

the

Some

person

as a

in him and

it is nothing

in a polished

it is in accordance
has been stamped

of

mirror
with
(by the

the seal, and the inherence

There

are doctrines

of those

not

who could

the Word

make

and the body one

thing.

As far

as the Jacobites

become

one substance.

are concerned,

Some of them

reported

that

two subsisting

entities

(dht)

another

Some of them

way.

united

the totality

with

being.

human

some

that

considered
the

believed

them

of

redemption

humanity,

They

Eternal,

Christ

about

with

Christ

is a divine

is formed

Mary

was

substance,
one aspect
crucified,
pain

were

two

these

of

mankind.

Sometimes

and
they

Eternal

of two

being

their

substances

and unborn

in another

died in another

aspect.
of phantasy

Some
'iha)

that

that

agreed

the crucifixion
The majority

parts.

place

who

the

with

of

Christ

entire

The majority

of

and death took place on one substance

(natures)

believed

of them

and created

aspect,

crucified,

that

believed

died

not in reality.

were

God and

The pains

were

He who was born of

that

in another

Some of them said that

Z3

which

and He was God.

and Jacobites

in reality.

they

after

maintained

those

and human.

at the same time.

in reality

Messiah

(gatl)

took

hand,

other

not the divine

crucifixion

in one aspect

in the terms

described

we

is Divine

Christ

and death

the crucifixion

so the Melkites

God (deity)

as

the union, that

regarding
created
(muhdath)
became
ands

The Nestorians

the

out

(of humanity).

On the

that

maintain

and human

that

He was the
in Him,

a personal

of humanity"

of

one substance

crucifixion

that

(nature)

inhered

basis

the

nature)

the whole

Christ

of

the human part of Christ,

alleged

mankind.

on

for part

is Eternal.

and died.

the Jacobites
that

it in

So, those who believed

Christ

the

believed

Melkites

nature

became

that

was crucified

(where)

the

the union differently

took place
the

(natures)

differed

They

a part

about

with

W-10)

with

the

(i. e.

substance

He united

with

cause the redemption

about

maintained

explained

that

about

not that

They differed

said:

"He united

Union/

of the will,

the general

and others

saying,

about the union.

substances

that

differed

his

He will

differed

controversies
two

believed

in reality.

have

two substances

the Son united with the whole of humanity so that He will cause
of
Some of them said that He united with
all.
part of

so that

also

have united

they

Some of them

statements.

that

the union is in the meaning

of mankind

Then

believed

they

Christ
aspect,

is one
born

c,n one aspect,

death,

The nature

crucifixion
which

in
non
and

is united

Him

with

grace

with

; latif)

that

do not

pains

inhere

in it.

It is

by a small group of the Jacobites.

narrated
They

is endowed

agreed

have different

be
should
worshipped

Christ

that

that

opinions
divine

aspect

and He is entitled

They

to that.

either He is adored entirely

or worshipped
we
have quoted i their controversy
about union

and

Among the categories

there is a class called
of Christ.
of the Christians
Z
Marniyya.
They maintained
that Christ is two substances (natures) and one

nature

hypostasis

in the sense that

he has one will.

The deity

was really

crucified

for

the sake of our salvation.

Some of the people

to enter
Him

Christ

say of them

during

in the rest

the

of his actions.

Word at the time

of union

the air and water

into

came earlier
is the
creature

Word

that
of

one of their

Some of their

doctrinesis

earlier

the womb

(God's)

the Creation

out through

Him.

will.

as the arrow

that

(Istif.

For this reason,

the

crosses

scholars

and claimed

of the universe

from

that

alleged

It is said by some of their

pipe.

God and His Son through

was carried

the Word used

and depart:.

scholars

of Mary

God is one and they name Him Father

before

that

the miracles

of performing

passed into

the water

who vLas created

of everything

time

that

who

Christ
He is a

and the creation

they call him deity

(God).

They said and alleged

2.

3.

that

Christ

united

with

a human being through

Mary

and

Maronites:
The only fully Roman uniate Church in the East. The name is
derived from Maron, a Syrian solitary
who died around 423. By their own
it is claimed
theologians
that their existence
can be traced back to St
Maro, a friend of St Chrysostom.
Maronites
According
to this tradition
have always been orthodox and in union with Rome, but in fact they were
Constantinople.
followed
Monothelites
Sergius
originally
of
who
is
in
As a unite body they possess their own liturgy,
which
essence an
in
in
language
by Latin
Antiochence
Syriane
the
modified
parts
rite
influence.
faith
has been the Chief
Since 1926 the Maronite
confession
of the
Lebanese state.
Church,
Douglas, J. D. The new international
Dictionary
of the Christian
P. 633.
h
Cioss, F. L. The Oxford Dictionary
Church P. 876.
of the Christian
Watt,
translating
the Christian
while
al-Shahristni
about
s section
(by way of Choice), we translated
doctrines,
translated
it
word Istif'uas
God,
because
it is very close to Christian
the
theology.
of
will
as
Watt, Ash-Shahrist5ani's
doctrine,
Islamochristiana,
account of Christian
Vol. IX, (1983), P. 258.

24

He

was

blessed

They

crucified.

than any other

and the

Son, which
in the

that

alleged
spiritual

essence,

was taken

from

inspiration

beginning,

Christ

not

Mary

(spirit)
it
and

takes

them(

some

through

Mary

and He was a noble

for His obedience,

who

mixed
during

the four elements

Among

alleged

between

Father

was an intangible

these elements

and where

the

Christ

that

prophet,

with

any

gathered

whom

to the

substance

His union

came

that

spirit

is intermediary
from

and not

composite

He only clothed

elements.

alleged

spirits

God has a created

that

into

the Father
Son.

They

and purely
the

four

the body

that

other
with

is more

of

together.

existence

God honoured

He named Him His Son by the way of adoption

(ibtad a)

and venerated
(way
by
of)
not

birth.

The doctrines
apart

from

which

what

are the famous

we have presented

is to be mentioned

later.

Z5

one S(of their

doctrines)

2-SECTION

The Invalidity

we have reported

which

You

must

realise

(al-Qa(Jim),

However,
three

they

when

which
[On

three

as the Kullbiyya4

living

invalidates

with

life,

the

the other

proof

that

4.

the

differentiate
hypostases

characterised

them

that

Him

in reality,

God

Eternal

in it

is what

anything

on a

with

and they dn. not intend

indicates

to God

by the attributes

that

He has

that

considered

He is knowing

that

divergence

their

attributes,

with

knowledge

God

Eternal

the

is

one,

this doctrine.

would not be able to characterise

fact

it
were

that

from

possible

for

anything

the

other,
it

eternal,

by something

and nor could

was not

fact

occurs

hand when they

which

eternal,

Spirit

there

hypostases

believed

before,

these

argument

(ma(n).
sense

As said

would

with

'since they have referred

and living.

and

proven

when

are associated

being knowing
entities.

the

any other

say: God has three

in terminology,

occurs

being

to common

(dhawt)

entities

before,

doctrine

of their

is contrary

to the

according

them

there

without

invalidity

basis which

from

the Trinity

about

as mentioned

is one

the

proves

only

Doctrine

of their

which

would

which

participates

possible

of them

the Father.

Thus it would

by what

the Son must be a Father

impossible
was

and the Father

which

doctrine,

because

since

for

Father

to be

for

the

the Son and the Holy

do this or be characterised

any of those

to be characterised

their

be impossible

was not

God as being

(essence) by anything

its entity
refutes

with

not be possible
for the others.

for

by what
any one of

This requires

must be a Son and a spirit

and the

Kullbiyya,
a Sunni group
of the Muslims
whose leader
was Abii
rAbdullh b. Said b. Muhammad
b. Kullb al-Qattn
Muhammad
al-Bari.
Watt has introduced
him as an influential
Mutakallim
of the period of
Mihna. He died shortly after 854. He is reckoned as a Shfi'ite
though his
He is said to have argued
teachers
the
are not named.
against
Mu'tazilites
Ibn Kullb's chief contribution
to
at the court of al-M'miin.
however
Kalm,
was his elaboration
of the attributes
of the doctrine
He asserted
for each name such as 'powerful',
that
of God.
Sift
'eternal'
'knowing',
'knowledge',
'power',
there
was an attribute
of
or
'eternity'.
These attributes
It
were not God and not other than God.
'Abd
is referring
to this argument
the
al-Jabbr
seems that
about
here.
attributes
Peters, God's created speech, p. 21.
Watt, The formative
period of Islamic thought, pp. 286-7.
Maq. lt, p. 169.
Al-Ash'ari,

Z6

Holy

Spirit

must be a Father.

According

to this

the Son is a son because

that

Eternal,

and

be

must

in/ same situation

and Kalima

in

His

with

to the fact

regard

Whoever

(essence),

entity

it

the impossibility

film
is
for

of need

the same with regard

must
state
,

is

the Son is

that

He must have a son which

that

demonstrates

was a Son at all,

in being

the Father

with

self-subsisting

this doctrine

to admit

must have a son, who is ilm and Kalima,

and so on.

if
there
son,

them

since the Son participates

similar

if the Father

necessary,

forced

scholars

our early

method,

to the

Father.

Similarly

would be required

they

had another

He had a spirit

that

that

are (of the same substance)

they

participation

in eternity,

the Father

with

(needing

and Spirit
father

and

being)

by arguing

that

to

(subsistent
said that
Word

of

(the

Son).

them

to

repudiated
knowing

end.

In this

during

a subsistent

way

We

discussion

the
it

is not

which

share

in

eternity

implication

(li. dhtihi).

So what

insofar
and

not

we mentioned

to

that

we have

how

Him

and the
this
for

was possible

of Kullbiyya

requires

be

It could

decrees

of what

explained

doctrine

by

necessitated
being

the necessity

already

the

knowledge

and knowledge)
is

of)

essence

knowledge

as it

way

same

referred

His

Father.

eternal

Son

(subsistent

they
in

has

is the

Word,

both

of His being a

though

He

what

being

in the

Him

have
of

in

has

is (proof

there

already.

accept

for

be possible

will

to be a knowing

and the

to affirm

essence

even

for

He

share

not

to
refer/His

because,

Him

them

the fact

claim

that

knowledge

Whatever

Him.

(God

is the

cannot

does

for

Son's

of the

needs a Son without

declare

to

it possible

makes

the Son, who

knowing

being
being

being)

have

they

a cause,

They

to a cause,

refers

the doctrine

it is not possible

Him

a son of

it

that

and that

both

Sons and Spirits).

son being

the

(sifa)

attribute

they

to the Father,

regard

and so on without

requires

He (the Father)

it is for the sake of. it that

that

has a spirit

of the spirit

and spirit

with

He

that

to admit that the Son has a Spirit and the Spirit has a son as the
a
hJ"I"
has/Son and a Spirit because they (both) participate
in eternity
which

Father
JhL fact

had said,

they

of what

to the Holy Spirit

with regard

have

They

by

because

spirit,

to admit

forced

this

problem

is

that

He (God)

is

be knowing

even

fact

God

as the
because
there

of

that

knowledge

it refutes

this

(Christians)

the

problem.

According
view

that

to this method,
every

our earlier

one of the hypostases

scholars

forced

is a deity
Z7

upon them

because

since

the Son and the

Spirit

participate

deity requires

their

as a deity

that

by the reasoning

is active,

repudiates

knowledge,

argument

Therefore

mentioned

been repudiated.
hypostases.

We must

The

affirmation

in this

doctrine,

also refuteSthe
in

doctrine

the numbers

of eternal

They

argue:

might

postulate
there

three

that

postulated
substance

The

doctrine,
because
terms
like

describe

5.

6.

is that

could

not

in reality.

hypostases

every

variation
a doctrine

their
are

language.

However,

the

they

that

attest
to.

God has

So they

made

more than the Christians.

to

that

admit
they

the

are three

only be forced

different

and

three

hypostases

hypostases

to admit

while
if we

that
that

postulated

the

was different.

argument

The variation

which

the Kulliibiyya

doctrines

their

He is entitled

that

the

require

invalidate
we

because

because

each of the

would

by which

in

We would
were

be dismissed

of

forced

for

series as we forced

we say that

which

is brought

by a difference

the basis of the refutation

of wording.
the

because

(for each of them)

answer

(Qudaml)

This

case.

aspect,

perverted,

We are not

these

every

according

hypostases

more

do differ

of attributes

entities

is one substance

two

of the Christians

is more

deities,

for

they

although

as the number

many macni5

has

So every

doctrine

Kullbiyya

of

each of these must be a God, this method

in an infinite

connection.

meaning

be necessary

would

also affirm

deities

of numerous

except

the

is required

same

to admit

similar

that

and to be knowing

to

since

earlier,

and the one who

(the same) for the two hypostases,

to affirm
it

were led to

they

for the Eternal

life

as a

of each one of the

because

argument

through

except

it is necessary

Spirit.

and

The existence

since it is impossible

that
z6

(i. e. God)) be living

through
Word

the basis of their

His existence

requires

what

as two deities.

existence

two

in eternity,

the Father

with

of the doctrine

is invalid

according
in terms

to

to refute

the

in wording

of that

is in terms

of meaning

not in

as it does not affect

it, is

of the words insofar

expressions

forward

different

of what

doctrine,

languages

makes it invalid,

which
without

'Abd
here seems obscure.
The use of the term ma{n by
He had
al-Jabbr
O
Qudam
in
it
the next sentence.
the
It
synonymous
made
with
word
(sif t)
to find a word to describe the attributes
seems to be an attempt
As noted before they are not God not
which have been existing eternally.
other than Him according to the Kullbiyya.
is said and approved by Christian
This doctrine
scholars as Elias of Nisibis,
`Afif
(Cheikho, Trois Traites,
(Ibid., P. 75). See also
P. 19) and
b. Mu'ammil
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. Z.

Z8

changing

We have said that

Christians
the
since

they have to accept

i. e.

Father,

He

becomes

affirmation

Son and Holy

knowing.

by the change of language).

(of the doctrine

the nature

living

they

and

When they

subsisting

They

make Spirit

then

have forced

on them becomesinescapable

As for their

doctrine:

"We say that

It is like

forced
we

them

However,

some of the Christians

for

they

from

things

in

different

and requires

According

that

We say concerning
it is not other

terms

other

entities

them

(i. e.

consideration

of

they be one thing

the thing

on what

are different

So it is not right
to admit

them

they

from

the

them

This is/the

abnegation

whether

these

because

of the expressions

doctrine

their
three

they say that

it out by descriptions
it is an entity

by attributes;
apart

being

their

of

that

being

one

it is one from

of the group,

the totality

comes within

(to it), because

attributes)

existence

things.

to admit

argument,

and

one
aspect
&cau4

than it when you have added it to the group; and that

and characterised

that

accept

must

by

aspect.

other

which

has no effect

forced

or several

forced

in reality,

or from

are not

than that.

requires

our scholars

are illogical

a description

the

the attributes

is one.

differing

things

that

than each one of it when you single

of applying

from

and not in another.

not

it is three

we

it.

does not affect

that

maintain

illogical
based
on
an
and

and one being three

Gods which

the hypostases

we have

what

different

to this aspect,

was contradictory

the aspect

from

that

But it is more certain

are

which

becomes

are not different

the substance

although

in one aspect

another.

He

which

to the Christians.

they
when
-even

are claiming,
is different

agreeing
of

the hypostases

by which

of them,

of three

and the wording

have claimed

themselves

impossibility
an

is

the postulation

the same applies

are hypostases,

to defend

the deity

This

to admit,

as they

them

what

by

the argument
of Kullbiyya
which states that
from God. ' In the same way that this doctrine

different

insofar

the life

in eternity

than the substance. "

but they are other

substance

..
(dhawt)

entities

knowledge,

Son,

make

that,

admit

are

of three

Spirit.

(m a4ani)

in

from

concerning

Z9

from
which

and it could
the

that.

other

it is other

the point

of view

is different

be characterised

entities

that

without

from
by
any

If

followed

they

intended
Then

in terms

they

eternal
quite

this

would

in accusing

right

argue:

"According

to your

being

statement

that

from

illustrate

it
it

since

are different.

that

and one entity

that,

we are

units

are one

without

your

us to say that

He is

belongs

to

is according

this

because

for

other

from

of the contradiction

by our statement

about
(by it)

and we meant
appropriate

for

"one human

being"

that

one in ability.

of

"one

by

it is removed

(of three

from

Furthermore,

we

contradiction

of

when

from

part

which

can be characterised

consists

which

and there

it

that

a structure

So the contradiction

as the

We only

meant

the other

We mean by saying

of those

(which

parts

On the

you do not

mean by

of hypostases

in

the
within

and

in it.

is a group
which

be

and will

as being one in activity

because

remains

So the

ten.

they are many (parts)

is no contradiction

the same position

substance"

total

is as obvious

for.

else is appropriate

of

in the same

three

which

of the human being that

is different

being)

do
not apply
you

have
claimed.
you

is a group

of

total

we have mentioned

in what

the hypostases

hypostases

Similarly

they

there

attain

virtue

that.

nothing

is reasonable

cannot

you

every

which
that

That

like

that

being)

make up a human

characterised

the parts

that

affirm

no
It is

have
we
given.

which

are a group.

it

is

There

time.

one

do
not
you

what

of such a contradiction

confirmation

your

at

may be

this group

We say one so that

ten for all countables

the number

way as we can apply

doctrine

group

things

countable

so that

and groups.

to the meaning

they (the hypostases)

that

expression

other

"group"

in

are different

of the group

You do not mean by your doctrine

one substance

hand

the units

of the numbers

for you to do that

not possible

something

and

"

it by our statement

the rest

that

contradiction

removal

being

numerous

So why did you not allow

we affirm

and we describe

distinguished

this

to say that

are one human

hypostases.

is no doubt

reality

deities

to confirm

is:

The answer
There

we

(ma'n).

sense

do not concede

they

it is right

of view

parts

before,

what

of contradiction.

contradictory.

in three

substance

them

point

and countless

group

Whenever

concede

would

in an absolute

as we mentioned

have no end.

that

entities

they

different

being

of hypostases

They might

may

argument

be forced,

doctrine

in their

hypostases
your

which

are

occur

argument

or

while

ours as we said.

meant
meaning.

by

the
It

contradiction

is not

possible
30

which
to

we accused

accept

it

without

them
the

of,

words

themselves

contradicting
was existent
is already

known,

they

that

maintain

belief.

According
declare

this

it is required

same

the

are

Because

according

who is a knowing
hypostasis.

It requires
between

one thing

between

its being

being

of

among

hypostases

are different

protection

from

7.

the

the

For this translation

there

what

aspects

in repudiati

r%j

the point

reach

from

the believer

remove

They

to

his

in looking

is no point

to the subsisting

in terms

the substance

They

forced

maintain

upon

them

similar

requires

(the

different
and

in

those

say

to those

refer

is like

that.

is only a Father

of the Father

the same

with

to

is correct

to every

regard

that

their

yet different.

entity

Because

and non-existent.

what

they

and whatever

admit

is

that

is no difference

there

and being contradictory

to the other

it

being
as

of the things

it, because

and affirming

must

of the hypostases,

but rather

entities,

they

of one substance

cannot

(ma'n1)7

an attribute

that

admit

entities

subsisting

doctrine

existent

in the Chapter

those

in

something

discussed

for

to

we

rejection

one or two

we would

The existence

impossible.

and living.

demands

As

is

to their

rejecting

is the same with

oneself

and in terms

they are the same in subsisting

is that

doctrine

thing

forced

are

be different

same

So what

from

is impossible,

be the same one.

them

it is

for we have claimed

and the same because,

do not refer

entitle

that

we would

they

view,

He must

different

which

elements

of

He should

and

hypostases)
attributes

point

that

that

required

so that

God is different

that

in words,

It

it could be removed.

by which

to

is possible

in pre-occupying

through

know this belief

As we already

for an argument

because

is valid

what

and white.

The argument

in reality

three

is no point

There

is unacceptable,

of invalidating

being

something

was black

(this contradiction)

upon the Christians,

one thing

be accepted.

whatever

the

what

about

one substance

(those words) mean.

we have forced

to what

cannot

and that

even though

to accept

not possible
regard

as we accused

and non-existent,

that

a person of who claimed

its being
in its

in
be
accord
/to

to it and

contradictory

affirmation,

as we

of attributes.

them

who

in order
consequence
ni,
of ma

that

maintained
to escape

from

because

cf. Peters,

31

it

"We
this

do not

argument,

depends

on

God's Created

say
" they

meaning

that

the

have no
not

Speech, P. 156.

the

So in

expression.

that

maintained
them

to admit

there

He said

"When

is impossible
living

be

which

is the

and

Son

must

produced

except

from

to

agent

knowing.

that

living

then

way

which

God apart

He

On the

requires

living
and

Him having

if

attributes.

and Life,

(dhdt),

subsisting

they

Hearing,

then in the
entity,
Him

affirm

having

Word

of two hypostases.

because
If they

Seeing

not

or Knowledge,

and His (Kalima)

to the evidence,
is not

Him

If they affirm

to make a limit

it is contrary

for

affirm

must also be

must be His Life

In this way it is necessary

affirm

must

and one.

to be His Life

make His Power

and

his knowledge

through

His

hand,

other

these

You

entity

through

need

and knowing

His subsisting

and living

for

and Perception

Vision

great

living

be

cannot

to be living

You must

actions.

life.

is

which

him

of actions

are repudiated.

through

knowing

for

He

knowledge

action

and perceiving.

doer

has

has a greater

action

has need

then His being

even though

because

of

is acting,

Spirit

affirmed

the

seeing

Knowledge
His
way

the Knowledge

that

as He is mighty,

insofar

and they

His being

affirmed

He has Hearing,

that

intends
who

and Life.

originally

from

it

as He is the

but

whenever

(God)

Power

in terms

hypostases,
He

for

than

affirm

be knowing

Power

is conceded,

to concede

9.

do it)

Power,

Power

Knowledge

must be His Life.

8.

insofar

He must

that

has

be hearing,

and Unity,

in the same

(rnAn)

you

must

for

through

through

If that

(to

In this way the hypostases

not

Power

he

they say

either

doctrine.

their

are three

have

you

one who has Power,

deny Him having

rejected.

through

and

that

affirm

make

Greatness

If they

Word,

the

He must be someone

of them,

same

have

will

He has Will,
(a;

Power

So you

power

as the

Might,

knowing.

have

This

insofar

you

that

and

you

there

that

to admit

or repudiate

to believe

to set

That is obvious.

upon them

that

they wanted

Therefore

these.

hypostases

you affirm

for

Therefore

its

forced

are more than three

would

and non-existent.

to accept

Abu- Ali

scholar

to them:

it

that,

by refusing

as those who
position
8
So we forced upon

same

it is the same and different.

that

Our venerable

in
the
are

they

is existent

one thing

aside this argument

that

doctrine

this

they would have

of

(an element)

affirm

Power

and Perceiving

for
then

text is
there is a
which makes no sense. Obviously
in
has
been
It
text.
the
tentatively
translated
as
confusion
-4.0,401. p'
The second repet ition has no sense, so it has been dropped from the
translation.

The Arabic

3Z

they

are forced

Christianity

to affirm

hypostases.

numerous

In this

the doctrine

way,

of

is repudiated.

10
It is impossible

for

He is living

that

for them

(Person)

living
a
as

being powerful

without

(by arguing)

knowing

being

without

both insofar

He is living

to say that

them

and

the case is the same

that

be without

may sometimes

both these

qualities.

The position
is

there

no

Knowledge
the fact

two,

living

(person)

that

doctrine

because

or it is three

That He is the living,

and Creating
is three

That

the

Then

it

is three

is necessary

impossible

because

that
since

For

other
itself

alongside

14

If, concede

that

alongside
is

living

create

..

lthough

are forced

to
is

This

He is the activity

that

doctrine

doctrine

Father.

an effect

(hukm)

(hukm)

for

the

alongside
is knowing

the knowledge
that

is

That

for something

itself

is possible

God

that

be continued.

may
the

that
it

is

not the two other

alongside

an effect

it is incorrect,

else,

something

Life.

the
other

it
way

terms

the possibility

His

of

be necessary

of the living

Him.

Similarly

10.

The word
translation.

the question

aY
sihu,

has

upon to concede

to affirm

it

it

should

in

make

to dispense

meaning,

33

that

with

for

His being

Life,

as they

it does not require

hypostases.

is the Father

them,

so it

is required

requires

endless

which

can be put against

no

attribute

of His being Life,

(being),

it
thus
would be necessary
and

this

living,

being

In terms

person.

would

so that

forced
are

they

things,

So in

it.

In this

can be living,

Life

maintained

Himself

must

mentioned

is living.

of their

the

be living

it to create

reason

for a living

require

so that

it is

else be knowing.

somebody

itself

this

hypostases,

of

argue:

upon to admit

argue:

a cause

for

it
is
impossible
else,
thing.

They might

Life

They

is only the Father

They might

the

we have

or Life

is
the repudiation
way

In this

hypostases.

living

living

hypostases.

Life

without

without

one of them,

is repudiated.

then they are forced

Deity.

itself

He is living

that

be

two in terms

these

what

upon is that

would

is without

that

doctrine

their

which

between

is correct

they have to say that

either

hypostases

it

Then
that

it,

(person)

of a living

is agreed

which

understand

is no difference

if some aspects

and requires

the

as we

There

imperfection.

necessary

the evidence,

regarding

and Power.

certainly

admit

of the

Life

which

It would

being

Life

is other

in

than

when they argued:

has been

dropped

from

the

"That

knowledge

They

are forced

would
deity

that

whoever

be God.

In this

is one substance

Their

argument

the

of their

to admit
doctrine

that
that

he
the

the

argument

is the deity

apart

that

requires

from

of them

each

must be a deity.

insofar

Each
must

is

as what

So they have to say

attributes.

hypostases.

of three

action)

Kullbiyya,
of

of them

be living

should

be

and having

In this way, they are abandoning

argue:

The action

of three

Because

it

The answer

that

affirming
to affirming

They might

one action

one of them

that

the action
is different

can be an action

may do it and another

for

more

leave it.

than

one

We mentioned

of each of them
from

would be different

from

his fellow

as

his fellow.

argue:
is an action

is
three.
only of one who

is:

is no difference

There

that

earlier.

each of them

The action

is only one, it does not need to affirm

one agent.

is impossible

its invalidity

They might

is

argument)

is:

agent it follows

It follows

4Abd
(i.
e.
al-Jabbr's
so that your

when the action

but rather

agents,

The answer

is one action

because

not necessary

Every

they are forced

if

because

own doctrine.

They might

three

it.

(hypostases)

active

is the

hypostases.

be like

and also each of them

power

or the Knowledge

to repeat

is a repudiation

there

way,

is (the

obligation

of three

the affirmation

of three

would

action
Its

active.

So it is pointless

is
acts
a human being,

to the attributes

subject

their

to admit

hypostases

of the two other

of the two hypostases.

they argue

that

is the life

the Life

that

between

it is an action

affirming

that

it

is an action

of one who acts who is three

in reality

of three

and

in addition

the act to them.

argue:

one of them

is acting

with

the others

in reality.

34

and not every

is
them
one of
acting

The answer
Haven't

is:

you said they

are three

if
as
one of them

just

who are acting

was acting

the other?

with

They might
Every

reply:
is part

one of the three

The answer

they

(i. e. the Living

who is acting.

division.

to

of the actor

part

because

Deity),

as it would

the deity

subject

being

the action

is impossible

action

is

Life

that

concede

of him

part

of dividing

the possibility

of

possibility

are one actor.

is:

This requires
that

of them

and the three

of the actor

for

would

the

require
of life

the possibility

Him

also be impossible

It

It also requires

to be acting

being

and not

for him to be living

an

and not

Life.

are forced

They

to admit

and yet not Him.

They

there

is no fourth

from

God.

their

doctrine

who affirmed

If they

along with

is different

must

not the Life

Him (God) Knowledge

from
that

affirm

by the argument

was living,

Life

that

conceded

They

Creator

be the only

be repudiated

would
that

it.

about

is a part

Life

to say that

Life

that

admit

must

position

God would

it is impossible

that

of Him
because

Him,

is different

Life

and Knowledge.
we discussed

which

and Power

Now
of those

are eternal.

they would be acknowledging

the unity

of

God.

It is correct
that

argument

say that

caused
there

affirms

which

He is a Father

was caused

God.

Since,

and an agent

in Eternity,

becomes

is no contradiction

the same is the case with

forced
are

virtue

fact
of

if they held any such argument

to admit
that

He is active

that

to be and the Father

They

is part of God or Life

is God or
they

would

Christianity.

have to abandon

The

from

it is different

that Life

the argument

to repudiate

an agent

between

it is reasonable

because
became

forces
also

in eternity

a Father
through

through
that.

Him being a Father

to say that
it, just

them

the Son

as an action

Since according

to

is

to them

for
Son
all eternity,
and a

Him being an agent.

that

He is a subject

He is a changing

body

is
He
caused.
and

35

'ism)

to division
which

into

three

is subject

divisions

to differences

by

They

also forced

to admit

and exist

because

said that

the Eternal

are eternal

and exist

there

would

He be living

same way that

Son, because

just

it is necessary

Concerning

it

Because
Kullbiyya

According

repudiated

and because

from

the other.

insofar

Father

substance

of

If

this

the

was

this is because

along

its contradiction
over

predominance11
possible
longer

a thing

sure

whether

They

for

the Father

would

the same,
any reason

11.

would

differences

because,
which

with

only

if

they

If

be like

that

or) non-being

of the

Him,

that

this

because

it

the
be

would

of

(Son's)
his
of

in its substance

of something

is to give the attribute

it

would

also

be

This would mean they were no

the

Father

Son,

and

even though

the

and

the

Father.

are different,

them to be different

36

though

of Father,

which

the hypostases

it as "al-rji4a".

if it

Otherwise,
even

was possible,

the (hypostases)

argued

of

for
the Son to cease being
and

would be the same as that

We read it and translated

to (Him).

to all the attributes

to its attribute

regard

they

is one

substance

cease being an Eternal

would require

that

hypostases

from

an equivalent

substance.

that

so

distinguishes

what

three

of

different

would

to affirm

(being

have to admit

for
their
cause

substance

to cease being its substance.

the

about

its

and a

doctrine

the

which

describe

they

as the

same

it

case,

by

way

to cease being a Father

substance;
with

same

is the same as the Father's.

Son was

the

Son is the

the

for the Father

possible
Son.

that

been explained

the Son is entitled

that

admit

the

"the

that

as His substance

be possible

would

doctrine

in the

a Spirit

and they are not what is attributed

has been

their

and non-

and being everlasting,

has already

in

" they must

substance,

it

and Life,

repudiated

to

caused

it
is
cause,
necessary

in eternity,

be

each hypostasis

(in such a

and living.

they are attributes

will

being

requires

hypostases)

because

it being through

without

As they

which

(three

they

and exists,

without

His existing

He be knowing

Knowledge

say that

cannot

and knowing

as it decrees

that

His

He exists

that

argued

to deny that

(the
Father)
of

be the affirmation

(ma"n).

of an element

is Eternal

the Father

while

Since they

existent.

for them

be
correct
not

be Eternal

must

an attribute

because

and living

is knowing

it will

requires

which

of an element

an attribute,

denial)

hypostases
these
of
one
each

that

required

were

different

them

to be

without

it would be impossible.

They might
That

the

this

would

argue:

hypostases

different

they

must

of their

in substantiality

the doctrine

admit

do not

and Jacobites

for them

it is possible

they

was one substance,

substance

The Melkites

(a n) and substances,

entities

they would have to be different

in hypostasy.

they say that

if their

that,

necessitate

Otherwise,

same.

because

differed

to be different

from

that

they are different

that

the son would

as they were
this

maintain

when

Therefore

one aspect.

from

be the

by which

the aspect

they are the same.

1.

are forced

They

to admit

the son is the same as the substance

2.

are forced

They

of imperfection.

absence

attribute

hypostases

is it possible

the hypostases

would

to say that

the

from

(substance)

being

the same as the substance

contradicts,

them

(hypostases)

from

are the same

substance

if

Furthermore,
from

different

hypostases

the

them,

three,

are

then they need to affirm

their

doctrine.

If they

to one of them,

they

contradict

their

else
itself.

They
three,

This

them.

would

require

claim

argument
that

that

they

that

one thing

be

them,

the substance

although

these

(hypostases)

being different

from

not being different

(hypostases).

the

made

the fourth

from

should
from

that

them

they

and

they

When the

the substance

from

to it.

And how could it

reality,

in reality?

being different

have abandoned

from

the (substance).

these (hypostases)

then it must contradict

and the substance

it

is different

in

is

the Fatherhood

from

Why is it not conceded

as it

(hypostases)

different
substance

from

the

requires

is different

substance

(hypostases)

them

which

to say that

the

are not

are not different

different

be

that

to them,

according

being a Son is contrary

otherwise

When is it conceded?

be reasonable?

of

the Son should be Father,

that

It is incorrect

hypostases

though

even

because,

and one of things

is necessary

doctrine

Melkites

the

to

How

while

it

and Divinity,

of perfection

regard

asked:

Then

of deity

He would be incomplete.

otherwise

With

the Son as Father

to affirm

since substance

of the Father.

is one of the attributes

Fatherhood

be Father,

one.
refer

In this way they

by the substance

the substance
would

substance

is something

be different

from

This is irrational.

cannot
because

claim
that

that

the substance

is impossible

is not a fourth,

to judge
37

while

as we mentioned

it is not one of the

before.

There

is no

difference

between

saying

and between

not one of them,

from

it is different

saying that

fourth,

it and is not

from

is different

that

and yet

is
it
one
and

them

of them.

Furthermore,

God must be the substance

be the hypostases

is different

the substance
Father,

they claim

the Father,

adores
disbelieve

because
This

these

would

However

are forced

to admit

are not God.

Therefore

whoever

God Himself

that

Holy

of

Spirit,

Christianity

not

which

has

be wrong,

would

the God.

are not

inclination

and

does

doctrine
your

that

to the God, they

are added

an abandonment

them

is substance

this would require

Son and the

the

in

disbelieves

who

say that

which

doctrine12

this

that

"three

saying,

requiriLJ

the

towards

and something

something

else

difference

is

the
it

Furthermore

It

three.

are

It

same.

would

"three

"
else.

require

would
the

and one are not

would

also

require

that

one
not

would

countable

This would

the

same

as

that

three

things

to

affirm

and

deny

makes

one.

through

the

should

be a

that

require

require

1).

"
else,
was

and nothing

This

would

three

(3
is
+1=
one
and one

three

saying

someone

that

to admit

them

they have to say that

Rather

necessitate

and

one

increase

and

of numbers.

addition

to

According
substance
is not

and

If they say that

of Kullbiyya.

doctrine

four.

they

Father,

things

are

be

God,

they should be told

God is the

the

If

Spirit

because

they

and the hypostases),

adore

in the deity.

hypostases,

three

not

hypostases.

of three

the eternal

doctrine,

their

the

God is the

that

to admit

be abandoning

is one substance

to them

to exclude

If they say that

they are forced

the Son and the Holy

does

them

Divinity.

and this would

(the substance

is both

from

Spirit

(the

of them

and according

forced
are

they

or He must

be both

or He must

the hypostases,

the substance,

the deity

that

the deity

that

from

is not the deity,

substance

their

because,

a substance

hypostases

Z.

from

apart

the hypostases

If God is the substance,

the Son and the Holy

hypostases

must

apart

apart

the substance

and the hypostases).

substance

that

from

from

affirm

are

the

two

doctrines,

exist

substance
substances

(God is one substance

is required

the hypostases

that

to them it is not correct

according
can

it

by

itself.

and the
that

which

Therefore
substance

would

has three
38

be

the

to affirm
they

is another
deity.

hypostases)

that

must

that

say

which

that

They

substance.
In this

way

the

it

is a

contradiction
(substances)
of them

Christianity.

of

hypostas.

are different,

The

of

one

the doctrine

If a proponent

from

becomes

It will

that

also be invalidated

through

in the context

place
which

demonstrates
argument

According
speech

to this

has another

Furthermore,

since

them,

why should

Father.

Indeed

is life,

the

word

speech

knowledge,

is not

became

which

speech

invalidate

will

the speaker
and speech

is a created

forced

them

be a Father

motion

separated

with

total

from

and that

for it (word)

more appropriate

the speaker

an

ignorance.

to admit

and tranquility

took

This

forward

put

It

category,

creation.

they

can

speaker

when it

rational

requires

themselves

would

that

only

in time.

speech,

Whenever

scholars

it be more appropriate
the Father

that

be called

doctrine.

early

that

speech,

affirmed
15
and creator.

agent

our

speech

only

that

they associate

method,

they

which

13.

this view,

This

substance.

mentioned

Then it would be from

this

of

that

would

from

separated

other

he produces

that

require

speech

the invalidity

against

two

eternals.

That would stop him being an eternal

of sequence.

be

cannot

the

by what confirms

of the fact

that

to

we have already

then what

only be an activity
of a speaker.
14
a'"A
Father and
would
explains

the

are

the Son is the Word and Speech in reality

that

argues

by virtue

speaker

asked,

two different

to affirm

is different
13

them

of Dualism.

them

are forced

they

of

and he is not Knowledge,

his argument.

be

could

s not the other?

If they say they

substance

they

If they say, they are the same, why did one

the same or different?

become

resembles

Then

that

His

the speech

and it

is the

according

to be a Son rather
among us, because

to

than a
through

The term is applied to a system of thought according to which there exists

the religious dualism which is ordinarily
two Gods. Here is it particularly
to be the Chief Characteristic
of the Zoroastrian
considered
religion.
God is Ahura
Muzda,
According
to them,
the Supreme
conceived
as
to him is Ausa Mainyu (the destroying
good and in opposition
essentially
111.
Encyclopedia
V,
P.
Religion
Ethics,
of
spirit).
and
vol.

God as an eternally
does not accept
14.4Abd
al-Jabbr
as a Muqazilite
God
The same arguments,
with an eternal
speaking
uncreated
word.
although not stated apply also to begetter
and Father.
15.

'Abd
is extremely
This argument
What
elliptical.
al-Jabbr's
seems to be
is that there is an unending chain of speech and life etc, if you
implying
define the Son as the Word of God, then as God, he would need another
Word of God etc.

39

being

a Father,

(Father)

was not,

proceed

the

Him the Son existed.

of the Son, through

He is the origin

the Son would not be.

According

Son, so why did he become

to be a Father

appropriate

more

does not

the Father

to them,

If He

than

the Son?

If

we

hypostases
;I
Jct.,.I,.o
while He is one substance because things must have substance or accident
(fill) is possible from accident,
(it
is required),
that the Deity must
activity
so
one of their

be substance.
body.

said,

proponents

without

body.

physical
or

preference

of

power

he

So

speaking.
discrimination

and living

it

If

substance

not

speaking

and living.

life

speaking

and living

speech)

must be from

the substance

because

He is Eternal

not Created.

They

argued

be the Spirit

Sometimes
offspring

it is necessary

further

and the other

that

itself,

Thus

Now He must

substance.
life

and speaking

it is required

that

every

it is confirmed

that

He is

is required

that

(life

both

to be the Father,

and

in Him,

because they are not created

for the substance

say that
cannot

Life

would

as Life

offspring

if

and it

is also necessary

we said, Father,

Son and Holy

So it is
that

He

Spirit.

Word.
Speech
the
Son
the
and
as
and

to this is: the argument

(yajib)

one kind can produce

Then He would be incomplete.

do that.

So for this purpose

And we make the Spirit

is of two kinds,

the living

can produce

Deity

be the Father.

The answer

and speech.

having

as

and Speech would be the Word whom they call the Son.

they

necessary
would

cjthen

with

It

and non-

speaking

described

having

then

Therefore

into

or

So we have

actions.

He must be speaking.

and speaking

He is a substance,

must be

so the Deity

be

cannot

He is a substance,

because

be speaking

of

divided

it is required

is without

The dead have no choice

power

can be further

He is a living

that

is so because

would

or dead.
or

Therefore

and wisdom.

and speaking

power.

is

(2) one which

and being assembled,

discrimination

who

it has been confirmed

be living

to division

to be three

there

(1) body,

kinds;

He must be living

Him as living

confirmed

is two

The substance

The body is subject

have claimed

(itibr)

which

you have put

forward

be an entity

would
(ma_'lm

only

be acceptable

16.

4Abd
is described by many Christian
This argument
quoted by
al-Jabbr,
(Cheikho,
in
Sharh
Vingt
as
one
can
see
al-Nasraniyya
al-'Agida
scholars,
PP. 3-4) and by Paul of Sidon (Ibid., PP. 20,25,49,55)
Traites,
and by
Elias of Nisibis, (Cheikho, Trois Traites, PP. 31-33) and 'Afif b. Mu'ammil
(Ibid., PP. 75-76).

the only

thing

40

which

could

that

which

that

God is not a substance

based

can be known)

this problem
(physical)

because

he is not subject

is possibly
were

something

substance

if%opposite

of that

was affirmed,

for

His

would

which
through

part

affirmed

(relying

without

if

substance,
substance

quality
that

life

quality.
simply

because

17.

substance

that

and speech
For

if

itself.

they
they

would

are

speech later

by Life
invalidate

become

are two special

instead

qualities,

of minh
41

to
same

be

of

of

for Him.
the

substance

because

possible
to their

same
cannot

be affirmed

it would

Speech

be possible

because
They
qualities

qualities

Then He

because

on basis of their

argument.

such

of men's need for it.

and

that

that

does not

if He could

the

of

He must be

He is) speaking.

Life

special

part

reasoning

whoever

as a result

special

elements

possible for something

17
them as living
of one of

and Speech
their

(ma'ni)

of speech and life

that

have to be like

and

seeing

is an affirmation

and Speech),

by

Characterised
will

be in the same

there

Otherwise

(affirming

to

them

requires

He would

because

(Life

because

all

required

According

without

living,
and

is only

be

not

would have only become

We read it minhum

that

the existence

and deficient.

had not

He is not

that

hearing,

is of the
That

would

and delivering

is

to affirm

be (such) for

and beneficient

generous

is Characterised

(khssa),

evidence,

way

whatever

Therefore

substance

substance

every

speech

on) these two attributes

be speaking

However,

it.

He is living,

that

to affirm

without

all

He would

and

for

be a miser

would

qualities,

might

the

as Eternal

HiS Own will

powerful,

be its own substance.

would

substance

If

from

of

since you

be incomplete,

In this

because

(hukm)

have need of a cause

is different

because

they have confirmed

life

is impossible,

substance)

and accident,

is right

He would

that

what

the

body
that He

you must maintain

He must be speaking

that

attributes.

like

(that

doctrine

(physical)
a

since it is not possible

these

carry

is without

it

then

eternal,

substantiality,

hypostases

numerous
Their

existing

This requires,

perceiving.
manner

is

deity

or

with

evidence.

without

it is required

He

is either

substance

body,

that

that

admit

from

the substance

Therefore

to composition.

you have

that

Him as an agent, having

nor accident

doctrine

the

that

requires

He had no physical

although

which

Your doctrine

else apart

to affirm

allowed

Their

body,

So the basis on which

nor an accident.

is false.

without

or accident.

substance

was either

We have explained

for

it

is

argument.

its
of

own special

must,

then,

for a third
a third

would require

affirm
special

quality

but

the same with

to each special

regard

This would

quality.

of special

an endless number

require

qualities.

According

to

body, because

the substance,

to defectiveness.

Indeed

drinks,

in which

_.
Then it is required

substance.

because

to affirm

they are required

for anything

to Him,

regard

having parts and

argued . He must be movable,
it
is
like
be
that,
something
would
nearer
not
when

have

they

what

that

living

every

that

they

being

was not possible,

affirm

of that

as substance

not

such

with

not be a

would

Him

has

who

the possibility

who eats and

be

would

qualities

incomplete.

It is required,

to this

according

a Deity,

because

He

speaking,

because

He was

living

is

living

thing

and speaking

that

argument,
and

that

He only

as He

was

only

This requires
11011

a substance.

be Deity

would

just

speaking,

admit

they

the

living

and

that

admission

jinn

so the angels,

became

every

being

and human

would be deities.

Their

it is the necessary

that

argument

knowledgeable

and

knowledgeable

and wise,

knowledge

without

doctrine

Their
and

that,

doctrine

Some

of

intermingling

argued

types

of

the

one

is

who

sometimes,

numbers,

two types

because

one

that

is

He

that

He is three

For this argument

two

because

companion,

that

to admit

speaks

and are not

one

in spite

That is a sign of temporal

in number,
are

even

because

types

see, al-Kindi,

of

perfect

number

Ris"Ala'Abd
4Z

He

was

two

and the

causation.

consists

of two

then

that

which

brings
18
does not,

does

not

attain

numerical

and whatever

and odd numbers

is more

their

of

species

three

number

do

status.

if

two

of

the

requires

the angels are also

because

substance

and sterile

he who cannot

fathers,

He was a mixture

that

of the number
the

a Father

to human beings and have a greater

of two substances.

together

18.

the

is incomplete
is

He

that

affirm

marry

never

require

would

of

must be

a speaker

a baby,

while

offspring

They are required

they

argued

that

of

a female

they are superior

it

because

produce

to

is necessary

He has adopted

them

substances,

They

he who cannot

because
that

ignorance

his speech,

arranges

would be incomplete.

incomplete

(that)

and wisdom.

it

that

admission

wise

that

therefore

is a matter

consequence

al-Masih,

P. 30.

completeness,

He (God)

is the

that

and

and

that

required

describe

to

numbers

as does the hypostasis

has three

would

be nine.

types

of number,

That requires

by Himself

Otherwise,

it

of them

that

This requires

be incomplete

not be a Deity

the

together

two

to

their

according

each one of the hypostases

the all would

that

of the hypostases

if each does not bring

would

This

two kinds of

together

and then the number

is required,

that

requires

brings

by Himself

perfection

and odd numbers.

even

is

So it

numerical

of the Son and of Spirit.

hypostases

each

That

argument.

that

is impossible.

through

together

the Father

them

to admit

brings

which

requires

Father

be characterised

should

number

incomplete
as

Him

be incomplete.

would

and the defect

be general

would

to all of them.

Furthermore,

in its hypostasy.

three
He

together
they

So it is required,

be incomplete

would

in His

two types of numbers.

mentioned,

number

or' the kind

require

Him

incomplete,
anything

not as they
brings

According

must

and

would

together

must

affirm

numerous

they

must

attach

to Him

This requires

It could

be asked about

Father,

so that

Father

19.

in terms

that

their

He does, not

from

Him

statement

numbers

for

attribute

is more

the deity.

which

that

reproduction,

being

to admit

if

and excellent.

Thus

It is also required

that

is attested

to be praiseworthy

is assembled,

it is required

so that

is

that

Therefore,

complete.

of

would
This

eternal.
them

bring

kinds

in Him

that

tall

He may

and wide.

He should

"Why did you not say that

19

that

to what

two

of that

perfect

He had a body that

doctrine,

is contrary

together

requires

then it is more

He may not be imperfect.

of sexual

because

the establishment

hypostases

every

argumentation

to us, the defect

prevent

two

the odd and even in it are more,

and perfect.

for

it is

to their

when He brings

exist

Their

claimed.

they

according

substantiability,

is even,

which

created

which

it

because

is not three in its substantiality,

the deity

to them,

according

not

be a

He is the

be imperfect

is
Christian
here
be
What 'Abd al-Jabbr
the
to
seems
referring
concept
in detail
Wolfson has discussed the mystery of generation
of generation.
(see his book "The Philosophy
He
pp. Z87-304).
of Church Fathers,
"That
they felt
at explanation,
still, despite all their attempts
concludes:
It is a unique event, a mystery
that generation
cannot be explained.
"
kind
in
the
of creation or generation
world.
unlike any other
"So Irenaeus says:
He further
supports his idea by some church Fathers:
"If anyone, therefore,
by the
says to us, - "How was the Son emitted
him,
Father"
to
that emission,
that no man understands
we
reply
or
or utterance
or manifestation,
or by whatever
name one may
generation,
describe His generation,
which is in fact indescribable.

43

because

only

mentioned,
which

fatherhood

is irrational.

which

a female

can adopt

We have discussed

it, while

If they

the birth

argue

the Word

that

rejecting

they

admit

that

you

He is a body,

as one of ours can.

and can procreate

has reached

that

one

point

We

Christianity.

about

anthromorphism.

of the son from

is as the production

the Father

of

heat
fire
from
fire
light
the
the
the
and
of
reason
and
of
:
20 it
the sun,,
would be said to them that the Word is not produced
because

through

the reason,

person

and sometimes

the one who is doing

is reason,

you meant

it,

not

when it refers

acquired

through

a reason

possible

with

knowledge

because

regard

can be uttered

one who may possess reason

produced

knowledge,

to necessary
and whatever

the intelligent

cannot

knowledge

through

by being

by Word he meant

saying,

it

sometimes,

is only possible

Word arrangement

itself

whoever

that

the

not

through

the sun from

argued

It requires

companion

to argue with

are not going

negate

could

imperfection

that

by an unreasonable
produce

one word.

by means of selection

by the reason.

by

If a Christian

it should be argued that knowledge

21
knowledge.
On the other hand, if
is similar,

person

is free

then it is not produced

from

that

and that

is

to him.

He quoted Basil who had the same theory.

"That the substance of the Father did not generate the son" by fluxion or
forth shoots, as plants put forth their fruits on the contrary,
by putting
is
ineffable
inconceivable
to the
the method of divine
and
generation
human mind. " and finally
he mentioned
that the statement
of John of
"that no other generation
is like the generation
Damascus:
of the Son of
God" and "that the nature of the generation
and procession is quite beyond
"
comprehension.
Wolfson,
20.
21.

The Philosophy

of the Church

Fathers, P. 304.

For this analogy see the description

scholars, Cheikho, Vingt
of Christian
Traites, PP. 2,5,14,21
and 42.
lm al--darri (necessary knowledge)
but Peters did not
knowledge',
it as 'immediate
Some scholars translated
Because we see that
translation.
agree and said, that it is not a correct
i. e., direct or immediate
has divided it into two categories,
Abd al-Jabbr
it
it
better
be
indirect
knowledge.
translate
So
to
as necessary
would
and
knowledge.
in the
defines it as "necessary knowledge
McDermott
which is established
on the subject's part and which the subject cannot
mind through no effort
film
"knowledge
doubt or deny". On the other hands
that is
as
al-muktasab
by listening
to revelation
either
or by the subject's
acquired
own
"
reasoning.
Dictionary
terms, Vol. I, P. 880.
of technical
Peters, God's Created Speech, PP. 53-55.
The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufid,
McDermott,
PP. 66-67.
44

The

that

reason
(tansul) is because

from

the denial

The production

of the heat of the fire

heat of the fire

is produced

substance

heat is produced
being

the substance)
heat

was produced

that

a thing

doctrine

the

of

be said

from
only

to them,

in terms

it is required

fire
as a

heat

it

is produced

is possible
about

for

by another

have

something

consequence
light;
else.

not
In this

of them
(i. e.

of it

from

is

there

hand,

On the other

in it,

not

So it is required

that

you

that

with

of

which

which

is no difference

and body

of its polished
is on it.

a quality

are two
the

mentioning

However,

atoms)

because

they

the sun (can be

from

we have described.

something

It

of the heat

of light

has such

the

Father,

Him

affirm

him.

to dispense

by the light

a body

there

situation

it.

composed

characterised
t when

from

Similarly

is the same kind. "

you first

the production

entity

that

every

as if you said that

heat.

the Father

a physical
23
body.
The sun has light

of its being

is just

having

that

them

(ajsm;

a necessary

that

if the

that

but in terms

on the basis of fact

a body

i. e.,

because,

If a proponent

is an affirmation

and Son at the same time

The argument

and because

of heat.

as it

of the son from

in the same way as the argument

23.

of the

be among

only

would

then it is required

be answered:

treated)

22.

in terms

is not possible,

its substance

not through

be understood,

that

the

Therefore

produced

fire,

He has a Son who is generated

that

Father

generation.

would

Son) being

and the substance, or from heat only. It requires

22
itself.
If they argue "that we mean by that that

of something

we claim

origins.

heat

from

of fire

it would

generation

that

affirm

affirm

from

would

the affirmation
that

fire",

is produced

fire

being

then

the former

its substance,

through

be in the place

would
"that

argues,

should

reproduction

(i. e. the

of Him

of Him being Father

because

reason,

of sexual

things.

created

its

in terms

Father

is requirement

there

necessitate

of the word

generation

being

him

in that

This would

created.

deny

they

light

is not
surface

Because

(polished

is

it is

ZZ
ace),
surf

from
produced
rho
,,
between one/says that
was

is that heat and

He seems to be arguing that as the Christian
argument
the fire are the same substance, then it is simply producing itself.
'Abd
In order to refute this argument,
al-Jabbar has resorted to arguments
'ism)
light
body
described
Universe.
He
has
the
as
a
physical
which
about
is
here means a collection
The
too,
such a body and only
sun,
of atoms.
Therefore,
God can cause atoms to come into existence.
the sun does not
light.
he
In
his
the
seems to suggest that the
rest of
argument
produce
is
is
described
kind
light
by the
thus
that
and
surface
of
a
sun's
reflects
light which is reflected
that he
on it. In this way, he seems to indicate
light
and sun to be separate entities.
understands

45

the

is
sun
produced

from

the

light

light

its
says

or another

that

of their

doctrine

is produced

the sun.

Some of them,
the

from

(image

in their

the sun and light,

of)

individual

presentation

(shakhsn)

elements

case

Eternal

the

of

but different

in hypostasy

but different

substantiality
impossible,

because

attribute

of the

different

from

light

the

two

and which

(shakhsiyya).
the

are

which

That
same

in

That

is

(shakhsiyya).

and personality
sun is different

the

of

hypostases

being

together

unites

in individuality

is three

who

sun and light

on the

relied

one substance

which

are the same in substantiality

is the

have

by using

of the Trinity,

from

the

sun and the

one differs

from the attribute

of other, and some parts are
Z4
According
to them, that is impossible
to say
parts.

the other

this about the hypostases.

Some of them

argued:

he is one human

Whenever

'

being.

In the

a human being is living,

same

and He is one substance.

speaking
human

being

through

human

being

he
is
differentiated
when

though

he might

fact

that

what

indicated.

human

being.

as they

was correct

with

regard

and they

them

would

the

although

substance

things,

described,
to him

to admit

in reality,

but it

of us is not a complete

part

(to

common

all

is

(khss)

is
a particular
each

that

is a substance

substance

had

structure

each one of the hypostases

that

have to admit25

ne thing

the

not exclude

the

Even

structure.

it would

was what

and each single

and

He only becomes

through

all animals

living

the human being is not a

mortal.

this description,

through

This requires

not substance

from

being

to structured

because

and being

speaking

be a human

It would not refer

refer

would

his living,

It is wrong,

and mortal,

is existing,

Deity

the

way,

speaking

of

them).

(m m)

However

what

they

other.

that
life
only

Z4.
Z5.

is required

and description

member
In this

So it

which
require

inheres

are called
in him.

the criterion

of a human being which

they

of the hypostases

is the contradiction

many parts

that

may
which

they rely

one living

human

It is the necessary

such

apply

of all that

of being

because

our argument

confirms

maintained

(hukm) to every part

the same criterion

the

have

being

a criterion

because

to the other.

he lives

of the parts

occurrence

Z3.
For this argument see footnote
'Abd al-Jabbr
to them, but he obviously
says according
hold
have
this after his argument.
to
would

to

to every

It is only possible

consequence

a man through

46

we can apply

may be applicable
upon.

we apply

to say

through
that

they

of the numerous

means that

they

parts

of them

that

not possible
with

Deity

only became

the Eternal

be argued

that

be described

He should

of His existence

because

substance,

that

would

body.

God is one substance

to say that

because

living

Why have you come

them:

It is

of the substances.

parts

a special

and created

against

appropriate

in

structured

Him to be a physical

It could

than

are structured

by being

others

require

more

which

in numerous

as three

to a point

it is not

that

hypostases

of three

rather

of one hypostasis.

substances

They

in terms of being hypostases

are different
26
but are the same in the substantiality.
It would be argued against them: Why
might

do you not say that

insofar

"one substance"

means
I only

statement

about

it is their

doctrine,

substance

in reality.
that

say that

It

that

that

(nature)

expressions

before,

the Son is united

with

was one thing

and a human

Christ

Then his

of the Christians,

because

hypostases

three

as one
is

of the Christians

the Son by the

characterise

then it is not possible

in reality

and

I mentioned.

to affirm

and they

living

eternal,

doctrines
the
of
one

that

explains

is united

the doctrine

"three

and my saying

what

That

that

description

these

as we mentioned

doctrine

is their

I mean by my saying

by His being

contradicts

but the same

of substantiality,

He is characterised

his meaning

which

in terms

Those of them who argue:

mean through

If the Eternal

union.

are different

He is one in absolute

that

speaking.

the view

they

are hypostases?

as they

hypostases"

hypostases

Because

answer:

for them

to

is not the one who unites.

the

union

(nature),

makes

Christ

or He became

of two

one after

substances,

divine
a

each one of that

had

been one substance.

So all that
Christian

Although
scholars,

explains

that

he (such an opponent)

what

said is far

away from

the

doctrine.

we

have

narrated

this

they do not escape from

type

of

the fact

doctrine
that

they

from

some

are wrong

of

their

early

in this argument

in two aspects.

One of them

26.

is to apply

these

nouns

to Him

in the classical

Arabic

I in his debate with Caliph Mahdi

It is explained by Timothy
Trois Traites PP. 6-7 and Yahya b. eAdi, Maglat, PP. 36-37.

47

language.

(see Cheikho,

According

to the shari'a,

Him

Eternal,

being

Powerful,

it is shocking.

living

perceiving,

That

and speaking.
hearing

willing,

they limited

Secondly,

His attributes

the denial

requires

and seeing.

being

of Him

This is unbelief

to

on the part

of

in terms

of

those who said that.

As for

those

adoption

that
who maintain
Z?
first of all this

of them

and respect,

the Eternal

Father.

of Christ.

have a Son in reality

it
falls
as

into

of living

a dead body can adopt

that

may adopt

person
calf

a very

or a young camel

Zayd

he

that

him, because

respects

of that

adopt

manner

as a son in educating,

the son and the father.

how

However,

this argument

His

anything

which

the others

said that

He adopts

say that

He takes

that

doctrine

their

other

brotherhood
that

with

He is Father

that

and rules

will

to this

adopt

about
and

one whom he

him in the same

to

are related

the Eternal

one.

him as son?

that he be

each one of the prophets,

be no distinction

The human

another

a young

he exalts

which

regarding

that it

our saying

that

he treats

to believe,

So there

according

between

by that

He adopted

do not have.

it is not possible

it is impossible

statement

association

There

in reality.
some

of that,

for one of us to respect

regarding

as he adopts

to brotherhood

similar

requires

to one who can

In the same way he cannot

be intended

special

of adoption.

as brother

somebody

our

it is possible

said that

could(be

son in terms

or

That is impossible

Therefore

His creation

It is also impossible

is no similarity

There

It would

as a son.

cannot

He is

that

during

regard

one as a son because

old man as a son.

somebody,

with

Because

it is dead.

while

as a son.

adopts

beings.

a living

could have a son in reality

argument

their

to one who can be born like him and insofar

regard

the category

invalidates

is only possible

of adoption

or with

of Christ

that He would be His Father

It requires

The meaning

He is the Father

Christ

being sometimes

in terms

of

respect

is no difference
meaning,

the other.

for

associates

Since it is invalid,

and has a Son, is not possible

is

and what

between

and between

with

one who

others

who

it confirms
according

to

this aspect.

On the other
Abraham

27.

hand,

is a friend

those

who maintained:

that

since

of God, so why is it not correct

it is correct
to say that

to say that
Christ

is His

is attributed
Such doctrine
toward Photinus,
Paul of Somosata and Paul
Cheikho,
Trois Traites, P. 87, and Vingt Traites, P. 36.
see
al-Masisi,

48

son not

through

scholar

Abt

the reality

Ali

Abraham

about

(specially
being

he is a friend

Characteristic
Abraham

with

giving

He did not distinguish

which

"Friend

be called

This analogy

of God, because

from

is a friend

your master

from

refrained

anyone

all

the special
his

of

people

distinguished

character
time,

Abraham

in terms

person

In terms

khalil

friend,
which

They might

a friend
will

else.

whom

unless

ask:

because

he

The needy

He distinguished

him

someone

the

of

mission.

apart

from

for

Qu? n, although

as a friend.

by that

through

what
Because

everybody

that

in that

the

he was a
is more

It

because

or necessity,

needs

is

which

its significance

So it is a metaphorical

person

of
had

He

him

to the angels.

love
of

way

the rest

Furthermore,

his sweetheart

he has adopted

do not characterise

as a friend

a nickname

to both cases so it could not be said that

is His

wealth

somebody

friend
a
needs
apply

If

meaning

distinguishes

the lover

of that,

hardly

things

the

He

Moses was distinguished

apply in both (God and Abraham).

distinguish

not

giving

khalil

but

to one of them in that

God has spoken

by God, although

said:

Do you not understand

use of names

(books).

also to other

than

hardly

will

by this

"If I

God.
of

message.

and it became

and honour

friend

himself

place

of the usage of the name.

addressed

appropriate

the

convey

that,

with

Qu? in had characterised

can be applied

to

friend

as a friend,

Ab Bakr

God had given him,

which

he may

that

by being

and explanation

to give a special

in a way in

him honour

our prophet

community

in his communication

He set

of God".

of that

or called

his

among

So since

else.

by inspiration

have taken

then I would

it was not possible

Therefore

possible

people.

with

it is possible

was characterised

of God so he named

taking
them

encompassed

because

a friend,

to take

was going

other

a special

"Friend

Because

him

would be characterised

every prophet

each one of them

was absent

which

that

Istif

a human

and giving

So he names himself

from

It is said about

anybody

else in his time,

anybody

of God".

requires

him revelation

God is possible

is taken

he
associated
when

he does not associate

Our venerable

with

(friendship)

association).

of the other

which

through

apart

(special

and Ikhtiss

(friend)

khalil
of

khullah

because

in reality,

chosen)

that

the

of sonship,

The mentioning

said:

of honour?

but in terms

that

expression.
he does

which

is needed, as a
of that

it will

whom he loves

His prophethood

and other

else.

Is;'not as the poet said -

comes

one day

not be absent

to see him

(from

to ask for

you) or prohibited

49

something,

(to you).

he will

say my

So he characterised

him through

The lexicographers

explained

is taken

from

is taken

from

meaning

in both?

The answer

khallah

We only claimed

it was a metaphor

by being

characterised

a friend

or he showed

love
a

distinguished

by Him

of God which

a proper

noun for him.

sonship,

because

the real

the Father,
that

required
the terms

Abt
of

sincerity

through
being

28.

thrown

into

him

from

are excluded

to enter

his devotion,

Christ

God

and

God.
himself
10b

and his state,

the

fire,

through

attempt

of time,

Then the name

to

regard

about

God.

of
It is

as Son of God in

of God.

was not friend

friendship,

through

because

he showed

to

because

brotherhood

was friend

no one experienced
his

no one

it must be the offspring

Abraham

because

was

else, or he was

may be characterised

He (Abraham)

to God, which

what

period

anyone

be imagined

as a friend

it

meaning,

to say the same with

cannot

and said that

replied

between

he caused

which

It

who was described

al-Jhiz28

a friendship

that

he showed

else was characterised.

of the son is that

matters.

Abraham

that

to God in that

he did not show for

his sperm.

it is impossible

of Abraham

Jthmn

his devotion

It is not possible

meaning

from

existing

because

then it

be a literal

there

to these two

it is required

it

then

is love,

if it was its real

not that,

in a way nobody

became

If its meaning

So why cannot

of God either

show of, his need through

else could

is need/needed,

its application

is because

This

our opinion.

khalil

on the kh.

we did not disapprove

that

disprove

would

if the meaning

dam ma on the kh.

with

is that,

that

the fatha

with

khullah

this need.

before

him,

sacrifice

his

and

friendship
his need

through
own

his
son,

'Amr
luthmn
b. bahr al-Jhiz was one of the greatest Arabic authors
Abil
He was a Mu'ttizili
of all time.
and politico-religious
polemi; st. Born at
Muftazili
He belonged to Bari
Basra about 160 AH/776
AD.
He
group.
for
long
in
Baghdad and won the compliments
time
a
stayed
of ai-Mmn.
He died in 255 AH/868-9AD.
knowledge is amazing.
His encyclopedic
J. Finkel mentions that Risla Fi
4al
al-Nisr
al-Radd
was written
at the express wish of the court,
because he had been in close association
According
with the Christians.
to J. Finkel,
this work is merely a propagandist
although
pamphlet,
no
to the vital feathers of the problems, no work
other work goes so directly
has such a potentially
deadly effect.

E. I.

vol. II, PP. 385-7.

J. Finkel,

A Risla

of al-Jhiz,

J. A. O. S. Vol. XLVII,

50

P. 316.

through

his giving

treated

him,

through

his leaving

into

his homeland

relationship

the Kaaba is called

Mecca

are called

the she-camel

fire",

as He said,

of God.
Khlid

As it

the Qur'n

Hamza

Mary

of

distinction,
sonship,

because

compassionate

a baby,

associate

and then

Spirit

known

to a young puppy,

it a son and he cannot

he adopts

called

it is well

in the curse

For this reason

as is usually
in

body

and

was

countries,

good or evil

through

as
of

and as

or reward

Christ

of God and His

is the month

of God and about

was described

the sperm

as

(seed) of men,

God created

the case.

and

in the

Because of that
a miraculous
way.
29
That cannot be applied to
of God.

by everyone

it to himself
of ter

if

of us that

and then looked

looks

him

The same is the case for

he was the lion

the souls are created

a spirit

Christ

that

of God.

when it is put in the womb of woman

womb

him

and resting-

as the people

is the Book of God and al-Muharram

was said about

of God, because

Spirit

from

whether

and

among the prophets

in other

of God.

death

God brought

temples,

all the people

and

country

of God.

the other

"leave
say,

the Arabs

he was the sword

that

friend

the she-camel

God has magnified

Similarly

punishment.

of God among

life

to another

him His friend

of God among

temple

in

parents

and emigration

and named

of Slh is called

that

everything

Himself

people

of

these hardships

through

with

his

the way his people

through

as a charity,

his renunciation

through

so he became

place,

his property

away

after

father.
as a

him,

each one of us is

it, it is incorrect

to call

On the other

hand, if

it is possible

to call

him

a son,

because it is similar
(person) could be born to
to his own son and a similar
30
him.
Since it is not possible (to use the term Son) for someone who has body
like

another

would

but would

be even more

(in
be
any way) similar
not

appropriate

that

such a thing

to a son, if he had a son, it

could not be said with regard

to God.

They

29.

30.

might

argue:

Why is it not possible

to say about

Christ

that

He is Son of

'Abd-al-Jabbr

From the beginning

of the paragraph,
up to this sentence,
from al-Raddal.
has quoted this reference
by al-Jhiz.
It
al-Nasr
the
seems that he has taken the whole source of information
regarding
from al-Radd,
but with changes and
of khalil
explanation
and khullah
leaving
It is obvious that while
a few lines and adding few sentences.
dictating
this chapter he had a copy of al-Radd'al
For details
al-Nasr.
'al
hiz
J
30-32.
PP.
al-Radd
see
al-Nasr,
'al
This is another
from
P. 30 without
reference
al-Radd
al-Nasr
It is quite strange that the argument
the source.
mentioning
stated by
'Abd
is the original
the
al-Jabbr,
argument
against
of al-Nazzm
'Abd
Christians
it
it.
But
then
as al-Jhiz
mentioned
and
criticised
alit without any reference
Jabbr mentioned
other than to al-J whiz.

51

.
5co

God because

He distinguished

The

is that:

answer

him without

created

They

The same is the

might

did not

a man as father

distinguish

anyone

with

Christ

He

with

which

He

to describe

Christ

as

as mother.

with

an upbringing

it is possible

Therefore

else.

because

to Adam

regard

and a woman

He distinguished

argue:

case

father?
a man as

Him without

Him and created

His Son.

The answer

is:

God, in the sense that

Because

them.

food and drink

the

rest

in His heaven

it

and dispensed

is possible
in

appropriate
depending

Our

the

case

of

scholars

metaphorically

with

of the fact

method

Adam.

His

All

used analogically,

then

will

it.

sonship

to someone

he is a human

cannot
it would

gained

from

cannot

be used analogically?

most

He created

that

that

would

invalidate

what

being.

the same species,

such an old man.

They

be

him

more

they

to the Eternal.

be incorrect

in this place,

are

because

(further)

and no advantage

it
is
son",
quite

it is incorrect

explained

that

of his son, by

If the metaphor

that

that

reality

not be used

expressed

when we know very well that

They have explained

in

applied

It could

(further)

be applied

So how is it possible

They

be

cannot

who could take the place

to an old man, "My son, and oh my little

31.

be the

would

him

after

and He settled
31
with regard to Adam.

by him on the basis of reason.

regard

that

of metaphor

he is from

Christ

up by mother

Son,

these

that

explained

to who is begotten

virtue

is

them

and giving

who looked

him by the fact

are more amazing

Christ

and fed

to anyone.

regard

to God Adam

was applied

up by

upon.

venerable

except

to God with

with him being brought

that

say

of nursing

it was his own mother

So all these facts

to

on the task

He distinguished

were brought

all of them

the means of subsistence

with

apply

that
it

If

people.

him in His garden.

If

the fact

case, because

appropriate

them

of taking

concept

from

the

of

He provided

could not correctly

is not excluded
like

in all of the prophets,

It exists

that

could be
can be

the metaphor

if one of our youth

reprehensible,
he could

one of us cannot

the

said

although

give birth

to

say of a beast
1a1-al-Nasr

This argument
is taken from al-Radd
against the Christians
by a1-Jhiz (pp. 32-3).
But this time tAbd al-Jabbr
has presented
the
in his own words not the exact words of alof the argument
summary
J4iz
as he usually does.

Si

that

it is his son, nor of inorganic

bodies

physical

latter

The former

thing.

is dissimilar

with

should not be applied

By depending

Christ

himself

asking his disciples

"Our

Father,

to the essence and

regard

it

that

appropriate

"I am ascending

32

to my Father"

as His Son and God as Father,

to say in their

in heaven,

who art

a beast

of one of us with

with

with

to Him.

regard

describing

of the Eternal

So it is more

is said in the Gospel,

upon what

Christ

and upon

is dissimilar

to attributes.

regard

with

The dissimilarity

than the dissimilarity

is more intense

or an inorganic

bodies.

and upon

prayers,

Hallowed

33

be thy name",

and God's saying

to

David,
"A Son will be born to you, who will be named My Son and I would be named His
34
(by depending on all this), they argue that it is necessary
Father ",
that it
be a decision

would

be worshipped

This is wrong,

It

what

from

That

that

correct
then

it

aspect

God would

companion

love
and

that

friend.

a description,

through

describing

to say that

3Z.
33.
34.
35.

would

Him

He is Father

It

is invalid

of Christ?

which

isolated

it

reports
it is

Therefore

God.

If

If it is possible

be correct
if

because
that

It is incorrect

is conceded

and maternal

would

require

it

it

requires

the Eternal

imperfection.
to say that

of my

it

then

through

Him

honouring
would

53

the
be

to

Christ

be created

How is it possible
He is uncle

John. 20: 17 Matt. 6: 9 -

from the Bible, but it does not exist

It seems a reference
The second line does not exist in the Bible.

is

to say that,

Uncle
for

God

that

born (Ex. 4: 22) He is the first

of Joseph.

then it also requires

in terms

is like

and the Book of Psalms

be paternal

and then

names of God.

about its authenticity.

be Son of

be a grandfather
He would

(Son of God) is not

about its authenticity.

is my first
35
him as son.

and respect

through

its position

Gospels

the

this name

of the revealed

mentioned

Israel

Jacob

that

is possible
of

they

the Torah,

whom I adopted

requires

as your doctrine

to it and be absolute

"Thus
said,
says the Lord,
creatures

us to name him by it and God should

even though

as we do not know

to adhere

is reported

(Christ),

Arabic

because

ahd) insofar

not possible

God who ordered

him

through

in classical

well-known

(akhbr

from

in the Bible.

of the

Children

or cousin
36
"You are my brothers".

disciples:

How

it is possible

Christians
(5: 18).
angels

to say that,

If that

argue:

deduction.

been a correct

is:

The answer

one"

for

its interpretation.

possible

what

in their

is reported

meaning

in their

language,

Deity

and

that

from

it might

Lord,

is

aware

of
if it

It is

sonship.

mean that

impossible

be

would

what

that,

it
and
might

be permissible

although

from

it is

that

and the Gospel,

is different

that

we know

for us to discuss

the Torah

in the sentence

so we are not

When we became

argument.

it have

would

this use of language,

about

sons and it is impossible

then its

is Eternal,

or the Gospel,

It is only necessary

things

or similar

we interpreted

that

in the Torah

was correct
38

God to adopt

by that

was correct,

he would not have denied it.

of Him,

We have no knowledge

to admit

impossible

He

of (Jews and

this phrase

the doctrine
of the Arabs when they assumed that the
37
If it was not impossible
He denied that.
His daughters.
to be

They might

that,

while

said to his

He also denied

used as a name and understood

meant

God has denied

Christ

that

in the Qur)n) who said: "We are the sons of God and His beloved

were

forced

fact
the
of

in terms

of the disciples

in

our

language.

have

Languages

that

maintain

the

aspect

place

in metaphor.

mistake.

36.

37.
38.

to translate

is possible

one word

The one who translated

There

has a real

is no doubt

that

Therefore

that.

one language

aware

sometimes

for another,

in the second language

only

to

regard

to another

which

their

about

meaning

real

is used in its literal

and he must know what

a metaphor

meaning

in the second

in these

books

the

the first

metaphors

from
and

may be put

language

language,

be

meaning

may be used in its real meaning,

from

we

must

to say about God and what is impossible

be fully

He must

and as a metaphor

which

with

conditions

is going

because
usage

for one thing

something

what

of reason.

metaphorical

in their

whoever

about

well-versed

different

not
into

has made a

are something

Christ
to the New Testament,
According
out his
said: "And stretching
hand towards his disciples he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers,
in heaven is my brother
For Whoever does the will of my Father
and
Matt.
12:
49-50.
mother.
and
sister,
See Qu? n when it says: "What has your Lord favoured you with sons and
from the angels females".
(17: 40).
taken to Himself
(Cheikho,
For Christian
viewpoint,
see Sharh al-'Agida
al-Nasranyya,
Vingt Troites, P. 5).

54

is known

that

are mistaken

from

the aspect

It is reported

in their

This would

(John

God. "

words and the change

They

might

"I am ascending

it is in the Gospel:

that

It is said that

and your

the correct
20: 17).

The mistake
39
for r.
(i. e.

the alif

When it is conceded

argue:

is:

answer

Our

him

they
as

religion

evidence

of truth
light

which

which

as the healing

place

that

is Son of God, by analogy

Word.

In the same way it is said that

There

word

son, to him

spirit

and between

God through

39.
40.

in the

analogy

terms

of that,

live

leads as a light
it, just

Gabriel
between

that

because

he would

him

through
exist

of our
in their

in their
(word),

bodies.

It is just

and a healing,

in terms

through

through

occurs

that,

the

it, just

of that

we could

He is Spirit

is the spirit
those

of God and His

and it is not said that

him by the fact

father

the
he is

that

and brother

in
their
these
all
of

For this argument,

see Apology of Timothy I. P. 156.
Elias of Nisibis has applied this argument and referred
Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 35)

in

say that

not

who asked us to apply

be called

when

it would have been allowed

that

is

which

need.

which

the meanings

55

guidance

The meaning

It is not necessary

places,

because

get

as the path is known

in religion

behind

purpose

can

kalima

the

of us characterising

our demands

people

(Word).

with

of our phrase

is no difference

He can say in

The

said:

people

the medicine.

evidence,

of the

God proclaims

that

those of U4 who are alive

in the usage in different

without

'Ali

own souls that

of it

which

Christ

he is the son.

their

the salvation

any

to my God

quotation

to you that

the Kalima

through

through

as His

as well

).

uJ

God is that

God is that

which

be known

of that

occurs

word is permitted
another

describes

Ab

of

through

and your

and comparison

would

and in terms

of

the spirit,

and with

speech

Spirit

are living

is an extension

That

like

he is the

for

uI

why do you not allow

through

guidance

Father

in the

occurred

according

scholar
Word

as the

as their

that

phrase

venerable

Christ,

characterising
through

of the meaning

"I am ascending

is that:

version

is His Word and His Spirit,

40
the Gospel that He is His Son.

The

Persian

to my Father

Him being their

require

Christ

that

through

the ignorance

through

either

method,

Arabic

It

of reason or language.

(John 20: 17).

Father.

interpret

when many of the commentators

they

Father"

(mutashbiht).
in
Quroan
the
passages

intelligible

to the not clearly

similar

of

reality

to the Gospel.

(See

are not possible

with

said metaphorically
about

No

regard

human
a

that

God as we mentioned

one

can

for that)

also be necessary
be the children

you

not

insofar

Adam

that

These meanings

We have

that

in terms

to Abraham,

though
about

(before)

explained

It is quite

the believers

all

who took pity

on another

because

him

him

he treated

with

to God.

regard

is possible

with

him

with

and trusting

about the rest of the prophets

It is not possible

He did not characterise

(these

they would

of friendship

to Abraham.

regard

(The

him?

that

his father

distinguishing

as son

be His son and it would

would

meaning

him

adopted

are impossible

(to say) that

right

because

Therefore

revelation.

of Him

it is used with

mostly

the real

arguments)

be

else, possible

could look after

It can be said about a person

he can be called

it could

is invalid.

in the case of the angels who have no father

of God.

His revelation.

God

that

as nobody

as son in the same manner.

regard

about that

concede

require

would

him as son that

and adopted

So the claim

of mercy,

is that

be
a son of someone
can

being

before.

did

to the aspect

according
reason

Why

say:

by which

to God, nor are the aspects,

them

to say that

knowledge

with

Christ

repudiate

even

being

and
the

called

Son of God.

As for

their

him

calling

because

the meaning

physical

body.

or God insofar
'Uthmn
'Ab
,

as there

of God and Holy

said:

he cannot

Therefore

Christ

so we have revealed

did not require

it does not require

into

breathed
meaning

be His spirit
All

Trinity

and the

hypostases,

of our bidding"
of His command.

the spirit

As for the phrase

to Christ.

(66: 12), this

with

him. "

in its real

these (arguments)

Christ.

the Qur)n that

should

rest

of

what

regard

(14: 29).

meaning

to God.

they

It

" (16: 12).

This

what

derived

it, and their

56

My spirit

require

in its real

that

about

in him,

fall

he (Adam)

The same is the case with

we narrated
from

of God, "So we

It is as His phrase

does not

or His son.

invalidate

as they have explained

when He

(42: 52) and He

not be understood

"When I have shaped him and breathed

before

bowing

Spirit

is called

n
Qu?
God,
in
this way
the
are
sons
of
so
or

regard

it is impossible

of Adam,

you down,

with

her our Spirit"

because

the story

would

that

had a

as Gabriel

Spirit

to thee a spirit

Gabriel

that

Christ

words.

(Word)

was called

with

meaning,

He was called

in the same way as He named

Spirit

said "He sends down the angels

phrase

through

in its real

Kalima
At.
him and his pros-y e,' s.

be a speech.

was guidance

said:

is arranged

in its reality

of speech

(al-Jhiz)

"Even

the Word of God, it is incorrect

that

from

as their

application

them

about

the

explanation

of

of analogies

in this

because

matter,
mentioned
most

their

of

examples

Whoever

invalidity

depend

they

which

of the

that

3- Section

Repudiation

should

of their

doctrine

realise

that

about

reasonable

We have narrated

indicate

the invalidity

as the discussion

doctrine

1. They

would

(arguments)

as doctrines

will

and the

the matter

in

only

is

what

we

from

of what

are
in

and what is related

to it.

in

is

engaged

this
(their

them

ii LO

comes within

chapter,

refuting
not

is impossible

what

to

(now) we will

in general,

doctrines)

what

the bounds of reason and classify

it

allows.

involves
about union

may say that

several

the Son is from

points:

of the hypostases

the group

that

united

Christ.

with

2.

about Union

doctrines

their

believe.

Their

hold

they

meaning

these

all

repudiates

detail.

greater

You

external

is no need to pursue

So there

on.

their

considered

Mj

body,

be a physical

because

and examples,

phrases

the

understand

as evidence

What we

of the expression.

God cannot

that

He was a body.

that

reflect

most

before

interpretations
are

of these

Or they

may say that

what

united

with

him is the substance

has three

which

hypostases.

If they

argue

that

the Son has united

Son is a God who is creator,

Creator,

Divine

the

Father

with

producer
whose

him,

then

or they

and agent

Son is the

they must

Kalima

must

(word)

admit

that

make

God the

apart

from

the

the

Father.
Cj

[Their

doctrine

3. They

may say that

Son is will
different
is what

(united

of Christ

from

]
him)
has
with
many aspects:

(in
is
the same position)
each
or the will

each other

(the
Christians)
we

of Christ

as it was, but the will

is His will

but what one wishes

the other

or their
must

wills

of the

are quite

wish, so that

this

mean by union.
,

57

L a4JZ,

If the essence

of both of them

of God and the essence of man; or the substance

are as before;

4.

Or they

from

what

the union

may say that

has required

the removal

of their

essences

they were before.

************

in mind (all) that

Bearing

1. They
like

may say that

He (the Son) was conjoined

Christ,

with

expressions).

ie, Christ

became

a vessel for Him.

This doctrine

is reported

2. They may say

3.

they would have to give (one of several

They

conjoined

4Z

from

or merged him.

the Son mingled

that

(became

the Son inhered

may say that

incarnate)

not he was

in Him,

him.

with

Those who hold the doctrine

the Son inhered

Either

some of them.

41

(incarnation)

of inherence

in all the parts

must maintain,

of Christ;

or the Son inhered

part

of him.

************
These (doctrines)

apply whether

would

when He was united

Either

with

him,

that,

they maintained
He and Christ

were two

43

substances

and

concerning

the

two essences;
or

they

majority

both

one in reality

become

of the Jacobites

that

has
been
as
-

two substances

became

reported

one substance.

************
Those who hold these doctrines
when He united

Either
Or that

He unites

with

with

is required

to say:

him, He would be united

Him in certain

forever;

circumstances.

************

41.
42.
43.

This is a Nestorian
expression about incarnation.
We read it an yaql.
'Abd
This is
Here
al-Jabbr
clearly using dhdt as a synonym for jawhar.
is
he
it
jawhar
he
treats
the
that
way
a physical
when
maintained
not
being.
For detail

see Chapter

II, PP. 110-114.

58

In

the

same

way,

as they believe

requires
Either

doctrine

their

He unites

He ceased to from

These

are

the

main

with

him.

with

the

of

of all these,

aspects

rational

about

then we shall repudiate

and what is related

of Christ

the adoration

him as he was;

being united

argument

the refutation

explain

about

Christ

of

and crucifixion

that:

they may say: that

Or that

death

the

We shall

union.

doctrine

their

about

to it.

************
You must realise
to them

that

to do what
action

which

united

is characterised

for Divine

possible

doctrine

Their

of his divinity

to be manifested

worshipped

the

their

that

their

those

doctrine

1. Their

of

That
with

the

it

was

that

him.

would

what

require

we

have

namely:

him, so he is entitled

with

God

do what

is united

which

and because

through

Christ

Son of God and His

is impossible.

this doctrine

Himself,

of

worship

these two aspects,

that
that

from

to be worshipped

the aspect

of his humanity.

(hypostasis)

wills

Christ

which

Son or the Substance

As for

Father

divine

that

but

is united,

which

he is entitled

to

be

in the same way as the Father.

doctrine

repudiate

the

not the aspect

Son is

The

requires

action

God united

1. That

Their

is the

on the view
that

that

according
is
able
who

being

the Son cannot

that

must say that

Christ

about

through

mentioned

or they

rely

So it is required

to do, then

shows that

is a divine

they

maintained

power

by them

of

him.

If they

as having

must be accepted
body

him.

with

doctrine

the body of Christ

with

through

was manifested

physical

of Christian

can only be done by God, because

Word has united

Z.

the discussion

that

is united

which

doctrine

two
with

consists

substances,
Christ

of three

about the union,

who maintained
will

has

divide

are different,

into

that
three

will

divine

is a God.
hypostases
repudiate

He has united

with

and

human

They said that

that

through

nature,
He is the
which

both of these aspects.

him in the sense of will,

aspects.

but it is required

59

that

we

they both agree in will.

2. The will

of the divine

3. The will

of human nature

is same as the will of human nature.

nature

of divine

is the same as the will

nature.

Section

4d

That

of God (Qadim)

the will

What indicates
it

but

possibility

of

(Messiah)

each

for

their

what

the other

other

wills,

for

that
of

must be a concurrence

that

their

that

actions

their
must

possible
method

as the refutation
for

occurs

drinking

motives

one of them

in

terms

what

may will

knows.

which

motives
there

and between

those

is through

the same

that

attribute

every

in terms

other

may be

of them

of

eating,

(given

and

[It is known

Who knows

disadvantages

to him). ]

he should

that

what

be one who

As it is not required

be in the

would

Christ

while

that

the God

that

knows

also

he may know

in the same way it is not required

that

he

God wills.

involve

will

Christ,

circumstances
statement
Christ

of that

the

the

what

that

of each

something

of Himself.

advantages

Furthermore,

he became

the first

for

Christ

knowing

In the same way, it is not necessary

God wills.

certain

of

it

Furthermore,

action

of

It is also required

by the argument

occur

the opposite
dislike

could

Christ

and

who maintained

one who knows about it.

God (Qa(1irn) knows,

that

everything

doctrine

of one who wills

because

a knowledge

through

to will

and Christ

the refutation

must

(Qadim)

is the

etc.

is a knower

future

the

it

that

to have different

them
those

wills

be in agreement.

so that

concur

knows about it or be virtually

(Qadim)

must

of their

it is right

Furthermore,

for

between

We know that

and crucifixion

one of them

are different

fact

(ie. God

of the God (Qadim)

of will

for the other.

which

that

is no difference

is the

one of them

be impossible

would

[Their

will]

beings

powerful

is possible

It

as it

who maintained

all

in

agree

and wish to enable

will

There

actions.

two

wills.

just

both

they

of Christ

the will

(argument)

of the first

the invalidity

is required

from

is different

wills

it is required

he wished
according
because
because

He

that

matters

60

God wished

of God.

circumstance,
wills

he may will

(Qadim)

God

everything

which

him
God
as a prophet
sent
when

to the will

in this

everything
that

that

everything

which

or he wished

It is impossible

God does not will

which

are

His

and
it

in

to accept
everything

personal

acts;

the

whereas

acts

of

('ibid)

men

after

things

these

situations?

to sequence

(of time),

in all

subject

for himself

only.

will,

though

even

Furthermore,

another.

in terms

of will,

miracles.

is possible

that

people

and

However,

wishes

according
in that

Therefore

would

Him in one will

with

concurrence

be among
religion)
thing

another

he did not

not the same be possible

intentions.

or special

Christ,

through

only agrees

Him

with

But it

(who

mukallaf44

who knows

terms

of

God in all of His acts

of will.

of men who concur

their

special

of

of his life,

with

This refutes

acts

him.

with

Him at his beginning

for the rest

to

of the

the welfare

in

wishes

is obligated

with

through

concurrence
of things

and perception

or realises

what

He realises

with

characterisation

of the doctrine
the fact

of will

be necessary

where

everyone

must be united

the same is the case with

is not necessary

5- Section

The invalidity

Christ

and all

they have characterised.

of knowledge

(i. e. knowledge)

the same

all of them,

with

God would be united

concur

partially.

for the rest of the prophets.

God

to them He was united

how could union

He knows

that

united

of

he has

the

which

of union

that

someone

it is necessary

state,

what

Furthermore,

what

of the

been

things

something

in terms

and on the grounds

a prophet

is also necessary

for

one
such

such

to all of the prophets

regard

(This is case) because

could

precepts

Therefore

obedience.

of Christ

there

have

may

wished

he wished

he is united

in

time)

Christ

be wishing

He would be united

that

of being

That

if

hand

other

wills
with

requires

by virtue

manifested

the

their

of

be His sons.

would

although

both

sequence

case he would

in that

about Christ;

of them

observe

On the

(of

it be said that

So how could it be said that

this doctrine

doctrine

as their

subject

are

So how could

circumstance

to

of those

the will

regard

who knows
God?

If that

to will.

who claimed

of the divine

with

without

nature

that

God has United

became

the will

with

of human

nature.
r

44.

is imposing a requisition
it
or constraint
requires an
upon any one,
in
is
difficulty
it means the
there
Technically
which
and trouble.
action
lies
on the creatures of Allah to believe and act as He has
which
necessity
On
definition,
it applies only to things necessarily
to
them.
this
revealed
forbidden.
to
things
According
teaching
to Islamic
and
every
required
(gil,
bligh)
is
human
thus mukallaf.
adult
sane
E. I., Vol. IV, P. 631.
Taklif

61

What

repudiates

that

the

will

limitation
known
it.

of divine

nature

indicated

that

has

evidence

doctrine

their

that

Christ,

is true,

through

that

Similarly

it is not possible

fact

that

it did not exist

that

it will
it

through

of the physical

will

of God (Qadim)

did

why

Christ

God's

of

be the will

of

be in part

not

of Christ.
through

it is the requirement

because

the

of an act

the act of one who carries

it out,

(agent).

Similarly,

be the

of Christ,

become

will

the will

of it.

can only

So anyone who allows

the

His action

will

that

must concede

creatures

something

repugnant

impossible

to wish anything

for God.

not differ

it,

about

of

associated

it

That

would

and this is invalid,

His will

through

will

bodies.

other

for God and men to will

mean that

it is also

and to dislike

what He

It would

to what God wished

Contrary

would

it with

be impossible

would

He (only)

When in fact

will

is impossible

as that

The position

it

that

mean

would

would

to be the

appropriate

more

of the rest of bodies.

all living

this

wished.

of God would

in the same way as He associates

that

because

that

by being

to be the will

than the will

require

the will
could

in part

inheres

a will

will

has become

in him.

Furthermore,

with

on.

the
any

without
It

through

being in part

body through

will

Christ

him

through

occurring

be located

him,

through

a will

later

explain

is that

nature,

through

the fact

through

His act is the act of Christ,

to say that

be characterised

only

that

divine

the

with

wills

y as we shall

him,

of human

will

(Qadim)

God

it is not possible
fact

the

the

body can only will,

the physical

Since that

became

(Mahall:,

of location

He has united

that

whenever

God (Qadim)

wished

anything.

Furthermore,

if it is conceded

being located

in any place,

and everything
impossibility
what
require
exclude

the

which

then it would

of one of them
other

him being ignorant

Him

from

being

disliking

would

refer

(As

of what

exist

a result

of

in hearts

the one who knows

that

their

to God.

the other

whatever

know.

be the will

would

be possible

them,

characterise

does not

His will

that

shared

of him without

That requires

Likewise

the

and knowing
it

would

That

would

ignorance)

of any one of us.

Himself.

knowledge

wills,

wishes,

it

it would require

to know about a thing without knowing about it (at the same time) as Zayd
gAmr
did not know it.
It would require
Him to be desiring and
knew it and
Him

needy,
existed

because

it is not possible

in our hearts

man) sometimes

without

existed

that

desire,

to the extent

He would
through

the fact

in which

62

be subject
that

the other

to a knowledge
one of them
existed.

which

(God and

The absolute

invalidity

of that

Furthermore,

doctrine

this

living

persons

and there

every

situation

that

their

that

requires

be united

God would

(h1) and the state

state

have mentioned

What

of

doctrine

the

intermingling,

doctrine

of Christ

the will

it

that

requires

would not be situated

of Christ
that

In this

way

ignorance
heart.

if

required

there

person,

would

they

with

him

He united

that
in

unified

God (Qadim)

that

of

terms

of

will

in part

a vessel

by him.

because

of Him

heart

and desiring,

All

and regretful.

of

these

of

the

became
fact

if

are

the

of

Otherwise

it
45

have required

to the same rule.

ignorant
it

through

in (Christ)
for

any

in (Christ)

existed

impossible

heart

God.

So it

it is His will.

that

to be the will

more appropriate

that

will

in the heart

would

of what does exist

they said about His will

why should his will

being

necessity

His being an observer

virtue

that

the

that

What inheres

Christ,

with

(God).

of Him

in him would have been subject

be the

what

has united

of God, is the fact

be situated

in (Christ)

existed

by

to God (Qadim),

inhered

would

to invalidate

Furthermore,
other

of what

it

being

in and characterised

It also requires

and thoughtful

which

(-a.)

who argued

and

becoming

be applied

cannot

the rest

of those

conjunction

their

repudiates

Christ

because

and a location

skeleton

through

in anything

in

in this matter.

The Invalidity

(haykal)

of

It is required

of the prophets,

are not different

of Christ

the rest

with

Christ.

the rest

with

6- Section

through

for

be no distinction

would

be united

He would

that

requires

is invalid.

base of the argument

the original

of all

relation

these

of any

with

God

.. p

(Qadim)

is the same.

the necessity
for

This also requires

of His being

one and the same thing.

everything

one who wishes

(For example)

evil

that
things

when Zayd

we mentioned

before

of

and willing
wished

and unwilling
it and tAmr did

not

45.

Apparently
to it,
galb means heart, or lump of flesh pertaining
'Abd al-Jabbr
meant mind or secret thought, soul or intellect.
For detail
see E. W. Lane,
(New edition).

Arabic-English

63

Lexicon,

Vol.

II PP.

but here

2553-4

it.

wish

It also requires

the same time,

Furthermore,

before

been willing

different

He was willing
did not exist

Therefore,

through

the will

it is necessary
(mahall).
living

another

creation

living

without

a will

what

required

it to be established

that

He must be united

him,

and all others

total

repudiation

repudiation

of the

in the sense that

As for

the doctrine
r
cojoining
mingling,

neither

substance

and conjunction
how could

Christ

the relation
However,

not change.

through

a will
be

He would

of the creature,
it

require

in

every

of the causes of what

doctrine

this

requires

besides in the same way as He is united

is His son.

with

way is the

In this

doctrine.

doctrine

7-

Section

of

these

(a Z 3)

who claimed

with

by what

He united

that

who maintained

in the form

between

God has mingled,

with

of a human
in the

we pointed

body, because

possible

God united

that

with

in him.

He inhered

nor physical

it be said that

that

will

the

the creation

that

the creation

after

the will

before

was

willing

So it is required

be His Sons as Christ

and uniting

is only

what

had

which

wish through

His being

circumstance,

is known

others

of those

is invalidated

it

location,

one

will

with

would

of their

in

the will

He would have to will

any location

that
as it

discussing

are

(mahall).

without

insofar

we

through

He will

to say that

In this situation

any location

through

circumstances,

Christ,

be willing

(and) because

being

is required

The

He would

because

whom He created.

requires

because in these circumstances

It is impossible

of the first

because

have

(to say) that

it was impossible

that

of Christ,

that

person,

of every

willing

God would

and was living,

created

It was known

affairs.

at

as alive.

no location
of

was born,

Christ

and ignorant

knowing

must be invalid.

leads to that

and whatever

being

of Him

the possibility

argument

substances

that

God

is

about Him,

and physical

and became

coined

through

and in a special

is
that
confirmed
since

the

him

united

bodies,
with

him

in this way?

explained

that

be
to
excluded
and

from

We have

such doctrine
being

about

an Eternal

64

deity.

Him,

requires

It requires

Him

to be created

the impossibility

of

the occurrence

of God in bodies.

and mingled
the

is only

between

So this doctrine

because

mentioned,

possible
those

unreasonable

with

regard
Him

who affirmed
and between

way

and compounded

with

those

might

Do you

not

say that

concede

it in the same as we argued.

God is in every

is:

We say in

a metaphorical

(mudabbir)

everywhere

mentioned

before.

way

by it

and knows about every place

What we intended

Him

and characterised

the body of Christ

Then You contradicted

that

him

It is a rejection

not

He is coined

Christ

distinguish
concede

with

him

on some

Union,

in view

bodies

are same

An opponent
I affirmed
divine

and

of the
with

might
Him

actions

unite

united
f act

with
that

regard

with

same

him

him

with

Why

occasions?

bodies

inorganic

the

sense is intelligible.

It

as the

way

in its real

to this point

according

your doctrine
conjunction

of

do you

them?

his condition

What

others?

merit

that
does

condition

Why do you
Why do you
x

and He conjoined
r
He cojoined
with

occasions

concede

and the

and others?

from

apart

on some
not

then why is it not

to Christ,

He is coined

that

He united

He might

that

and

it through

to the rest of the prophets

in that

is reasonable,

of what has been affirmed.

if it is possible

that

in

in it as we

conjoined to him

you made Him

So

He is the organizer

that

by using this expression

with

and not something else.

ri
He does not conjoin with

Furthermore,

way.

and what occurs

of view

substances.

composed

the Conjunction?

through

not

place

and we mean

the case as you said, because

possible

as tangible,

of using this word for it in a metaphorical

the possibility

to an

according

argue:

The answer

meaning

Him

on this basis.

him and being part of him in an unreasonable

An opponent

is not

to Christ

who affirmed

you

is no difference

There

substances.
ri
as being coboined

about

lead
to what
not

will

the

him

with

understood

is only understood

conjunction

to

they

what

contradicted

of the substances.

conjunction

i. e. (Christians)
It

in a way that

him

with

He was cjoined

can say that

Nobody

Christ
of the

have
rest

in

this

of the

to God.

argue:

united

with

him

were shown through

apart

from

the

him and by him.

65

rest

of the

bodies,

because

The answer
Then

is:
He (God) would

that

concede

the same reason.

Concede

the miracles

do not appear

through

does not

him

any location.

without
Him

to be united
God

that

because

its

possible

that

Indeed

is where

the action

without

with

this

for

appropriate

united

the body

with

be

would

in
Christ.
not

more

Otherwise
then

In fact

it is

Christ.

with

In this argument

anything.

He is

even though

Him (ie., the dead or blind)

the union

without

or

conjunction

statement

occurred

unions with

of the miracles

more

than being

him when

with

through

miracles,

about

for this reason,

Christ.

God's Union

him

for

of the prophets

the showing

why did it become

be possible

should

without

Furthermore,
He occupied

that

Christ

is possible

occurrence

with

God is able to bring

through

if its occurrence

him.

Furthermore,

with

raised

appropriate,

from

the rest

He would cease to be united

also that

indicate

else, because

something

be united

is a refutation

of

this doctrine.

it

Furthermore,
Christ

is required

that

He

them.

His

being

or to some

parts.

That

doubt)

by the

of

would

God to be in many locations

require

case where

conjunction

be possible

for

would

require

applicable

is a thing

parts
joined

to

Cl iT'-

doctrine

is repudiated.

of their

doctrine

about

to

the others

which
the

miracles

So through

the union

parts

many

(beyond

parts)

in every

if He coljoined

with

and this

part

did not have.

these

to this

according

would

then it would

appeared,
all

of

of his

all

is proved

hand,

He was united

that

all

It is impossible

On the other

by which

this

it

but

to

If it was not for that,

particularization

part

consequently
invalidity

then it would

that

mean,

is not

on one occasion.

be possible.

might

have a special

would

(Being

a body to be in two places.

some of his parts,

part

is one.

He

that

evidence

cc joined

either

God is of many

that

require

be

could

n
coljoined

not

That
Christ,
the

arguments
of view

point

is

correct.

8- Section

The invalidity

of the doctrine

human

nature,

which

As for

the doctrine,

invalid

through

a thing

and existed

of Jacobites

both united

that

many aspects.
there,

after

that

and became

God has united

1) !'

has a divine

Christ,

is: that

ie. inhered

everything

it had not been in it previously,

66

nature

and a

one nature.

with

One of them

Christ

in him,

which

it is

inhered

in

must be one of

the

two

either

of accident

in the substance,

existence

one substance

that

through

two

these

impossible

aspects,

because

we have

transference

existed

in him through

something

that

would

the fact

to

He inhered

His

is

to say that

He

in Christ

this would

because

createdness,

the

is

it

then
creation

of a thing

in

that

require

Him,

than the transfer

God

If

(hadatha)

in him and occurred

for

of

transfer

the

occurred

is impossible

is more impossible

existing

(Qadim)

(in a substance),

transference

about

that

He was a substance.

that

require

that

if

speak

indicated

God

the

be understood

only

It is impossible

if

that

of the accident

However

already

for

Christ,

in

like

created

to it as the transfer

It could

has no limitation.

which

the inherence

impossible

more

or it transferred
to another.

through

God was created.

existed

being

through

ccgoined

and inheres

like

it

in

became

a thing

about

transfers

him

it

categories:

of

which

has no substance.

They might

argue:

Is it not according
tablet

tongue

or

ignored.

having

without

having

without

to your venerable

been

You cannot

reject

does not stop this argument

from

'Ali
to Ab

According

that

maintained
is a voice,

which

1. The first

Whatever
a ma'n

Christ

You

or

have

to this

according

because you do not hold it, and that

take

can only

argument.

place

in

in a location

He is free

that

something

it

after

with

has

not

He
which

in Christ

location

occurs

of a mafn which
else,

inheres

from

(mal}all).

an attribute)

carries

which

If God (Qadim)

of it.

because

exists

is that

The other
It

which

place

on this

(mahall).
it.

He

However,
in

existed

it

must be of two categories.

previously,

it.

another

category
with

being a rational

be impossible

in him

exist

everything

Z.

to unite

it merely,

from

to

is a rational

in a ma'n (element

or memory

writing

only

speech

it occurs

then it would

would

transferred

on the

speech exists

is:

The answer

basis,

been

God (Qadim)

So you must allow

of view.

point

scholar

This

created.

Ab `Ali that

it existed

is that

was known
is like
which

that

it did not exist

God

that

before

..

(Qadim)

caused

to occur

at all.

existed

it would be impossible
(it

Then it went into it.

it was not in it.

before

in it)

6'

it was caused

That

before

His

for it to occur
like

speech

union

with

in something

according

to

to be in
Christ.
without
'Ali.
Ab

However,

if

it

occurs

is impossible.

that

in it, because
dispense

a marn

this doctrine

explained

They might

of

us to admit

that

in the

already

and not by the

in

you

have

in him, how is it forced

upon

involved

of inherence

manner

(wajh).

reason

in something

existing
Similarly

every

for us to affirm
So our doctrine

what

in

of the accident

Him as inhering

in him

is not repudiated

the

irrational

basis (wajh
for a thing

impossible

is like

thing

'All

Abt

he affirms

that

affirms

l yu'gal)

(zarf)

it inheres

the

as you

in something

in something

else

known

the

of

within

comes

(mahall)

else, except

What
this

for one thing

to exist

what

in another

is

if the
in it or

because

category,

is established,

it

our venerable

even though he maintained

Since that

creation.

other.

on an

that

for it or conjoining to it or inhering

about speech

through

on a rational

must be invalid.

It is already

to exist

spatiality

in location

in itself

is irrational

a thing

must be invalid.

to be understood

being

what
of

existence

it is only reasonable

that

already;

the

of

put forward

in it not

takes place

that

a container

(h"ayyiz)

spatiality

else can only be established

doctrine

doctrine

Likewise

scholar

We have

is:

The answer

its

it would

it.

mentioned

other

it

Why is it not possible

to a different

according

He inhered

we said that

that

is not

doctrine

So our

we treated

(mahall).

basis.

and therefore

him, not on the basis of incarnation

with

conjunction.
Granted

A thing

of

it inheres

in it.

inheres

it

which

to say that

in detail.

He united

mentioned.

location

be
would
required

that

occurs,

which

argue:

We say that
means

because

of ma'n

it is impossible

before

As we explained

of a reason in which

with

because
else, not

in something

that

it

we said

on this basis,

is possible.

They might
Could

argue:

not the thing

inhering

in it.

take place

in time,

This is a rational

without

argument

outside

anything

being

cojoined

the two categories

to it or

which

you

mentioned.

The answer
In reality,

is:
the thing

that

occurs

in time,

68

has no relation

with

it.

We only say

that

it existed

in it through

and its occurrence

existence
concerning

its

time

As we say, that

as it.

time

Sometimes

we

coming

Zayd,

of

to

according

God with

Christ.

we do not

Therefore

and we limit

arguments

different

the

that

it be of the same

when the sun was rising.

on the

of

the

we

are

occasion

of

situation

whom

for what they said about the union of

it come

let

to these

argument

it is said

reason

of us making

sun occurred

has no effect

So this category

addressing.

the

of

rising

its

Even though

For that

of Zayd existed

the coming

that

say,

in terms

it.

with'

in it.

was not possible

it occurred

that

it occurred

a man that

into

two

the discussion

categories

of the
we have

which

mentioned.

What

the

shows

something

soundness

else,
n

would

of our

was conjoined to it.

which

only

would

else, from

something
between

those

claimed

a fourth

possible

that

in its

be that

took place

inheres.

which

or fifth

for it.

He was coined

or

category

a thing

On the basis of what

which

and between
Christ

with

him, then He must inhere

with

conjunction

we established,

in its

exists

in

is no difference

There

that)

If God was in union

location

another

What took place

before.

To exclude

(for

in

in

existed

which

it through

with

is irrational.

these two categories

a third

everything

location

as we have mentioned

who claimed

in his location.

it

So whatever

could only be a substance

location,

be with

either

is that

comments,

those

who

is
it
and
not

in him and become

anything

be

else would

irrational.

They might
It

argue:

is possible

that

The answer

would

it,

with

They might

in the other.

not exist

it has no relation

Therefore

one location,

it

would

not

then the spatiality

with

other

another

accident

only

to what

effect

it,

They

would both

have
we

because

exist

in something

mentioned.

when both

of them

it

If

had a

existed

in

for the other.

for one of them is spatiality

argue:

Why do you not

1.

exist

is:

One of them

relation

may

to these two reasons.

according

else.

an accident

We have
meaning

concede

that

dropped the
in the context.

He did unite

word

"innih"

69

with

from

Christ,

translation

not

to this

according

because

it

has no

but in the same way as a picture

being
in
human
of
appears
a polished
46
when it is looked into,
or appearance of the engraving of a seal in clay

reason,
mirror
in

it

which

inherence

has been

stamped.

that

in it

or shows

printed

must

be a substance

is seen

in

the

likeness,

its

of a man which

blocking

of

blocked

around

in reality,

an instrument
facing

would

picture

according

at it through

the mirror,

It needed
become

instrument

in the

it

mirror,

and that

things

the

than

the

it has

to use their

(In

noon.

was his

mirror

became
would

be

be facing

it

one of us rushes

of his own face, just

can be seen.

is impossible

with

mirror

would

So we see that

which

if

of the day

his face

that

his face

the form

to know

(in the

to what

he saw in the

else by which
to his eye.

intends
he
when

more

the beginning

it is impossible

of that

something

How can

the same course

differs

much during

object

any difference

is nothing

but he looked

In terms

actual

it has no shadow at all before

noon and sometimes

for him.

there

to its extended

shadow
it

Thus it blocks

to use his eye to see the

rushes

The

occur?

sometimes

can it be compared

How

what

to use the mirror,

When there
analogy

of it

as he
is no
with

to union and the Trinity.

regard

As far as the appearance

which

his face?

(to say) that

his eye.

and that

being

which

is small.

according

be possible

it might

one way)

which

or is

that

(the

why should it follow

Consequently

sun's rays.

of the sun's rays.

and a little

face

the

may

in that

their

in it

that

than

in the mirror

Therefore

is not really

is printed

it

is bigger

occur

else's face without

of the mirror)?

he sees in it

shadow

to

refer

in the mirror

appears

It is known,

which

be said when a man sees his face

nature

if

or an accident.

is big cannot

which

shape or he sees someone

fixed

because

(a reflection)

mirror

and that

reflected),

of a human being

a picture

printed

what

does not

that

is:

We do not maintain

actual

basis

and conjunction.

The answer

that

is a rational

It

occurred

happens

in it

of the engraving

and the engraving

if the engraving

of a seal in clay,

of a seal is an impression
in
body
a soft
which

of a seal encounters

be an impression

of it,

just

of it

there

will

parts

it
of
raised.

46.

here by 'Abd a1-Jabbr

The analogy criticised
'Adi
Yahy
by
b.
mentioned
and al-Shahristni.

So accidents

as parts

whose state

70

there is an accident

(hl) differ

are depressed
from

in it.

This

it sinks and
and other

the seal occur

in

is a Jacobites
expression as
See also Chapter I, P. 105.

the engraving.
be inhering

is only

the second argument

possible

to speak

He inheres

aspect

him not according

with

(demonstrated

They might
Since

being

God exists

of

by which

substance

Him

was still

without

as we

He united
is

rational

and accident

exist,

us to posit

allow

the

and without

His being

that

and inherence.

conjunction

did
we
not

existing,

from

Him

exclude

from
is
Him an attribute
which
separate
n
because of
being in cc oining
or inhering,

His

that

impossibility

Your

of that.

He is in something

is not like

doctrine

else.

Therefore

to him.

Since

both

you

doctrines

because

that,

to the reason

else not according

in something

conjoining

that

we only denied

existents,

thing

that

(mahall),

any location

that being through

without

When we affirmed

is,

is irrational

that47

and that

inherence,
of

aspect

of those who claimed

aspects

to say that

is:

The answer

that

two

and to

to be) invalid.

in Christ

exists

to these

It is impossible

However,

the doctrine

it,

mentioned

to a rational

according

Since

is confirmed.

the first

as we have

in him.

argue:

the

aspect

is incorrect,

his spatiality.

Therefore

inheres
else

and irrational.

(it being)

he comes within
before.

mentioned

about

to this basis, He must

according

something

the union

is incorrect

in him without

that

namely

that

to them

the third

affirm

Christ,

with

in him or it is necessary

according

It

If God has united

must

which

are invalid,

their

of

existence
proof

is rational

and
the

of

that

you affirmed

as being a

inhering

in him

doctrine

about

Him

affirm

the reality

or
the

union is invalid.

The other
that

thing

cannot

exist

in a location,

inhere

the accident
in every

We read lakin

is that

it would

So their

in Him,

their

doctrine

everything

in a location.

in a location

situation.

been inhering

repudiates

in him,

He has inhered

(mahall),

47.

which

is possible,
doctrine,

that

of liana.

71

exists

that,

in every

it requires

would be invalid.

instead

which

It indicates

be impossible

He has united

that

without

any location

when a substance
way.

in Christ

cannot

When inherence

its being inherent

He inhered

in the sense

after

of

in a location
He had not

They

might

argue:

Why is His inherence

Does it contradict

The answer
If

in him not conceded

he had not inhered

after

in him?

the rest of the accidents?

is:

He inheres

in him,

it

for

must

one of two

reasons,

His inherence

either

is

in him or
is possible also and then the opposite would be possible.
.-it
It is impossible
to say that it is required in him, because when God was living
required

(prior

Christ's

to

it

(later

to them

according

and Christ

when Christ's

Christ

However,

since

to inhere

in hire,

which,
despite

the fact

came into

God would

state

However,

it is not possible

possibility

of Him not inhering

him by virtue
not

Christ

they

and

became

a relationship
the

either

matn

with

inheres

impossible

for the ma'n to inhere

something

else.

to

inhere

ma'n
require
ma'n
with
that).

it

That
in

to exist

did not exist,

Christ
There

is totally
God's

in Him
either

(because

in Christ

separate

than

is no conceivable

it

other

not exist

in

would
things

(by
ma4n
which)

fact.

that

mAia

to exist

God could

require
It

be a location

be more

or God would

would

location.

His

Nor is it possible

was no ma'C*i in God which

7Z

they

a third

God cannot

for Him.

because

to require

God would

there

inheres

in God because

location

then

God would

with

is

That

with

natures,

to above)

in

God united

They do not affirm

it

was the

to be inhering

that

That relationship

impossible

'iha)

aspect

this (ma'n).

demanded

two

both.

or

(jawhar)

there

while
Him

maintained

and

God

in

for God

aspect.

of the ma'na referred

God.

one

in

(as God's).

same

in only

would require

They

encompassed

which

that

God) which

substances

was the possibility

have to leave
that

two

were

one person

(If there

(within

existence)

subject

Then

_
He inhered

to the substance

pertained

that

Christians.

the

of

because

Christ.

of

one and the

He should inhere

that

of an element

doctrine

the

existence,
with

body

(bgi) and if it was possible

existence

God could exist

that

in the

became

have to become

Christ

of

inhere

body came into

(ie. of Divinity)

attribute

in the

he did not

existence)

for

appropriate
in Him.

give

become

for
the
to

If that

not become

could

is

united

effect

united

to
with

the body of Christ

They

Christ

except

cannot

say that

life

does not

Christ's

that

in him,

He exists

is the same as in anybody

He inheres

by reason
to inhere

God ceases

exist,

else.

use that

that

he (Christ)

that

argument

Christ's

of

life

in Christ,

and when

because

if it is by reason

Therefore,

in him they would have to concede

They cannot

(and rejected).

discussed
have
we

which

48

He inhered

life

of life

in
that

in others.

is like a voice

in relationship

to

`Ali,
because according
to our venerable
Abi
speech according
to Abu
scholar
'Ali
voice is only possible with regard to him by virtue of the reasonable
and
accepted

any category

The

other

it would

before:

invalidates

which

that

require
it

either

An effect
becomes

They

cannot

provide

is that

if

God inheres

in has an effect

which

in

did not

from
things
through
the
other
which
did not exist before, as we
or a state occurs;
49
(in
inhere
which
mankind).

say, in the rest of the ma'am

They might

doctrine

this

is inhered

which

becomes

(of the inherence)

realisation

for voice.

God would need it for.

which

argument

mankind,
exist

of the need of his speech

argument

separate

argue:
which

does occur

one of those

in that
from

things

is inhered

which

which

divine

action

(muhall)

in it,

is possible

is that

and that

it
was

not the case before.

The answer
This
virtue
that

would

is:
require

that

at

of) God being power

which

for it which

it would

(the
that

moment
which

(ordinarily)
not

were not possible

before.

of

the)

is inhered

be capable

existence
in becomes

of and certain

Since that

is invalid

(of

the

union)

(of doing)

capable
things

(by

are possible

the (whole)

doctrine

is invalidated.

48.

49.

Here 'tAbd
of ma nL
against the
Christians.
Kullbiyya

doctrine
the Christian
through the argument
al-Jabbr
refuted
As a matter of fact it is pure Mutazilite
argument
presented
4Abd
Kullabiyya.
But
a1-Jabbar applied it wrongly against the
'Abd
It can be said that according
Christians
to
al-Jabbr
and
justify
he
in his
are in same
category,
so
could
not
argumentation.
4Abd
Here
that the man has a man
al-Jabbr
seems to declare a doctrine
that carry the cif t.

73

On the
terms

hand,

other
which

(already

are

in something

occurred

the invalidation

(constant),

which

cannot

it would

what

that

die

inhering

in

may

except

by contradiction

needs,

so that

would

because

They might

from

from

is inhered

in mankind,

and so God must

deny that
through

not

which

remain

in by abolishing
is
it
known
and
from

be excluded
from

man

of what

man

to be separate

or by the abolition
that

is one

thing

or else he would

have to

the abolition

He would

that

be non-existent

he had to

or that

in humanity.

in mankind,

It is known

that

living,
is
man

it

is true

you mentioned

that

from

He may separate

to be separate

from

(hl) of the possibility

it,

it

He must

for

His being

in the body of man in a circumstance

in which

in the circumstance

God can inhere

not a circumstance

it is a possibility

it is possible

and it

it.

is:

from

which

be required

would

He does not need what

The answer

Therefore,

exist

inhere

be separate
separate

When that

or through

argue:

God may

because

have existed.

that

out

be contradicted

it requires

have a man that

If

transference

has

that

everything

of what he needs, even though it did

Wi's
(sound)
in
in
Abii
All that is
the case of
theory of speech.
as

exist,

invalid,

which

in him through

stop existing
not

from

or be wiped

because

in it through

If God inheres

it needs.

only

in

in him

inhere

and is one of the things

be transferred

God
would
-

mankind

it

it would

only be separate

it or by abolishing
mankind

established

by which

He could

invalid
as)

inhere
else can only

of that

of the things

in Christ,

God inheres

if

that

him except

in which

of His existing

he may not exist.

through

the aspects

it is possible

man is not living.

in him in such a circumstance,

It requires

that

what we mentioned.

74

that

when

He may not be separate

If

God inheres

human

being

visible

body.

in man,
in reality
Then

He has inhered
of his parts.
every

part

every

part

Therefore,
of Him
of

many deities.
because
not affirm

50.

Mu4ammar50
as

they affirm

(God) inheres

for Him,

with

parts

as the part

He is one substance

many parts

according

It

of man,

of mankind,

That

be a

affirm

the

man is a

either

they

say that
in one

for God as man has, of which

(man).

of him

every

of these are unsound.

that

aspects,

as many parts

in part

as many parts

they maintained

or else they

and lie would

God is one, or He has inhered

although

part,

God has united

Both

said,

must have two

doctrine

in his every

God having

require

their

in one of his parts

inhere

lie must

cannot

be said that

because

that

or the affirmation

is not as the Christians

of three

to the parts

would

hypostases.

of

believe,
They do

of man.

b. 4Abbd al-Sulami,
a leading Mu"tazilite
of the eight-ninth
He was founder
known
centuries.
of a school
of thought
as the
Mueammariyya.
He was a well known person among his contemporary
He born and brought
He
colleagues
and later authors.
up in Basra.
there, and gained wide recognition
received his training
among the leading
theologians.
Later on he moved to Baghdad.
Mucammar

list
His influence
on the Mu'tazilites
can be deduced from the impressive
he is described as a very learned man who held
In addition,
of his pupils.
independent
views as an outstanding
and a great seceder from
polemicist
Qadariyya.
had been exposed to gnosticism
Ibn Murtad
asserts that Mulammar
and
Zoroastrianism.
A1-Sharistni
of
reports that he was under the influence
philisophers.
the theological
sphere, Muammar
was concerned
with most issues
bodies,
God,
Uniqueness
His
to
the
attributes,
speech,
will and
of
related
accidents
views and which he explained
on which he had independent
in
While
Muttazilite
the
through his doctrine
of ma'n.
general maintain
Muammar
bodies
that God is the creator
maintained
accidents,
of
and
that God is the creator of bodies not of the accidents,
which he considers
creations of bodies.
as either natural or voluntary

In

tAbd

is
is
The doctrine
that according
to Mu_
to which
al-Jabbr
referring
'uz) itself
is not a body, but the eight atoms make up a
Ammar
atom
sari,
by al-Ash
by body.
As reported
body.
are not created
accidents
follow
by
Mu'ammar
maintained
accidents
atoms
are
aggregated,
the atoms produce
them by necessity
each
of their nature,
necessity,
itself,
by
He died
producing
accident
atom
whatever
resides in it.
between 831-850 A. D.
Al Alm,
Zarkly,
Formative
vol. VII, P. 272,
period of Islamic
_Watt,
190,232,239.,
G.
PP.
Shahristni,
Chejne,
89
P.
Anwar
thought,
al-Milal,
4Abbd
b.
M. W., Vol. LI (1961), PP. 311-320.,
Mu mmar
al Sulami,
alAsh4ari, Maglt, P. 303.

75

It is also impossible

to say that

he is a man, because

the evidence

totality

(only)

not one part

Christians

the

manifested

through

impossible

to relate

They

cannot

being

is a totality

location
action
this

part

to say that

required
He unites

should

application

inhere
without
other.
because

in

regard

them,

requiring
According
their

concurrence

that

say that

Christ,

of

because
unless

it, as their

a human

to know

divine

the

show

its

It is also required

and adored
Christ,

with

that
to

one according
it would

rather

How is it possible

Why did one of his parts

be
that

become

everything

prevent

So it is required

which

they

are

that

they

are

it
and
will

It is required
from

separate

inheres

same

maan inheres

that

its

what

we

all

the

which

because

in another

is possible

in one place.

He must be like

in one location.

76

in

thing,
many

That

cannot
locations

with

each

in two locations

its class Jins would

if he inhered

with

unites

are in concurrence

of concurrence

it being

only possible

are

(sometimes)
and

of locations

that

the ma`ni which

the union

which

the

is required

of

to the whole.

are related

and

about

for God.

is required

to his location

one

the totality

while

of God in man, not

existence

to us the inherence

would

argument

It is because

man that

the existence

and would

inherence
whose

and to

in one of his parts

God is one (thing)

concurrence

to God.

with

to the

be limited

say about the ma'ni

cannot

is required

one of his parts.

to the whole.

(h1) for

a state

affirming

active

not the other?

through

is only referring

affirming

it

and others

God has united

He inheres

can say that

to be applied

required

was

So it is

though

even

the totality.

powerful,

he has united

is characterised

Christ

parts

the

It

actions.

than the other?

more appropriate

None of them

it

it, not through

one of his parts

with

because

parts),

between

be Christ,

would

to the

according

divine

the

one of his parts,

with
of

It could not be said that

them.

They

He unites

through

manifesting

because

out later,

being is its

it.

the union with

differentiate

human

while

not the one part of the heart.

of Christ

(Collection

living
a

that

by he showed

is that

the totality

say that

and to

has indicated

as we shall point

way of union

Christ,
of

in one of the parts

He inheres

require

their

is impossible

with

the rest of the accidents

in something

else, which

was

They might
Is it

not

argue:
possible

inherence

the

of

Therefore
inheres

to be similar

kind

a similar
51
of man.

in all the parts

of Abtt

locations,

many

that

concede

The answer

in

speech

doctrine

to the

has

the

allows

who

it

although

inherence

of

'Ali,

one

ma'n

when

God

demonstrates

the

takes

place

is:

What you mentioned

is not one of our doctrines.

by which

The argument

opposite.

The evidence

it is the same argument

we repudiate

as we

(to
(of
is
it
doctrine
theory)
this
to
our
repudiate
as an objection
yours) and
use
SZ
'Ali
(this
doctrine)
Furthermore,
Ab
to
not possible.
according
was possible
with

than one location.

They might

is possible

because

His

from

part

of

its

of man and its totality

is one God?

some

of

say
Him

impossibility
the
of

a human

(gdir)

with

possibility

would

to

tantamount

(sift

the totality

be

be

parts

(parts)
His
of

This defeats

that

and if that

(through)

al-dhat)

the

life

the

and because
which

is

He had

from

being

other

God is
to

refer

(takhtass)

characterise
and they

in it

if

of God,

is (one of the) qualities

which

not just

in Christ

to the

living

he becomes

through

him
being
a structure
of

of Him,

if He inheres

because

structure

regard

would

attributes

of ma'ni.

being,

the

essential

the attributes

However,

(in man).

to God's inherence

So why is it not possible

The

essence.

every

in more

existed

of man are one man?

about

to

by being powerful

qualified

regard

alone

aspect:

a structure,

needs

because

parts,
f.13S

(parts),

that

is impossible

It

thing.

many.

to say that

only

the. life

through

speech

is:

The answer

one

all parts

of God is in every part

that part

with

to the first

argue according
that

that

it is invalid.

with

Is it not possible

he affirmed

is impossible

That

So the comparison

It

because

to speech,

regard

are different

argument.

was possible
manifestation

for him,
of

then the way

divine

action

by

Christ.

does not exist

in articulated

sound, but also in written

letters

51.

Speech

52.

memory.
is
One must bear in mind that Ab 'All's argument
speech
not
about
'Abd
by
See,
God's
Peters,
300-2.
PP.
al-Jabbr.
accepted
created speech,

77

and

It does not require

dependence

with

regard

with

the

location

of action

such ability

can be used.

action

to appear

through

the hands or voice

united

with

them

what

they

affirm

to

concede

that

of the divine

which

He

which

appeared

for

it is possible

the

God was not

even though

(God)

is united

the

with
through

of

Christ,

with
the

prophets,
53
words and prayers.

rest

their

distinction

of the special

God can inhere

He may inhere

in an inorganic

it

Because

for

impossible

if they might

It is His right
knowledge,

to

They
-

They might

of Christ

by union

is no way by which

There

in an inorganic

they

Otherwise

body.

can
His

for the same reason.

impossible
be
must

argue:

forced
are

in something

in a location

where

the impossibility

to admit

in an inorganic

in which

there

it would

body,

when He inheres

The case is different

is life

there

as (here is)
of His

of the existence

is life

(there)
as

is knowledge.

divine

be
able to manifest
not
in a living

body.

is:

The answer

Since it is possible
is it
divine

God exists

body.

then it is also possible

argue:

When He inheres
actions.

in the body of Christ,

inhere

He only inheres

that

(dht)
except
essence

so why

Him

in the body of Christ

inherence

53.

of Christ

He is united

that

make

create

is true

that

in a

ability

God as they believed.

If it is possible
that

action

by

is the repudiation

In this way there

with

If

to use that

him.

Furthermore,

because

(h1) of one who is able

in
terms
one
who
needs
of

powerful)

the bodies

(state
ha-1.
His
and

in Himself

the state

differs

where

requires

as he created

from

to being

ability

(Qdir)

He is powerful

because

things,

God does not act through

because

the actions

He only creates

or movement.

and other

(Christ)
him
with

his union

not

that

He performs

conceded

actions

through

in eternity

without

Although
sense.

in the

text

that

divine

He may

actions,
inhere

the hand and voice

manifesting

it

is Iddi1,

78

from

him,

and

may

If it is possible

that

has resulted

in inorganic
of Christ.

a divine

we read

that

action,

it

bodies

why should

r!
that
as du

it not be

makes

better

In this

way,

united

with

an inorganic

is a repudiation

there

of Christ

that

required

they

to accept.

insofar

as his action
doctrine

they

living

because

Christ

they

must
it is

Indeed

in the location

divine

where

He is more distinguished

(These arguments)
with

that

upon them.

these (actions)

through

has united

He

that

His inherence

in them.

occurs

forced
as we

thing

In this way

characterisation

it is required

argument

action.

His being

about

the special

about

claimed

to this

approve

must

have occurred,

their

them

in every

actions

of

body and what we required

According

His inherence

accept

upon

them

of what

that.

with

divine

manifesting

forced
we

for what

is the proof

there

body without

in an inorganic

He exists

that

possible

the invalidity

confirm
to

according

the

way

of

inherence.

9- Section

The Repudiation
divinity

of the doctrine

and humanity

have United

Most of the Jacobites

united,

then

invalid,

because

it

is impossible
in

described
become

that

the

previous

if

it

thing

is possible

with

substance
thing

in one location.
(within

another

(in

relationship
mankind
possible,
through

54.

another

subject)

that),

then

it

one thing

would

union

This term

with

require
God

is invalid

that
man

different

doctrine

that

God

through

was

become

expression,

79

Furthermore,
impossible
one thing

but rather

in the
be one

would

aspect
His

if what

of

union

with
the
with

they say was

for

mankind

with

Him.

Nestorian.

one

through

of one thing

and the relationship

the

would

is not a Jacobites

collectively

affect

death

may

and become

its inherence

through

accidents

is also invalid.

thing

be one substance

not

does

We have

one

mankind

would

be one thing

or many

the

with

substances

would

accident,

this

becomes

two

that

as

of two things being one thing.

God can unite

that

If that

is impossible

it

that

It is

in reality

(in reality).

things

the impossibility

It requires

it

then

would

be two

have

and one nature.

be one thing

would

of

(jawhar)

of God and humanity

one hypostasis

two things

chapter

is possible that
54
the conjunction,
or accident

thing,

that

(jawhar)

the nature

one nature

the substance

one substance,

one

many things.

However,

that

it is impossible

that

and they became

maintained

became

they

of the Jacobites

because
Thus

man

be outside

would

his human

Furthermore,

it

is required

every

attribute

Christ

and every

unity

that

eternal

because

(hl),

in that

this) through

cannot

If God has united

several

1-

possible

either

man when

with

1.

(according

they

became

both

and the rest

which

from

become

its existence
That

the existence

nor can the nonnor

(can it do

things

which

have been

one thing,

(arid).

there

the union of God with

the quality

be

must

man) has

of mankind.

of divinity.

the quality

If it has the quality

effect)

are the speciality

they

it
is
God,
then
required
of

of mankind

looking,
as
such

that he has got such as drinking,

for Christ.

because

cannot

by both qualities.

of the qualities

be impossible
doctrine

left
has
and
of man

to the first

all the things

for

because of a mania or an accident

(sifa) of God and has come out from

is
it
characterised
or

impossible

to possible

Similarly

else.

that

been established.

to possible,

is

It

(wu ilh).

effects

3-

their

impossible

become

Z- or it has the quality

would

God or anything

became

in time.

created

(to believe)

impossible

being

this one (the one being resulting

the quality

that

from

change

impossible

is as it was.

would require

is impossible

Since that

through

Christ

existed,

has already

of which

being

that

that

is absolutely

that

substance.

as it is impossible

it had not

because

because

its

and
doctrine

eternal

that

after

eternally

from

change

union with

established

existed

regard.

.
of a main

Indeed

for

drinking,

extinction,

is required

union

be impossible

nature
in their

should become

the non-existence

of a ma4n cannot
existence

what

and

he had been

after

created.

has existed

which

is impossible

(being)

it

the

after

even though his situation

doctrine,

God),

with

become

should

something
in a state

union
a created

(being)

created

is one of the

such as eating,

motion
human

that

would

him,

and benefit

one thing,

to their

according

impossible

his

outside

God, he has become

(through

eternal

be

would

being

for

depth,

breadth,

would be no meaning

there

with

a human

be impossible

would

length,

he

union

Furthermore,

the

action

doctrine

to their

according

characterises

which

killing,

crucifixion,

Otherwise,

nature,

death
of

the possibility

human
of
nature.

characteristics

through

for

According

affirm

that

80

to that,
Christ

after

it would

killing,

length

crucifixion

be a departure

sonship and union with

from
God

and killing

after

was related

to God or man.

Z-

that,

If it was through

the union

before.
done
he
has
as

and drinking

was seen eating

with

it

then

and that

the status

before

and that

his condition

the union

in that

them)

Both

exist.

God cannot

it

situations

(Qadim)

becomes

impossible

by the

because
and

substances
in

established

would

this

quality

it is the doctrine

they became

the

because

death.
of

time

requires

them

himself,

if

became

crucified
possible
would

for

Him

be possible

Furthermore,

him.

with

is the

This

that

become

sign

if

of

two

that

things

more

as they

Christ

it

doctrine

their

be

would

why is it

otherwise

union,

has

would

be

would

be

divine

one thing.

But

this

that

the rest

things

for

separated

from

However,

this

that

with

union

then

that

doctrine

God,

death

and

(God)

and

God Himself

to the

at

creation

all suffering

happened

(Him)

the

God,

with

union

requires
Him

When he

was different

Christ

and repudiated

through

doctrine

is possible

that

having

the

through
if

died in reality.

Christ

difference.
died

Christ

God,

and all

thing

it can be said that

That requires
of Christ

for

If

than becoming

of some of them that

be possible

and killed.

Then

be

would

had been the

there

and divinity.

the

leave

one thing.

of the possibility

admit

he had
must

extinction
mankind

to

if

and this

is required

It

Christ

through

God

the

and God will

one thing

rather

after

natures

died, God ceased to be united

(Him)

have become

doctrine.

However

nature.

that

requires

Even

of the

they should become

existing)

miracles

is no way by which

two

that

from

his divine

one thing

there

incorrect

of

of humanity

it became

that

before,

two

he has left

God, the two

appropriate

He was already

The manifestation

quality.

characterised

were

created

because

with

(although

to

the Son not to

the substance

that
It

through

(According

existed.

because

hypostases.

require

his own qualities

it is impossible

three

were

God as it was

This would

else.

(God) or for

the eternal

Similarly

they

after

for

in
impossibility
are equal

be non-existent.

his personal

union

would

any divine

show

the union with

and he left

crucifixion

of God through

may not

be as if he never

be possible

would

hypostases

two

God was invalid

God and that

with

would be, after

the

the quality

Christ

that

the crucifixion

whether

was the same as anybody

the idea of him being

that

is required

of Christ

action

about

of man and He left

the quality

man,

differ

they

even though

They affirm

was

would

created

of

be

bodies

for God.

if it was possible

that

Christ
81

became

eternal

God after

the union,

what

was the criterion

when

it

which

bodies

is possible

that

(Christ)

them

would

the

one

through

united

one of the hypostasis

doctrine.

which

inheres

it with

regard

to the rest of the ma'ani

it cannot

if the Son inheres

of a basis (hukm)

to him.

and would

be holding
of those

a doctrine

that

that

the power

Our venerable

is impossible
Just

that

to worship

require
in Christ,

alongside

everything

which
which

action

refers

to

cannot

be

is separate

it would be necessary

by the power

them

if at union

Christ

worships

himself,

can thank

himself.

of mutual

which

for him (i. e., Son inhering

Ab 'A1i forced

somebody

in location

(ukm)
basis
a

we have

that

there

in Christ)

by him is separate

should be required.

was
from

We only

him to be able and because he is able, creation

requires

himself,

as nobody

inhere

which

it (i. e., new hukm)

is
and what
required

scholar

worshipped

that

change

that,
up the

give

which

who maintain

the

the union

to admit

and they

the basis (hukm)

of divine

The manifestation

demand
not

by him is possible

55.

would

(else) must

or comprehended;

particular

somebody

they

the doctrine

is something

was the requirement

(shukr).

is one God in reality,

from

affirm

them

all of

God, that

with
apart

they

by him requires

actions

Indeed

or not.

of union

the way by which

is

be said

could

equal to him according to the argument

55
However,
al-tamnu)
and other argument.

Therefore

maintain

Then

(namely)
-

(dallat

hinderence

Christ

of divine

it

is one substance

who

by

method

In this there

God, whether

doctrine

Because

is a second power

God there

that

was

God

of the son and word, because

refuted,

it.

according

Christ

with

basis of their

perceived

invalid.

becomes

to their

the

then

was one of those for whom union was possible

each

already

eternal,

of knowing

of the method

the manifestation

unless

become
can

to be created

are demonstrated

is known?

of the bodies

createdness

something

have to admit,

hypostasis

from

that

invalidation

absolute

by which

himself,

He forced

really

to admit

that

to him.

refers

they

and the Son became

because

worship

must

say that

is like

gratitude

in the same way it is impossible

those

who maintained

It

one thing.

the union

for
does

,
is a logical term used by Muslim logicians,
DalAlat al-tamnu
expressing
that God is second to none. The term is based on the fact that the object
is
is
to
able
produce
something,
able to produce the genus of that
who
its
and
opposite, - if there is an opposite.
something
4Abd al-Jabbr's
implies
that it is possible that one hypostasis
argument
to move something,
the second one wants
to keep it
while
wants
It is called mutual hindering,
for the object cannot be moving
immovable.
See Peters,
God's Created
Speech,
at the same time.
and immovable
PP. 264-5.

82

not

This is just
union,

to be one to admit

them

require

first
the
as

as impossible

of God would

action

also possible

that

was capable

of doing,

the power

He forced

them

can be applied

to admit

be one power,

be capable

would

God, it is required

that

He forced
Christ,

them

and separate

to admit
Christ

because

is part

thou say to the men "take

the verse

(5: 116) Arbery;

if Christ
without

so it

a male,

were among them

He also forced

to admit

(dalalat

hindering
substance

hindering

among them;

of

of

some

them.

He explained

doctrine

that

affirms

it

must

refer

Therefore

being affirmed
refer

as knowing

was necessary
is possible

for

God that
that

us to say the same

some

from

of

God. "'
by
that

be in that

would

intercourse;

would

even though

sense, and there

because

that

when

the mutual

feebleness
and

or weakness

the Trinity

co-relate

it
does not refer
when

that

every

to His

that

explained

to one essence

to refer

at the time

and a thing

as we said before.

affirmation

it is possible

else because

with

to His essence.

The same applies

else.

and substance

of

substantiates

by his argument

83

be a possibility

hypostases,

That

cannot

He further

through

Mary

there

weakness

not anything

He is deity

with

by the fact

in a literal

these

they

and speaking

they refer

that

to something

to one essence.

by many attributes
said about

their

Him as living,

by it to His essence,

as

(a denial

of requiring

that

it

to be able.

that

by that

insofar

argument,

as Gods apart

sexual

between

requires

to

this doctrine.

al-tam'anuC)

that

them

as he united

he Was Characterised

this doctrine,

is one, it is required

as was
So what

He forced

to this

is required

those who maintained

them

is one.

Mary,

with

way

she gave birth to him without

4Ali
interpreted
Ab
has
scholar

our venerable

can be united

when God said, 0 Jesus son of Mary

as the

was God insofar

mankind.

of the hypostases

me and my mother

mentioned

like

substance

According

it

must be the

the rest.

because

category

mutual

God

that

from

"And
God:
of

didst

he was born

nature

of her.

interpreted

because

(taghyur)

one of them

of them

to the rest.

the Son has united

that

them

Christ)

be applied

would

it is

If the man is able

a power

their

at the

that

is possible,

whatever

both

through

of the Word, because

to admit

of doing.

that

of himself.

part

If this

two hypostases

the other

for one of them apart

union was positive

they

them

of both would

to one of them,

the difference

admit

will

one.

of mankind.

the other

for the hypostasis

possible

their

He forced

The same is the case, if God is capable

same.

their

worshipped

be the action

his own essence like

through

Christ

that

(dht).

when

and eternal,

it

Therefore

it

He explained

that

the

knowledge

and indication

have already

He forced

them

insofar

vision,

with

it in full,

to admit

that

as they

the

requires
that

dealt

to His essence,

(14

They

are forced

living,
as

he becomes

which

discussed

We have already
Those

God in terms
is their
they

doctrine

that

require

location

Those

of them

they

of union)

body of Christ

same

57.

their

between
they

were

applies

to

it is impossible

God.

the union

with

and they are two natures

is in this stage

it

Because

the truth.

in a location

as

is united,

the accident

to the doctrine

becomes
-He
of union,

What follows

united

it

and the

with

regard

a body at the time

Christ,

to

that

He becomes

from

that

invalid.
be
must

for God to become

tAbd

that
man.

have

they

which

it,

maintained

are using

because

the same as it was before.

with

maintaining

to maintain

whoever

incarnation,

(i. e., God did not become

claim

them

of corporal

according

that
that

affirm

the rest of bodies.

because

56.

if

inheres

the doctrine

correct

maintained

was, after

is no difference
hypostases,

is not

cannot

which

with

That is invalid.

who maintained
which

one thing

for the sake of

about the unity

far
from
are

anything

when an accident

If they

presented.

The

be said that

must be united.

an expression

with

they did not become

that

If it could

were.

would

intermingling
and

of inherence

thing,

who have described

and Melkites

Nestorians

the

among

that

descriptions

different

their

by all

refer

is
affirmed
who

of the Father,

(affirming)
and speaking, without
57
living as do the Kullbiyya.

knowing

That

and seeing.

When they

and

56

defective.

became

God as the hypostasis

to make

hearing

hypostases.

as many

reasoning

it.

sense of hearing

power,

(to be) powerful,

Him

of Him

their

for Him,

We

and affirmation.

is no need to repeat

so there

they affirm

affirmed

affirmation

of description

the place

take

the

rest

corporeal

God became

man

The same applies

the

There
of

the

incarnate

(ta'annasa)
to whoever

left
inconsistent,
he
be
the real
to
Here
al-Jabbr
as
seems
discussion, i. e., incarnation
and jumped into the Trinity.
doctrine,
God is living through life that is not
to Kullbiyya's
According
'Abd
but
than an entity.
Himself,
rather
al-Jabbr
means to say that
God only through
by
Christians
the Hypostasis
must affirm
of Father,
living,
is
Knowing
but
be
He
they
as
affirmed
actual
etc.,
must
not
which
for
Him.
entities

84

As for those who depend

in this

(taqlid)

of the four

connection

(evangelists),

sifa

refer

to revelation.

must

be interpreted

If

of

through

the

reports

of

the fact

along with

that

about

untruth
reason

demanded

aware

that

is impossible

four.

They

in terms

and because

those

Mark.

is one of the things

no one left

holding

languages.

It

alteration,

has been

because

(Islam)

religion

necessary

(darrl)

reported.

Therefore

Consequently,

quite

someone
possible

that

a huge

knowledge

brought

what

We are also

and interpretation
Matthew,

John,

(too

(to

occurred

be conveyed
in

the

accuse)

about

reporting

was

three

four

of

what

is

We can rely upon only what

large)

and the principles

to agree

upon

a lie.

support)

what

that

we
of

Thus
group

is true.

we have repudiated

of Christ

(to

there

Gospel

the

(Qurlan)
book
of our

group
has

dictated

and

when Christ

had been killed,

can their

upon.

Luke

because

acknowledge

they

So how

what we maintain

because

they relied

upon their

if someone
of the person

circumstances

85

they reported

what

the original

is crucified

source

blind

were

that

(Christ

involved.

with

regard

been killed,

so that

he looks

was crucified)
The

the

report

having

after

about

of their

imitation

who was crucified

Thus when it was reported

similar

their

only

of reporting

is legitimate

it

that

the reporters

the appearance

we know

the Trinity.

were

they

is not be relied

and even though

that

received

alleged

by this method

else.

they

the

our doctrine

to whom his book and his law might

(This is the case) because

it may change
like

are

and the crucifixion

four

the aspect

and lying.

substitution

have maintained

from

occur

is one of

is that

he (Christ)

of God, not

to the

will

invalidate

claim

he and his disciples

known

for God and what

possible

to it.

They

Christ

The reason

sure that

be possible

that

knowledge

Since

it

then

and referring

such

say:

it?

which

that

his religion

four.

these

except

books

and they alleged

was missing

from

Unity

of the

they make a mistake

This

cannot

and we are quite

whose

that

can not only

as revelation,

imitation

to you, how can your

it is taken

that

is blind

doctrine

is not,

How would

is

discussion

because

is confirmed

it requires.

by

generation

and by blind imitation

for God and what

claimed

to what

It

of God according

prophets

they

of their

(Gospels).

four

reports

what

according

when the basis (maud')

is these

the earlier

is invalid

doctrine

their

is impossible

of God and what

about

killing

following

to the books (i. e., books of The New Testament)

referring

our

of God and man).

(i. e., a mixture

said He became a composite

true

nature

it is
of

in such circumstances

anything
because

one of the

knowledge

is that

of Christ

for

conditions

the circumstances

because

appropriate

to rely upon because

that

of

that

the resemblance

is possible

If that

Therefore
because

may be disturbed

What

we

we know through

did not slay him nor did they

they

first

mentioned

is

the words of God:

(him)

like

f,

it

is not

that

of)

that

probabilty

It

crucified

Christ.

Jacob

Christ

In fact,

account

the arguments

you made

He

feminine

doctrine

replied,

the

require

them)

that

UI.

a way

which

repudiation

of

Because

(the

(h1) of

circumstances

to maintain
blindly

there

was

by them

their

a strong

leaders

Therefore

are

same

in that

deduction,
taking

into

When they

turn

without

should be accepted.

as was reported

asked:

of knowledge
is

as Nestorius,

(i. e., Melkites).

imitation

in the

claim

on the basis of logical

is only blind

knowledge

the clear

their

of the emperor

doctrines

the hypostasis

as Son not the hypostasis

masculine

(in

gender)

and

life

of
is

(in gender).
asked:

"So why did you not say about

feminine.

that,

circumstances

because

Then the questioner

58.

to

man.

whom one of our fellows

about one of them,

life?

to

are following

on which
their

the

with

seemed

despite

they

of their

deduction,

Why have

(it

can be affirmed

the sourse

would

in such

we make as a base for reports.

held the religion

of theirs

logical

that

coincided

them

in this,

because

to

because

was the crucified

for

and whoever

no doctrine

man

has occurred

report

which

Therefore

was not possilbe

Gospels.

their

knowledge

(i. e., the Qur)n)

the source

missing

that

possible

(necessary)

requires

sight

more

(4: 157)

them.
that

that

and became

him but it seemed

crucify

(411) has

who was crucified.

events

prophet.

by necessary

whose circumstance

on a person

when ordinary

known

it is possible

that

knowledge

necessary

of something

may have been ambiguous.

of a prophet

through

those matters

projected

miraculous

"Yet

the truth

It has been suggested

(miraculously)
was

was the time

cannot

it must be among

(no58) ambiguity.

be known

life

that

it is the daughter

of God because life

"

In the text,

it is Yaltabisu,

we translated

86

as negative

L Yaltabisu

is

A similar
their

thing

leader

with

He has no kindness

(minna)

for them,

(ri'sa)

mastery

(mar1rs)

mastery

must

If it is lower

because

mastery.

For

mastery

that

It cannot

through

because

Adam

59.

that

require

would

them in order

to be
Yet

must be eternal.
to it.

This subject

of

than Him in substance.

of God has descreased
it is mastery

that

of mastery

when it is said about

reason

consent
that

he would

and it is like
over Abel.

of mastery

be either

be by force,

of that

natural

that

or lower

so the mastery

the subject

would

take possession

possible

His mastery

He is

to say that

from

him

over

and
he is

a man that

of bull and ass, he gets very angry.

Then it is necessary
His

that

God in substance

it is the glory

Him in its nature.

Again

if He had created

over one who is subject

than Him as substance,

dignity,

the master

exist

because

it is

that

must have two aspects.

it would be like

1- Either

like

it would be necessary

over them,

It is impossible

His creature,

is

of the Melkites)

(the
argument)
upon

relied

(ra4is).

(riisa)

master

its

regard

mastery

through

united

this

to the Trinity,

God must be master

that

required
that

who with

Qurra

to me about

was reported

59 (a
leader

which

is like

give

consent

the mastery

So it is affirmed

or by

God in substance.
consent

to say that

It is also impossible
that

that

or natural
force
it would

over

So it is affirmed
sons and like

will
be

It is also

must have a beginning.

to it.

of fathers
that

be like

it is impossible

God.

whatever
not

force

through

because

is like

would

that

it

the mastery

is a
of

He has a Son and he is like Him.

in
it
is
it
is
It
Apparently
the
text.
as
a
confusing
name,
also shows
it
incompetency
the
to
or to
of
editors
who could not manage
correct
1Abd
fact
it.
intended
foot
As
al-Jabbr
a
a
of
write
note about
matter
is known
here Theodore
Little
Abil Qurra a famous Christian
scholar.
It is said that he came under the
He was a bishop of Harrn.
about him.
literary
of John of Damascus whom he
and probably
personal influence
calls, his master.
from
his
his
but
Biographers
time,
connection
are not sure about
with
the Abbasid caliph,
John of Damascus, Ab Riit of Takrit
and al-M'miin,
from
he
lived
that
say
can
about 740-820.
one
J Waardenburg
reported
about him that he wrote seventeen
polemical
His Arabic work has been published,
treatises
against Islam.
a few titles
are below:
libellus
Theodori
I. Arendzen,
de cultu imaginum
Abu Kurra
e codice
(Boon,
latin
Primun
illustration,
1877):
nunc
editus
arabico
versu
Constantin
Bacha, les oeuvres arabis de Theodore
Aboucora
eveque d'
1904).
Haran, (Beyrouth,
Theodore Abi Qurra, M. W., vol. XV (1925), P. 42.,
A. Guillaume,
denburg, Two lights Perceived,
J Waar
N. T. T., vol. XXXI Part 4. (1977),
P. M.
Habib ibn Hidmah Abli R'ith,
Sidney H Griffith,
oriens Christians,
vol.
('.
161.
LXIV,

87

He has informed
doctrine

of their
argument

is taken

from

blind

imitation,

that

follows

that

course.

anything

forward

that

to affirm
as Adam

does not know that

argument

(God) has a female

that

than his mastery

over Abel

is excluded

Him by that

from

excluded

is it

How

then

and it would
cannot

his people

generous,

two Hypostases.

the Son is also

which

of mastery

Furthermore,

differentiates

this

through

of subject

be used about

can only

a state

with

regard

such

of

it forward)

people

are changing

different

from

substance

because

that
from

God

the mastery
comes

a person

who

him from

them.

must

he affirms
Him?

It is

in order

the hypostases

have given
be

would

and different
it
or

discussion

or they
is not

the

Him

master,

man

its situation

against

the fact

explained,

to discuss

attention
put

already
they

this
is
the

that

from

taken

(khawss)
To go

this.
forward
say

the

that

the
it is

deny that,

or they

say that

substance

or they

say it

invalidity
the
about

and

because

maon, whether

with

for

as characteristics

We have

futile.

is connected

the substance

much

(ma-lik)

mention

is, as we have

doctrine
calling

to warn

be

We did not

invalidity,
its
discuss
we may

As for their

whatever

after

Then

to their

expression

saying

that

be separated

would

(sift),

and attributes

by

that

But (we brought

imitation.

hypostases

with

so that

argument,

situation

invalidity

It

and mighty.

so what

obvious.

over

to nature
companion

be affirmed

may

the affirmation

only requires

all.

opposed

noble,

hypostasis,

blind

of her

to be said about God.

a proponent

specious

When the female

it (to be excluded),

hypostases

three

through

to God at

from

impossible

If

that

possible

be completed

refer

forward

(i. e., over Eve) is closer

requires

him

Him for the same reason.

its
when
reasoning

argument

which

who put

someone

He may be master

so that

is hdith.

that

as an

he has said, for it requires

what

mastery

because

accept

we cannot

Do you see that

the basis

that

arguments

so that

companion,

This

of Eve.

was master

from

about

we reported

you of what

their

is the

of all that has come earlier.

10 - Section

Concerning
and what

You

must

the invalidity
is related

realise,

of what

they

believed

about

Christ

and his adoration

to that.

that

all the

Christians

88

whose

doctrines

we have quoted

are

those

among

worshipped
doctrine

who

profess

Christ.

of

worship

differ

They

regard

to him and in what

(Christ)
he
way

matter

is based upon their

doctrine

with
in this

the

about

is

what

is worshipped.

Their

(God)
becoming
and
of union

man.

So whoever

of them

one person,
they

maintain
him

say about

are two sects.

The Jacobites

he is one substance.

another,

like

human

he is a body.

which

is

Christ

God

through

understood
believed

However
substances
differed

that

being

as he

the

the Melkites,
(natures),
among

the divine

who is spirit
sect

in a different

who is called

man

and

by which

the

However

being and God,

divine

and God in

way from

Walyniyya60
nature

he is human.

and Nestorians

that

only

could

So these

two

by
that

alleged.

that

maintained

Christ

be

sects

has two

one and human one, God and man, although

Some of them

Some of them said that

they have two wills.

60.

is

maintained

that

their

will

they
is one.

it
because
has many
a most
sect,
confusing
'Abd
it only once.
While
as we see
al-Jabbr
mentioned
pronunciations,
doctrines,
he described their doctrine
during the summary of the Christian
it as Ilyniyya,
Al-Shahristani
and said
mentioned
naming it.
without
Watt
in Syria, the yemen and Armenia.
that they were a community
it as Julianists
that they belong to the sixth
translated
and commented
by
Century,
their
and
views
are
studied
only
sects
still
exist
of
such
none
doctrine.
in the history of the theological
the specialists
Walyniyya,

it

he is human

and

in reality.

Maronites

themselves.

that

one hypostasis
in reality.

be worshipped

maintained

is

aspect

he is adored

is one substance,

But he is a human being in one aspect

The other

insofar

Christ

he would

that

although

the

that

Al-Nshi
al-Akbar
mentioned
from Jacobites
they differed
Armenia.

them as al-lawliyniyya.
only in one doctrine

According
to him
and they belong to

When we study Maglt dim yya a ima, edited by P. L. Cheikho, there is a

fi Sihha al-din al Masihi, here this sect is also
treatise
called Maymar
lawliyniya.
described
But the editor
as
scholar
who was a great
ni
it
because
in.
It
their
to
correct
as
alseems
me
--Uli
corrected
d. after 518) bishop of Hc. licarnassus in Ca-ritt. So it
founder was Julian
from
Julian to Yuwlyan.
was changed
(See Introduction,
PP. 13-14).
Milal, P. 178, Watt, A Muslim account of Christian
doctrine,
Shahristani,
Islamicus,
Vol. VI, No. 2 (1983), P. 67., A'. -Nashi al-Akbar,
Hamdard
A1if al-Maglt,
P. 81., Cheikho
P. 9., The Oxford
Awsdt
Vingt
Traites,.
Church, P. 766.
dictionary
of Christian

89

All

of them

They

maintain

say that

because
However,

the Nestorians
They

Jacobites

say, that

they

do differ

about

before.

from

You

must

doctrine

that

union

the benefactor;
individually
(from

and provides

and power

that

deeds that

them

one of them

one was was through

and its invalidity

him

to grant

to be worshipped

and entitled

a body cannot

make

It is well

that.

about

by living
the

about that is

the discussion

So how it is possible

them

and he is

depends on unsoundness

that

doctrine

their

of their

is worshipped,

Christ

that

Because

before

the invalidity

about

of the world

him to be worshipped

for

as we maintained

the means of subsistence

with

was a body in reality.

entitle

is impossible

all

we mentioned

invalidate

of Christ

they

although

births:

the second

believed

(hypostases).

the other

discussion)

will

or not

had two

explained

they

is the creator

or with

The evidence

Christ

that

we have

what

repudiates

that

the earlier

was

by him

(eternally),

time

in reality,

and crucified
felt

As for the

and crucified.

Mary in time.

realise
about

pain

maintained

God before

the bodies

creates

state

they

from

human nature

the

whether

Sometimes

divine
was

God was killed

hypostases.

to three

is
God
born
and
man
who
was

Christ

God was born

do not say that

and crucified.

God was born

say that

birth
she gave

that
that

maintained

do not

They

be imagined

it could

and died.

God
and
was crucified

nature

to God.

gave birth

Mary

(by that)

the human

that

bodies,

life

a body,

known

that

the

he does such

that

the fact

despite

it

that

to be

he is entitled

by which

gifts

of that.

worshipped.

that

he should

(should

beings

others.

characterised
characterised

1.
rest
from

because

circumstances

Insofar
in

through

He is the original
benefits
the
of

as the

the

could

worship

same

way

the

as

certain

facts:

source

of the benefits

would

from

not be possible.

Him.

90

are

because
From

any other

produced

benefits

this

Because

of

by

God,

of that

benefits

them

are

because

if He does not
aspect

of

on the basis

little
much or

in being able to produce

which

to the extent

equal.

would

apart

of the bodies

or the rest

only be entitled

than His benefits

benefits

those who declare

between

of prophets

to be worshipped

are entitled

different

is similar)

or the rest

would be greater

which

human
no
of their

be worshipped

be worshipped)

benefits

to

(when the situation

is no difference

There

He

exist,

all benefits

not
is

the
come

Z. He has reached such an extent that nothing can equal His gifts.
3.

Because

their

by way of the fact

master

which

from

come

aspects

impossible

are

benefactors

other

as we know

is the

it

that

(darri)

All

for

duty

there

be worshipped.

However

and that

is limited,

which
they

would

impossible

for

argument

two

the gifts

be

sometimes

gifts

to others
a

to it and of the fact

to do it,

have
we

that

that

that

admit

Because

is necessary

know
we

that

in any way.

In

is required

to

he is God in a real
that

if that

i. e., eating,

God is a body
is not admitted,

drinking

etc.,

such an argument

for God, because

is impossible

was
is

of the

have
bodies
and
we
creation
about
61
(mujassima)
by the way of
the corporealist
the

presented
it

that

Christ

that

one, must

of that,

all

that

doctrine

(etc. ).

the fact

known

to be worshipped

who maintained

drinks
and
eats

despite

Christ,

of their

became

substances

to maintain

presented

already

must

of the good in thanking

one who received

those of them

We have already

invalid.

He

to their

according

these

of all

Therefore

is entitled

is the disproof

which

have

occurrence

anyone else, even though

the body is not entitled

shows that

this (argument)

meaning

or the one

in most cases.

knowledge

of that

by means

or Himself

the benefactor

that

the

the

knowledge

Because

evidence.

giving

God.

to be thanked

are entitled

through

that

of

from

apart

entitled

and of the fact

benefactor

because

except

by being

characterised

known

He became

Him,

is possible

to the gifts

regard

has been

It

gifts.

with

from

gifts

Him

through

that

God, whether

the

who receives

in
reality
are

of the others

the gifts

against

the

of

argument.

It is well
invite

people

according

How

to their

it

is possible

that

be the

All that

doctrine,

he used to worship

to say that

for the one who is worshipped

then he would

and God of himself.

However,

of Christ

the circumstances

to worship.

is conceded,

himself

61.

from

How it is possible

reality?
that

known

Creator

is contradictory

it is necessary

he is worshipped

in

himself?

If

to worship

of himself,

the benefactor

of

and impossible.

that

He would

be capable

It was emphasized
Corporealist,
to God.
who give bodily attributes
Muslim
group that god was not corporeal
and not material,
orthodox
those who held that view were sometimes
called mujassima.
E. I2., Vol. 4, P. D.

91

and

by
and

death

of suffering,

for

right

and pain.

for him to be punished

possible

him

is possible

If that

of being

regard

In these conditions

or rewarded.

and his condition

with

to him,

it is also
is not

worship

be like

the condition

of

of being killed

and crucified

by

needy

would

rest of bodies.

They

cannot

maintain

it was an imaginary

that

claiming
as man

him feeling

pain,

Those

maintained

for that

(the doctrine

must

confine

nature.

That repudiates

or else it requires

might

therefore

one, because

and other

worship

because

things

drinking

such as eating,

some aspects

or all aspects.

of

their

there

must

examination
Otherwise
kept

If one of their
united

with

proponent

him

their

their

saying

is Christ

from

saying

doctrine

for

so

al-Jhiz

not be any mention

their

said:

but because

said,

such

be

to God aspects

of

to deny

for humanity

they are possible

there

eat, drink,

God, it is possible

believed,

adored

is adored,

cannot

to attach

as they

that

Christ

that

the

with

They are forced

etc.
Mary

to be the adored

Christ

Christ

that

since it is possible

kUthmn
Abu

from
away

completely

the human

and divinity,

humanity

else together

something

and crucifixion

of seed or born

scholar

do not allow

they

for God, even though

is a product

Our venerable

from

hypostasis.

includes

Christ

are only possible

which

are impossible

which

and two

substances

apart

nature

that he is a divine

between

and between

be
killed
and

crucified

that

is no difference

and provider

two

the one who is worshipped

that

is that

includes

doctrine

this

There

creator

things

It is necessary

is:

being)

him.

we can worship

The answer

one.

Our doctrine

argue:

of Christ

they maintain

that

him without

God feels pain in reality.

that

doctrine

their

is (something

it may befall

that

to the divine

the worship

natures

of

made God

they

man or his death

It is impossible

would require

because

thing

not a real

the killing

is established.

whose possibility)

They

thing

to them

and according

who

him in forms

what befell

to admit

that

according

either

God
to

is a need for a minute

invalidity

in
God
these
of

may

be

terms,

explained.
may He be

doctrines.

We adore Christ
he is the

92

not because

intermediary

he is divine

between

or God

us and between

God, insofar

Because of his d eat blessing

him.

as we know God through

fact

and the

that it is very close to the blessing of God (Qadim),

worship him.

it is good for us to

The

section

that

for

reason.

is:

answer

it

that

necessitate
would

According

that

those whose kindness

because

they

by which

matters

is nothing

That

to Adam

view

blessing

of Adam's
the

evidence

of

condition

is changed

merit

or revealed

through

of worship.

Since no thanks
be

can

worship

due

be possible

and honour

the

conneded

with

now, there

As for
cradle

the

it

in the

is convincing

arguments

and that

of miracles

due
it

chapter
(proof

which

it is genuine,

of his miracles,

the rest

is only

and reports

to Him.

God

(later

of waqd

things

God)

is

acts
no

we have

which

the same

thanks,

We shall

and (other

(threat).

whose

therefore

or gift,

giving)

is

Thus worship

we said, that

are due.

of

This

was appropriate,

they

and thanks

to worship

to the religious

(of

Therefore

to

we have

the point

one of the

a blessing

blessing

of

to be made

from

thing

There

blessings

God ordered

regard

such order

where

between

difference

that

to thanks.

appropriate

worship

with

through

which

of such a command.

special

be possible
regard

only

that

the

to the

than

of worship

is not

can be due without

according

aspects

and other

as we maintain

without

with

are

discussion
worship

revelation

If it could

mentioned.

because

which

no one is entitled

because

and worship

anything

blessings.

other

two

and as an act

of Adam

by

greater

which

to prostrate

to Him

appropriate

would

to him,

(Satan)

closeness

the

the prostration

concede

He ordered

makes

(accept)

they

was an act of worship

God.

from

It

of His kindness,

God's blessings

of

it

would

and the rest of

mentioned

nature

that

fathers

Christ

of

are distinguished

that

We do not

special

Christ

of

necessitates

maintained.

except

these blessings

in the

others.

the

of

given

blessing

the

this

to us on account

of those we have just

the blessing

we have

explanation

our fore

have been great

distinguish

this

of

the prophets

all

worship

we should

and gifts

cannot

it from

separates

to worship

was good

also necessitate

beginning

the

to

praise

mention

the

an explanation

of

matters)

are

which

In the argument

presented

of our position).

they

use against

it would

the discussion
(akhbr).

our claim

he spoke

that

have been as widespread

of that

will

among

be mentioned

In the same way the doctrine

in the

them

as

in the chapter
by which

they

object

to

affirmation

the
of

Qur an,
Idris

as

their

and Noah

argument
and

others

93

is

that

in

as prophets

the
while

Qu? n,
they

there
were

is
not

or in it

prophets,

(Qu? n) that

God never

sent

revelation

(to any one) except

men and it is not the case, and God said to Christ.

"Didst

thou,

(5: 116).
"Surely

say unto

While

none

God is poor,

men,
of the

take

me and my mother

Christians

and we are rich"

said it.

And

as Gods apart
it

(3: 181). and that

is in it
"Allah's

that

from
Jews

God. "
said,

hand is fettered"

(5: 64).
And they

said about

it is known
will
them

be dealt

that
with

they

Ezra,

that

never

in (the

he was Son of God, while

it,
said

chapter)

in addition
of miracles.

now.

94

to other
So there

(according
similar

to the Jews)
matters,

these

is no need to mention

PART

95

TWO

Chapter I
Commentary
translation

Before

alluded

in

the

of al-Mu. ghni (Vol. v. pp. 80-85)

doctrines,
i. e., Trinity
two main Christian
and criticise
tAbd
has given a brief summary
incarnation,
al-Jabbr
of the

to discuss

going

and union

of

famous

Christian

Christ.

It is notable

identifying

doctrines

during

that

to indicate
these

the person and nature of

4Abd
failed
the summary,
al-Jabbr
about

presenting

This adds to the difficulty

the names of the sects.

Sometimes

sects.

of various

differences

and their

sects

most of the time

of

Doctrines

Christian

on the

Abd
to by
al-Jabbr

he fails

sects,

in

even

to identify

detailed

discussion

he is

whose doctrine

the sects

the

of

discussing.

On the

other

Jabbr,

elaborated

hand,

a particular

Christian

"Christ

prophet,

whom

him

His

Son

by

p. 85/translation,

Both

Christ
dignified

1.

about

the sects
by

way

(al-Mughni,

of

their

the

As a result,
held

which
of

works

views

and venerated

adoption

group

the

Oriental

by

not

of Christians,

p. 80/translation,

Mary

they

and was a

for his obedience

way

P. 19).

when he says that

(ibt': adaa) through

existence

God honoured

and Ibn Hazm

a righteous

him because

birth
by
not

it.

naming

to a small

referred

of Trinity.

into

came

to al-Shahristni

was

to

and named

birth. "

(al-Mughni,

to certain

individuals.

of

P. 25).

al-Shahristni

According

without

supplemented

information

the

is related

there is a resemblance
of the
Abd
It seems that
and
al-Jabbr.

in identifying

4Abd al-Jabbr

further

al-

sometimes

the same source

has been

the doctrine

that

believed

that

than 'Abd

in Arabic.

writing

admit

he gives

doctrine

al-Sharistni

from

this

In the beginning

Later

every

has been helpful

and

scholars

who do not

noble

between

work

doctrines

various

in such a way that

It is interesting

are quoting

al-Shahristni's

I.

the summary

sect.

both scholars

although

later

al-Shahristani

and wording

phrases

(d. 548/1153),

and union.

A1-Shahristni,

attribute

Butinus
man

('abd)

of his obedience
1

Milal

this doctrine

(Photinus)
and

was

and Paul
created

and called

p. 176.

96

of Samosata
but

said that

God honoured

him Son by adoption

and

(tabanni)

According

Western

to

incarnation

Paul

sources,

Christ
the incarnated
1
According
to Afif b. Mulammil,

Christ.

Ibn

that

Christ

The

first

Christ

Hazm

(d. 456/1064)

described

gives

unbegotten,

because

derived

picture

the begotten

from

"Arius

that,

from

scholar,

in a purely

(c. 319 AD),

there

of

nature

who believed

maintained
hand,

that

western

God the Father

Son is in some sense subordinate

5
unity.

the absolute

"2

was also a

human

who

that

the

the prophets.

On the other

believed

from

upon another

Christians

three

Word of God.

man and the

us a clear

absolute

in Alexandria

a priest

Christian

least
at
4
of God.

was a man and a messenger

is Arius,

Jesus as one person

believed
who

an unfamiliar

was a created

sources

an oriental

"that

maintained

only in one degree

differed

father

al_Masisi,
3

But

of

human
the
upon

the Word rested

and that

Paul

Samosata

is an

and inferior,

for the creation

It does mean that Christ, although created was an instrument
6
{Afif
We find the same view attributed
b. Muuammil,
to Arius by
of the world.
7
who was a Melkite.
4Abd

Later

al-Jabbr,

actually

without

naming.
it

does attribute

to Arius.

scholars

who

came

claimed

that

Christ

(Istifa)a).

(al Mughni,

The second
according
simply

Z.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.

himself

given

the

in Ibn Hazm
that

like other

al-Shahristni
al-Jabbr

said,

view of the Arian

word

God

of

and

doctrine

who set out a similar

"It

His

view

is said by some of their

God is one and they

that

p. 85/Trans.

to Ibn Hazm,

a prophet

However,
8 Abd

earlier
is

gives

detailed
a more

name

him

Son through

Father

and

(God's)

will

P. 24).

is also Paul of Samosata

Christ

prophets.

(260 AD) whose teaching

was a man and a messenger

of

God and

Church. p. 1087.
Oxford dictionary
of Christian
Cheikho, Trois Traites, pp. 87-89.
Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal, vol. I, p. 48.
V. A. Harvey, A handbook of Theological
terms, p. 25
Church, p. 83
Oxford Dictionary
of Christian
Cheikho, Trois Traites, p. 87
Al-Shahrista
i Milal, p. 178, J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian
226-231
Ibn. Hazm, al Fisal, vol. I, p. 48.

97

Doctrines,

pp.

The

is

third

Arianism
him

and believed

that

word)

Spirit
10
were created.

Again

'Afif

b. Muuammil

Spirit

were created

is another

There

said that

36Z),

Christ

human
prophet
a
was

there

group from

was a minor

of the Messiah

by al-Nshi

sect mentioned

can see the divine

both

of these

believed

that

al-Akbar

(spirit

of

and

the Son and

He

as al-Musalliyniyya.

them who alleged

and knows it.

nature

version

and man, but considered

However,

Macedonius

that

conforms
11
beings.

a modified

supported

who

God.
Word
of
and

as the Holy

Holy

(d. c.

Macedonius

that

the human nature

They denied that

Christ

is an incarnate
deity, by they asserted that he is a human being, not God the
l2
(the
Almighty.
Al-Shahristani
Musallin
them
called
and said that
worshipper)
13
did not mention
they were a group of Nestorians.
Al-Shahristni
such
doctrine

towards

It is well

them

known

that

as mentioned

such sects

by al-Nishi

declared

were

al-Akbar.

Church

by the Orthodox

to be

heretical.

'Abd

2.
power

It

power.
1Adi, the

This

possibly

this

exception

refers
Christian

the property

of Holy

reports

"Others

referred

to a sect

who maintained

the Holy

Spirit

that

life

is

P. 19).

p. 80/Trans.

known

well

p. 8Z/Trans.

..

from

seem

Jacobite,
Jabbar

al-Jabbr

(al-Mughni,

would

then

that

because

to the Jacobites,

is being
according

identified

as

to Yahy

b.

himself
a
was
who
philosopher,
and
apologist
14
'Abd
(qud_).
later
However
Spirit is power
al-

maintained

P. Z1). It is not clear

that

whether

the

there

Spirit

is

power"

is any distinction

(al-Mughni,

between

these

two statements.

3.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Then

'Abd

al-Jabbr

describes

three

views

Ibid., p. 4 $
Cheikho, Trois Traites, p. 88
Kitb al-Awsat,
Al-Nshi
al-Akbar,
p. 79
Milal, p. 176
Al-Shahristni,
Yahya while refuting
the philospher,
al-Kindi,
the property
to the Christians,
of Holy Spirit
De Yahya
Ben 'Adi, " edited
by A
Traite
(1920-Zl)
XXII,
P. 5.
Chretien,
vol.

98

of the nature

of Christ

that according
maintained
(qurda) see "Un
is power.
Revue de L'orient
Perier,

their

without

those who hold them.

naming

i.

The Messiah

(al-Mughni,

is the word and body united

ii.

this

to al-Shahristani,

the Word was united

The Messiah

with

each other.

P. ZO)

p. 80/Trans.

According

They are:

is a Melkite

doctrine,
15

the body of Christ.

with

that

namely

is the Word, not the body. (al-Mughni,

P. 80/Trans.

P. ZO).

This

God should
birth

to be a Nestorian

appears

doctrine

not be born of woman.

to Divine

Therefore

The human

nature.

because

the Nestorians

they refused

that
human

to attribute

of Christ

acts and suffering

insisted

belong

to the

man Christ.

iii.
.

Messiah

The

body

created

p. 80/Trans.

This

to

appears

element

it

when

be a Jacobite

flesh and blood.

said,
17

that

4.

'Abd

the Father

and the Son.

of

procession
Christendom.

al-Jabbr

Spirit

According

was not

in

was

doctrine

the

the

and

womb

alleged

of

that

Word

became

(al-Mughni,

Mary.

not

correct,

as the

that

fusion

a third

of fire

with

is a state
P. 21).

because

which

proceeds

His statement
it

is a western

into

from

about

the

part

of

Eastern Church protested

that such
18
in Scripture.
However, "(Abd al-J abbr in his

to Harvey,

to be found

maintain

the Word was transferred

the Spirit

p. 81/Trans,

they

just

to Jacobites

(al-Mughni,
is

because

and mixture,

according

the

body

created

P. ZO).

fusion
of
out
16
a live coal.

Al-Shahristni

15.
16.
17.
18.

the

is produced

coal produce

doctrine

is

the

Milal, p. 173
A1-Shahristani,
Ibn Kammna1 Tani
al Abhth, p. 52
Milal, p. 176
A1-Shahristni,
V. A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological

99

terms,

p. 86

tot

Tathbit,
Spirit

while

describing

proceeds

from

Rabb-an

'Abd

Christians

al-Jabbr

i.

Some

(khawss)
Mughni,

Yahy

'Adi,
b.

is not

multiplied

three

khaw ss.

is described

but

b. Mu'ammil

21.

change

the

condemned

the

hypostases

as

(sift)

this single

among

the

are

actually
(al-

attributes.

(Divine)
or if

sift

essence

(dht),

it is preferred

22

viewpoint.

persons

to the Nestorians
term

(ashkhi),

(al-Mughni,

and

use

by al-Shahristni
(person)

shakhs

the use of shakhs and said that

is distinguishable
24
to the hypostasis.

(1983) P. 173.

Another

oriental

137
p.
23.
Z4.

arose

p.

in the external

world,

whole

while

who says,
instead

of

person

who

it is different

Tathbit,
al-Jabbr,
vol. I, p. 94
Melanges d l'Universite
Saint Joseph,
Al-Tabari,
al-Radd=al
al-Nasr,
36 (1959), p. 136, Hassan b. Ayyu'b, al-Radd,
in al Jawb al-Sahih,
Vol.
Vol. H. P. 319
'Ammr
(d.
Cheikho,
Vingt Traites,
74.
845) a Nestorian
p.
al-Basari
(khawss) of God's essential
scholar called them essential particularities
being.
'Ammr
(See, S. H. Griffith,
Le Museon, Vol.
al-Basar-i's Kitb al-Burhn,

NC,
22.

is

P. Z1).

could be indicated

19.
20.

which

by three

them

considered

has been attributed

sometimes
Z3
hypostasis.

Abd

others

said, "that

this is a Jacobite

that

Others

they

regard

way",

21

8Z/Trans

with

it

P. 21).

scholar

in itself

in this

(agnim).

that

maintained
and

it

1)n

4Abd
than
al-Jabbr.

the hypostases

characteristics

a Jacobite

ii.

This doctrine

them

of

P. 82/Trans

This would indicate

Afif

to define

that

differences

the

quoted

when they tried

better

he
says that the
when
'Ali
b.
two converts

this

described

also

doctrines

they knew Christian

that

5.

b. Ayyub

and Hassan

al-Tabari

obvious

the Nicene Creed correct/

19
Along with
the Father.

A1-Shahristni,
Cheikho, Trois

scholar

(Assl
Ibn

Milal, p. 176
Traites, p. 76

100

gives

a similar

description.

See Ibid.,

iii.

Others

of

hypostases

wujh26

(877-940)

Alexandria

he denied

aspects

were

(al-Mughni,

'iht)

aspects
they

that

a Melkite

scholar
in the

worshipped

should

these
25
of one God.

essence

of as being

be thought

that

maintained

three

(separate)

(aspects).

The distinctions

hard to follow.

here are rather

fails

al Burhin

by Eutychius

seem that

the use of the word

three

(wuju-h)

P. 2-1).

are three

However,

that

thought

p. 82/Trans.

Eutychius

they

hypostases

to define

than a'iht.

to be a Melkite

doctrine

Watt

'ihat

or translate
implies

wu'h

in his translation

a greater

the more

separate

It

and wu'h.
separation

The use of 'iht to describe

whereas

of Kitb
would

between

the hypostases

concept

of wu'h

the

seems
may be

Jacobite.

6.

'Abd

the hypostases

Some

and substantiality.

them

they

Some of them

we do say that
fact

as to whether

that

maintained

different

in

they are different,

but

were

and the same in substantiality.

hypostasy

ii.

of

of opinion

or the same in hypostasy

are different

i.

to the differences

then turns

al-Jabbr

that

they

they

"We
do
not say that
said,
hypostases

are three

are

only

one substance".

are the same in the

which

(al-Mughni,

p. 82/Trans,

p. 21).

On this matter

one should refer

to the statements

of three

Christian

scholars.

Cl

Timothy

1.
Mahdi,

said,

difference

the

through

25.
26.
27.
28.

scholar,

"If

in

among

individually,

In

I, a Nestorvn;

same

we

keep

them.

then there

debate,

hypostases

while
the

mind

On the other
is distinction

he

also

replying

101

is

no

there

hand, if we look at every

27
"
them.
among

declared,

al-Burhn,

al-

substance,

"They

and they are the same in nature

Kitb
Eutychius
of Alexandria,
Ibid., p. 41
Cheikho, Trois Traites, p. 6
Ibid., p. 7

to the Caliph

vol. I, p. Z7

one

distinguished
28
(tabi(a).

are

2.

"Afif

hypostases,

but hypostases

3.

Yahy

b.

Muuammil

is

the

that

substance
claimed
29
are not same as each other.

!.

b. Adi asserted

is different

each hypostasis

that

than the other

the

two in

is a separation

ma'n30.

In another

(fall)

them on the one hand, and there is no separation

among them on
31.
is supported
hand.
by the
Thus it can be seen that this doctrine
4Afif
in the person of Timothy,
in
the person of
the Melkites
and by

treatise

we say that

that

there

among

the other
Nestorians

the Jacobites

7.

he said,

for

same

lAbd

with

al-Jabbr

person

of Yahy.

doctrines

two

attributed

the nature

about

of hypostases

to

the Nestorians.

i.

Some of them
and

God.

speaking

each of these hypostases

that

alleged

is

This

doctrine

of

is a living
of

some

the

Nestorians.

11.

The

rest

said,

individually

8.

is not

P. 82, /tran,

P. 21)

The

doctrines

same

Nestorian
eAbd

al-Jabbr

doctrine.

reported

i.

Some

of

them

(al-Mughni,

Al-Shahristni
that

30.
31.
32.
33.

of

the

hypostases

a God nor living

are

reported

on being

(al-Mughni,

nor speaking.

by

mentioned

as being

al-Shahristani

32

the differences

Christians
the
among

about

of kalima.

the meaning

Z9.

each

maintained

that

the word

is knowledge

itself.

P. 8 2/ tr an, P. Z 1)

attributed

by the kalima

this doctrine

to the Melkites,

they mean the hypostasis

Ibid., P. 79.

'Adi,
Maglt, P. 28.
Ya.hy b.
Ibid., PZ8.
Milal, P. 176.
A1-Shahristni,
Milal, P. 176.
Al-Shahristni,

102

when he says

of knowledge.

33

11.

Some of them

(al-Mughni,

A1-Shahristni
Nestorians

iii.

9.

from

different

i.

manifests

itself

through

when he says, then the

34
(nutq)
as speech
and kalima.

knowledge

hand, the doctrine

is that

of others

(al-Mughni,

speech are not knowledge.

'Abd

it

to the Nestorians

interpreted

This doctrine

is knowledge.

P. 21).

P. 8Z/tran,

attributed

On the other

kalima
of

meaning

because

kalima

It was only named

speech.

the

said that

the word

and

p. Zl).

p. 8Z. tran.

has not been identified.

al-Jabbr

described

one another

or not?

Some of them

from

reported

are heterogeneous

the hypostases

about

(Father's

and this knowledge

they are

whether

they said, the hypostases

that

them

that

knowledge)

and His

life

(al-Mughni,

are different.

p. 8Z, /tran.

p. 22)

ft

In other

of God and life

knowledge

ii.

one can say, the hypostases

words

Some

them

of

substances

has not

However
analogy

10.
person

Christ
of

34.

Ibid., P-175

35.

Ibid.,

to identify

al-Shahristani

with
35

charcoal,

al-Jabbr

reported

Jacobites.

'Abd

both

possible

as

and

an example

the views

P. 82/trap.

first

the

by

of three

and his union.

P. 177, Ibn Kammna,

Tq,

pp. 5Z and 53

103

of

Kammna

Ibn

mentioned

themselves

are

of being

is not made regarding

which

(al-Mughni,

ember.

Him.

in terms

though

They illustrated

of substance.

been

Even

else.

from

hypostases

the

is a distinction

there

it
becomes
when

It

that

and nothing

hypostases,
terms

of God are different

reported

than God; the

are other

4Abd

Christian

of charcoal

P. 22).

these

doctrines.
the

attributed
al-Jabbr

to

the

sects about the

i.

The

Nestorians

claimed

to them in reality

According

is

Christ

that

God

man.

and

is two substances

the Messiah

and

two hypostases.

ii.

believed

The Melkites
them is eternal

iii.

(Abd

The

majority

al-Jabbr

union was an event

manner

without

identifying

i.

which

in which

Shahristni
39
Jacobites.

36.
37.

Cheiklio, Vingt
'Abd
al-Jabbr,

has one

substances.

these doctrines.

reported

(Jawhar),

while

Paul of Sidon

"nature"
al-Jabbr
sometimes
also
37
It would seem that he regards the two terms
labia.
38
as do many Christian
scholars.

goes on to say that

in time

occurred
this

took

union

(kalima)

and

the Christians

(amr hdith).

However

He then

place.

agreed

listed

that

the

they differed
five

methods

groups concerned.

united

Ibn

with

that human being

(al-Mughni,

means of intermingling.

Al

Christ

out of two

substance
36 'Abd
(tabia).

the Christian

The word

one of

P. 22).

he used the word

as synonymous

substances,

that

alleged

he is (formed)

that

has correctly

had two

is created.

Jacobites

P. 82-83/tran,

uses the term

on the

the

(al-Mughni,

used the word

11.

of
except

al-Jabbr

Christ

and the other

substance,

However,

(Abd

that

Kammna

P. 83, /tran,

attributed

this

(i. e. Christ)

by

P. ZZ).

doctrine

to

the

Traites, PP. 28-9

Vol. V, P. 131
al-Mughni,

38.

'Adi,
b.
Magldt,
Yahy

39.

Milal,
P. 177, Ibn Kammna,
Al-Shahristni,
Tangih,
PP. 52-3.
Al(See P.175) that is
Shahristni
this doctrine
to the Melkites
also attributed
Watt, while translating
incorrect.
failed to
this section by al-Shahristni
discrepancy.
this
out
point

P. 21, Cheikho, Vingt Traites,

104

P. 2 and P. 31.

11.

The

word

Kammdna40

iii.

The word

in him

inhere

(al-Mughni,

body.

Al-Shahristini

seems

by him

and his

is one jawhar

of three

sifit.

It is in accordance
clay

(actual)

which

Yahy

4Z

of Trinity

(by

stamped
from

design being removed

A1-Shahristani's

4Adi

b.

has

to explain

used

this

how God

of the design of a seal

the appearance

has been

mirror

P. ZZ).

P83/tran,

the doctrine
43

with

in a polished

appears

to the Jacobites.

because

correct,

in his affirmation

being

(al-Mughni,

this

attributed

attribution

in

this analogy

P. 22).

of human

into
looks
it.
he
when

v.

the

Logos as a house and a

was covered

and word

P.83/tran,

It is as a picture

analogy

describe

similarly

has not been identified.

This doctrine

iv.

Fathers

that
commented
41
by Saint Paul and John of Damascus.

was applied

as Ibn

to Nestorians

A, J. Wolfson

and a temple.

as

person

P. ZZ).

was attributed

to the incarnate

in its relation

human
a

of

P. 83/tran,

the Orthodox

mentioned,

body of Christ
tabernacle

(al-Mughni

of temple

the analogy

form

the

adopted

locus.
and

temple

Although

(kalima)

the

seal)

the

without

the seal, and the inherence

r

(of the design) in the clay.

Al-Shahristni
Nestorians.

12.

lAbd

seems

(al-Mughni,

to attribute

this

P,83/tran,

analogy

for

the union

to the

44

al-Jabbr

reported

differences

among the Christians

Will.
of
union

40.
41.
42.
43.
44.

PP. 22-23).

Ibn Kam mlina, Tang-ih, P. 53

A. J. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church
Milal, P. 177
Al-Shahristni,
'Adi,
Maglt, PP. 12-17
b.
Yahy
Milal, P. M.
Al-Shahristni,

105

Fathers,

P. 368

about

the

The general

(i. e. nature)

substance

mankind

- sometimes
the whole of humanity,
(al-Mughni,

all.

There

is no doubt

Melkites

Christ

united

with

may cause the redemption

of Satan.

able

because
'(Afif

of view.

with
of

we see that
b. Mulammil,

the Lord Jesus

said that

of view

(tabia) of mankind

nature

of the race

If this union was possible

be only

would

point

the general

the Son united

cause the redemption

doctrine

this point

the Melkites

of

P. 23).

it is a Melkite

supported

scholars

describing

while

so that he will

the totality

with

that

they considered

PP.83-84/tran,

that

united

from

of mankind

he

so that

the slavery

a personal nature, then he

45
In this suggesting,, that
to save one person.
with

when the word took on human nature,

it was the nature

by all

shared

mankind.

Eutychius

of Alexandria

"The hypostasis
humanity,
that

he

the whole
might

According

part

to

Al-Shahristani
%

Nestorians

and Jacobites
48
was partial.

the nature

i.

the

of the other
of

whole

(i. e. Christ)

divinity,

the

he brings

so that

(al-Mughni,

of humanity.

so

..

PP.83-

P. 23).

Abt

'Abd

of mankind
for part

the whole

with

salvation

addition

humanity

45.
46.
47.
48.

with

God head, assumed total

the entire

of one mingled

the redemption

84/tran,

about

give

He united
about

13.

of the word with

through
46
it to the whole of humanity.

giving

ii.

also said,

al-Jabbr

then

this

al-Warrq,

doctrine.

a Jacobites

Muutazilite,
to their

referred

deals

is

while

doctrine

refuting
that

differences

among

who believe

that

with

47

the

union

In
the
with

Christians

of Christ.

He points

out

substances

(natures)

that

"Those
become

Cheikho, Trios Traites, P. 80

Alexandria,
f
Kitdb al-Burhn,
Eutychius
Milal, P.177
A1-Shahristni,
Al-Radd,
P. 6.
Ab`Is al-Warrg,
106

in the union

one and the created

val. I, P. 106

(muhdath)

two

became

eternal

ii.

(al-Mughni,

"

is eternal.

Christ

Jacobites

doctrine

Whereas

"those

by

different

union

maintaining

and human".

is divine

This is a Melkite

doctrine.

"Christ

substances,

had two

is also a
49
claimed.

and al-Shahristni

explain

who

that

maintained

P. Z3). This

P. 84/tran,

as Al-Warrq

Christ

that

(iii))
10.
No
cf

(The Jacobites,

is eternal

one of which

belief

the Melkite

In 10(ii) he refers

that

and the

other

created".

14.
Christians

Most of the Christian

scholars

'Abd

turned

al-Jabbr

"The

Nestorians

with

the

parts

Mughni, P. 84/tran,

Nestorians

of Christ,

took

place

parts".

(al-

crucifixion
divine

the

not

P23).

the

reported

doctrine

same

"because

and added as a reason,

to

the

inhere
do
not
pains

the

with

regard

G1

J1

deity".

In the

"The

Father,

God

died

majority

of

Son of
5z
divinity".

ii.

same way we see that

I, a Nestorian

Timothy

The
took

place

with

the

among

opinion

of

the

that

maintained

human

A1-Shahristni

differences

to

of view.

(gatl)
death
of Christ.
and

the crucifixion

concerning

i.

next

this point

also supported

50

believed

Christ

(where)

Mahdi

die?

(i. e. human)

Melkites

the entire

Caliph

can God Himself

in one nature

the

when

that

asked

He replied,
in his

but

not

the

crucifixion

Christ

is divine

and

human

"
(al-Mughni,
time.
the
at
same

The same doctrine

that

we see that

the Melkite

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.

point

is reported
Paul of Sidon,
of view,

by al-Shahristni.
a Melkite

said that

Milal, P. 177
Ibid., P. 9, Al-Shahristni,
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 28, Trois Traites,
Milal, P. 176
Al-Shahristni,
Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 17
Milal, PP. 173-4
Al-Shahristni

107

P. 84/tran,

although

P. 79

scholar,

53

P. Z3).

In addition
while

the divine

to

explaining

nature

could

not

in it because

nature
body

(of

divine

Ill.

the

nature)

in the hypostasis.

nature)

"The

fact
the
of

human

death

has

Al-Shahristni

born in one aspect

of

is also

Christ

sense that

Christ

that

and

is formed

that

of

P. 23).

"the

that,

added

which

formed

is one substance,

(muhdath)

'iha) and unborn

(the

and

crucifixion

(nature)

Christ

it

with

P,84/trap,

and created

in another

in another

by al-Shahristni

had been

aspect.

some of the

to

the

to explain

formed

from

the

substance
divine

and

(natures).

not in reality.

this doctrine

is two

the doctrine

substances

he has one will. " (al-Mughni,

(al-Mughni,

to a sect

called

is also correct.

P. Z4).

Ilyniyya.

56

identification
57

of

Maronites

who

of a sect called

(natures)

P. 84/tran,

and one hypostasis

in the

P. 24)

54.
55.
56.

Cheikho, Vi nt Traites, P. 40
Milal, PP. 177-8
A1-Shahristani,
P. 178, we have introduced
this sect in
Ibid.,
P. 89 and in the introduction,
PP. 13-14.
translation

57.

Ibid., P. 178.

108

P. 84/tran,

4Abd al-Jabbr's

group of the Jacobites

described

and pain were in

death and crucifixion

said, that

means the Julianists.

OAbd a1-Jabbr
"that

it

attributed

as a small

that

to be an attempt

after

of phantasy

Al-Shahristni
He clearly

attributed

It seems

united

in by the

P. 23).

P. 84/tran,

Some of them
terms

'iha)

with

(nature)

report

believed

aspect,

human substance

maintained

a similar

eternal

doctrine
55
Jacobites.

15.

given

in one aspect

(nature)

alleged

(al-Mughni,

(natures)".

Some of the Jacobites

This

them

Jacobites

if it is for the substance

55
there would be no union.

(al-Mughni,

v.

which
54

say, that

(the two natures)

iv.

is in reality

human

the

(suffered)
are

(pains)

that

for one substance

took place

two substances

Jacobites

the

of

majority

it participated

by pain,

in reality

be harmed

the

footnote

of

the

This description
instead

of 'awhar.

16.

With

doctrine
during

without
the time

reference
naming

b. Muammil,

of Christ,

to the worship
the sect,

which

P.85/trap,

but he used the term

4Abd al-Jabbr

tabila

mentioned

held it, "the word used to enter

the miracles

of performing

(al-Mughni,

his actions".

by 'Afif

is supported
58

from

and depart

Christ

him in the rest of

P. Z4).

tAp-

Al-Shahristni
described

reported

it in the context

17.4Abd
"that

at the time

crosses the air and water

A1_Shahristni

attributed
Shahristni

reporting

of

described

it as Maronite

58.

59.
60.
61.
62.

doctrine

without

of the Jacobites,

a1-Jabbr

the word

the context

I same

mentioned

another

the waterpipe".

this

analogy

seems
doctrine62

to

be

to

analogy

a group

incorrect,

of

because

CAbd
and
al-Jabbr

the

P. 24).

Jacobites.
al-Nshi

himself

union,

as the arrow

P. 85/tran,

the

he

doctrine.

concerning

the womb of Mary

(al-Mughni,

but

sect,

but it is not a Jacobite

of union passed into

into

any

naming

This
al-Akbar

mentioned

it in

of Maronites.

FAfif

b. Muuammil mention an unknown person called, Awghliy-us who also

(khayl) not a reality.
believed
that the body of Christ was a phantasy
(Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 88).
Ibid., P. 87
Milal, P. 178.
Al-Shahristani,
Ibid., P. 178.
Kitb al-Awsat,
P. 81.
Al-Nashi
al-Akbar,

109

CHAPTER II

Muslim

Jawhar
IAbd

declares

al-Jabbr

is one substance
both

the

critique

'awhar)

doctrine

this

it

terms jawhar

term,

are agreed

and to explain

is necessary

"(God)

that

the Creator

(agnim). " In order to understand

'Abd
al-Jabbar? and other Muslims

hypostases

in three

of

and Ag nim

the Christians

that

Christian
of

Meaning
the
of
views

and Christians

to examine

the use and meaning

of the

and agnim.

Jawhar

has been translated

Jawhar

of philosophical

group
thinkers

Substantia
and its
that

which

It

appears.

of

the Father,
They

of itself,

been

God

of

the

with

in substance
real

independent

the

is contrasted

inheres

essentially
2

ideas

the substantia,

Christian
by
used

repeatedly

and

this represents

especially

the

of

Trinity.

the Greek word ousia, the abstract noun of the verb 'to be'
1
According
to Latz, substance means,
use begins with Plato.

stands

is.

attribute

have

which

their

Like

translates

technical

which

notions

formulate

to

"substance".

being

accident
as its

or as the

the real being or that

subject,
'ard)
(Arabic
or appearance
which

support
channel

and only
through

the divine

word was declared

' the true

expression

of His being involving

the

relationship

of

three

persons

which

is or

something

to be 'of one substance

At Nicaea

explained

as a further

occurs

no change
to

one

with

or diminution.

substance

on

the

that the God

of a single species, while also affirming
3
is
head is an indivisible
In
the
short,
word
used to express the
unity.
4
being, by which all three persons are one.
underlying
analogy

For

4Abd

receive

1.
2.
3.
4.

of three

al-Jabbir

accidents.

members

jawhar

implies

This word

being,

the substance
physical
'Abd
is concerned
as far as
al-Jabbar

C. Stead, A New Dictionary

Theology, P. 554
of Christian
J. B. Latz, Encyclopedia
of Theology, P. 1649
C. Stead, A New Dictionary
Theology. P. 554
of Christian
Oxford Dictionary
Church, P. 1319
of the Christian

110

which

can

means that

God is created

and temporal.

body (innah

physical

Christian

the

of

Haramayn,

he attacks

where
that

Elias of Nisibis,
He

from

translating

into

translated
of that

Sidon,

every

we consider

5.

further

has studied

whoever
because

(g ini

existent

anything,

is

Syriac

as 'awhar.
an accident.

God is not jawhar.

"self-existent"

of

The

doctrine

for

word

philosophy

be either

would
we shall

the philosophy

or

which

receive

will

"Because 'Abd al-Jabbr's

is
philosophy
tends always to be the expression
of a
in his doctrine
coincides
with a physical
as composed of separate atoms which are
bodies. "
to constitute
material

substance
that

to def end the Christian

a matter

of

in Arabic

alGod,
has

accidents,
6

position.

confusion

being

self-existent

of
which

contaguents.

kiyn

in
was

the meaning

of jawhar,

then

is used in the sense of

exists.?

not

deny

(substance)

tAbd

and argued

that

Him 'awhar,
calling
hard (accident).
If
or

it is self-existing,

of

by Imm

receives

God as a jawhar

jawhar

see either

This understanding

means

hand, jawhar

then no difficulty

and logic,

nor

is the interpretation

If that

describing

substance

of the

Now this word carried

justified

Peters while explaining

(substance) said,

as that

essentially

If on the other

bi-nafsihi)

is not

is repeated

of theologians

has tried

apologist,

Syriac.
Arabic

of

God cannot

that,

difficulty

this

carried

which

certainly

Paul

a Christian
that

explained

before

'awhar

is defined

substance

but it has been explained

clearly

Christian

the

"God

)
l
jism.
wa

use

in the language

substance

Alternatively,

extension.

He states

laysa bi-jawhar

ta%l

misunderstanding

arguing

al-Jabbr

that

is jawhar,

on

about the Jawhar

but
never purely metaphysical,
this discussion
physical
reality,
world view which sees the world
in composites
brought together

"A
from
its
itself
by
being
He further
said,
substance,
pure materiality,
has only a small number
to the concept
all related
of
of qualities,
"materiality".
When it
Besides its being a substance, it can be existent.
(mutahayyiz).
it
is
is
This
the most characteristic
spatial
exists,
quality
being in space. "
of a substance, because this is the meaning of materiality
lAbd

al-Jabbar
used this phrase in most of his books that God is neither
It does mean that God should in that case have the
substance nor body.
of a body and bodies should have the essential qualities
essential qualities
for,
if
God,
have
two
things
of
one essential quality in common, they must
have all essential qualities in common.
Peters,
6.
7.

God's Created

A1-Irshd,
A1-Juwayni,
Cheikho, Vingt Traites,

Speech, PP. 119-120

PP. 27-28
P. 1Z7

111

depending

for its existence

'Abd

However,

an accident,

al-Jabbr
maintaining

im
(this which
1
ma

This

is known)

is not acceptable

argument

substances

which

al jawhir

al-latif

do not carry

etc.

accidents

or occupy

Since

jawhar

is a1-Bgillni,

more

if the quotation

Christians

because

we find

it is self-existent
11
is wrong. "

the expression

being.

carry

the Creator

of

understanding

of

is correct.

that

Al-

God is a single

(between

God is a substance

that

assert

that

of the Christians

no divergence

are

intellect

do not

created

Christian

the

to as

These he calls

by Elias of Nisibis

given

in that

substances

are

which

of

the saying

hypostases,

of three

substance

latifa

understanding

"If
says,
we scrutinise

Bgillni

name,

jawhir

or

there

of spirit,

the space,

shows

who

as the substance

example

that

space.

it is even more appropriate

10
has no need of any accident or space.

these substances

Muslim

He maintains

and do not occupy

accident

these

substance

to Paul of Sidon.

a and he gives

and light

is neither

which

he
which
refers
9
nor accident.

can be an entity

there

that

God is not a substance

that

the argument

maintains

is

else, that

on something

8
4ard.

which is unlike

created

is correct,

Thus the meaning

in

us) except

while

in Kitb

However

if

that,

argues

al-Tamlild,
admit

we

intelligible

(ma$qla)

accidents.

If they

disagree,

al-Bgill-ani
that

God

substances

accept

it,

and

so they

is a jawhar,
from

this world,

in this way, He is not like (other)

substance

Elias

observes

Muslims

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

nor accident,

He further

has a space and carried

would be created

and God cannot

that

are currently

species
their

if jawhar

substances.

argued,

this

Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 25

P. 99
A1-Mughni,
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 25
Ibid., P. 127
_
Kitb al-Tamhid,
A1-Bgillni,

term,

able

like

other

to

carry
If

that

they

God is existing,

existing

things

in

There is no difference

when

we see that
that

every

such a thing

to be used in the sense in which

then

PP. 77-78
112

be

own religion.

it
indicate
does
accidents,
12
be created.

is to continue

employing

that

and

(other)

and He is not like

substance

statements.

their

he

There

view.

must

(our
deny
statement)
when you

we shall ask them,

two

so it

contradicted

but neither

in these

a different

takes

there

will

be no Arabic

term

for

"self-existent".

"self-existent"
that

namely

"self-existing".
clearly

Muslims

traditions,

jawhar

because

whar,
indicate

insisting

existence,

and therefore

jawhar

that

word

which

carries

use dht as a word for God's subsisting

must

any term

Muslim

essence and being.

carry

the use of

for substance

the Muslim

to

refuse

It may well be that

The Greek

accidents.

to

seems

as substance

However,
corresponds with the Syriac kiyn "existing".
gAbd
including
al-Jabbr,
would still not have accepted
of God and anything

insisted
and

that can replace

14
its usage.
The problem is

be used of God.

cannot

for

term

is no such expression

there

a specific

is not a good translation.

substance

has argued,

they have to allow them

'Abd
terminology
and
al-Jabbar

of

its

acknowledge

for

should

to use the Syriac

epistle

Otherwise

a problem

accidents

would

God as

to call

be best

Elias in another

kiyn613

if it is incorrect

in Islamic

case it

In that

ousia

theologians,

which

was used

do, in fact,

theologians
15

1.0

Ag-nim (Hypostases)

Aq nim,
the

singular

Greek

hypostasis.

controversies

out

meaning

became

1.

which

That

ugnm,

is the Arabic
The

defines

that

doctrine

the

of which
fixed,

term

of the Syriac

transliteration
played

of the Trinity

it seems to have been capable

something

important

an

as belonging

words
in

the

Before

its

role

emerged.

for

interpretations.

of three

to a class, hence

being

essential

(ousia).
2. That

which

3. A particular

embodiment

The ambiguity
theologians,
whether

13.
14.
15.

of meaning
but raised

to translate

of certain

qualities,

hence individual

was not only a source of confusion

further

the term

problems

for

as substantia

the Latins,
or persona.

being.

16

to Greek speaking

who could

not be sure

17

Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 128

Ibid., PP. 30-31
There are occasions
theologians
when Christian
appear to adopt almost
4Adi
(subsisting
identical
Thus Yahy b.
terminology.
dht
uses
entity)
as
(substance).
for
jawhar
This brings to mind earlier Christian
a synonym
Christian
discussions where hypostases had been used to mean
theological
the same as ousia (substance)
See Yahy

16.
17.

stands under a set of properties.

4Adi,
b.
Maqlt,

Harvey, A Handbook
Ibid., P. 106

PP. 21-22,

of Theological

113

and Cheikho,

terms,

P. 106

Vingt

Traites,

P.

13.

Eventually,
between

with

by

substance

individual

formula

Latin

of the
18
hypostases.

It

was

mainly

terminology
removed.
"three

was

and

Council

the

hypostases

that

They

there

as the heresy
maintained

mere

and

18.
19.
20.

of

the

standardized

the

that

therefore

term

three
the

accepted

Father,

of the Trinity
them

Young, New Dictionary

Theology, P. 237
of Christian
Church, P. 685
Oxford Dictionary
of the Christian
Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 310

114

the

formula,

as heretic

or attributes

members

the

ambiguities

Son and Holy

and Sabellius.

between

that

on an epitome

were declared

Noetus

distinction

Fathers

theological

persons'
and three

one ousia

are only names or predicates

of Praxeas,
that

the

three

of 381 onwards

sects which

divine

the common

Cappadocian
and

distinction

a clear

substance

equivalent

Constantinaple

of

are certain

maintained

the apologists
names
zo
nominal.

Greek

'one

came to be everywhere
19
of the Trinity.

is
described
head
whichtGod...
any reality,

the

in one ousia"
doctrine

It must be noted

influence

the

ousia expressing

Thus

has its

tradition

clarified

From

Church.

hypostases.

under

of the orthodox

the

in the east,

ousia was established

homoousion

of the Nicene

the acceptance

Spirit

by
by

without

On the other

hand

are real beings not

is

real

and

not

III

CHAPTER

In

to

order

necessary

IAbd

study

the background

relationship

with

Theology

to his view

it

hypostases,

the

against

arguments

al-Jabbr's

to understand

God and their

and Christian

in Islamic

The ift

is

(sift)

of the attribute

of

the hypostases.

The problem

of the sift deals with the question, whether the terms applied to
God in the Qu? n, such as living, knowing and powerful,
imply the independent
of life,

existence

of God can be distinct

from

God in comparison

which

although

inseparable

from

the entity

Him.

also involves

The problem
of

knowledge

power,

the question

with

the

of the meaning

meaning

of

same

of the terms

terms

predicated

predicated

of

other

things.

The Orthodox

Doctrines

The orthodox

theory

the divine

attributes

beginning)

and abadi

God but also His names,

living,
the
-

azaii

to Him

from

and the

different

presented
special

attention

school

of thought.

Mu'tazilites
Ibn

Kullab

proper

1.
2.
3.

in the full sense of the term

1
Not only the qualities
end).
of

(without

the almighty

etc are confessed

He said, that

and the

their

Kullabiyya,

joined

as representatives

to the problem

to Ibn Kullab

concerning

later

Ashharites,

arguments

school of thought

His followers

is that

to belong

eternity.

Kullbiyya

The

by Wensinck,

as expressed

to be eternal

are admitted

qualities

(without

of the divine

by writing
they

denial

of

a special

took

of

if t.

about

on the responsibility
of God.
that

maintained

theology,
has given
him

and his
the

of refuting
With reference
Ibn

Kullb

to

had

its own doctrine.

and a group with

the Ash4arites.

Al-JuwaynT

chapter

of the attributes

al-Juwayni

orthodox

According

A. J. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, P. 202

Ibid., P. 206
_
fi-Usl
Al-Shmil
Al-Juwayni,
al-Din, PP. 54-5

115

to al-Juwayni

Ibn Kullab's

doctrines

were

very

to the doctrines

similar

for this goes to Ibn Kullb

credit
Juwayni

has presented

Ashlari

in

many

places.

'knowing',

'eternal',

According

to him,

there

God is knowing

41m... )
and is subsistent
He is said to be knowing.

Ibn Kullab

justified

is impossible
huwa

that

attribute

wa 19 hiya
from

different

his position

This

but

not

common

features

followers

never

but

also
they

are

(without

beginning).?

Perhaps

God as gadim

is the word,

traditionally

theologians

In

as a synonym

to

attempt

an

Kullabiyya

but

this is an attempt
associated

with

Him;

only

entirely

they

Kullab
said,

to distinguish

it

that

(l hiya

God.

Ibn

they

of which

are not

with

(lah

to Him

share

and

his

they

wera

them

from

God and is even used by

for God.

the

explain

and Asharites

aqdim

were

they

Al-

by Al-

phrase,

than

interchangeable.

not

the sifat

that

identical

completely

said that

azali

it by his famous

to mean

seems

and eternity.

by virtue

be other

The

'powerful',

of

belongs

i. e., knowledge

Him

be God and will

ghayruh).

Him

knowledge

and interpreted

will

each

knowledge

of power,

means that

(q hn. within
--)
5

for

that

asserted

was an attribute

manner.

as it has been recorded

Kullab
Ibn
of

Kullab

Ibn

in a proper

them

who arranged

the doctrine

and Sunni's.

of Traditionlists

between

relationship

seem to have involved

t
sif

the

the doctrine

and

God,

the

of ma an-1. Ma a

in this

the Divine Entity

context
seems to mean elements
within
which carry
8
However,
the sifat.
they also seem sometime
to be used as sift according
to
9
'Abd
by
They argue that these ma%i
an argument
al-Jabbr.
are
presented
characterised

neither

to the Mu'tazilite

were equivalent

This doctrine

aroused

contradictions

in ' it

Ash'arites
sift

by existence

presented

the indignation

they

of

and unsystematic
eAbd
it.
al-Jabbr

as maeni, when they

same time,

ahwl.

called

characterised

Abd

al-Jabbr

and he tried

in which

the

way
said,

that

them knowledge,

them

as attributes.

at first
power

they

Ibid., P. 55

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Ibid., P. 55, a1-Ashtfari maglt, PP. 169-170, P. 546

Ibid., P. 546-7., E. I. (S), P. 391
4Uthmazi,
Na: riyya al-Taklik,
P. 176
A. K.
For details see, Peters, God's Created Speech, PP. 156-157
'Abd al-Jabbr,
Sharh, PP. 183-4

10.

Ibid., P. 184

and

the

characterised

and life.

And finally

they

to show the

Kullbiyya

4.

116

that

and suggest

non-existence
10

nor

they

Then at the
maintained

that

All

they

could not be characterised.

ll
contradictory
and incomprehensible.

He did concede

if they

that

by a4w-al, then he would

As

far

God,

of

former.

them

is no difference

followed

he

differentiated
with

between

of opinion

in

did.

and

the

not

there

attributes

His entity

to the

pertaining

the

and he

that

about

from

are extra

attributes

latter

It is to be noted

the

negative

like Ibn Kullb

and Ashoarites

they

meant

in affirming

positive

in God's entity

because
about

Kullb

Mu'tazilites

the

Mu'tazilites

(sif t al-fi1),
is only

Ibn

to be totally

the Mu'tazilite

what

between

seven attributes

The difference

created.

magi
12

in the same way as Ibn Kullb

to action

pertaining

he

agreement

He also affirmed

interpreted

doctrine.

accept

but

He is in

attributes.

that

is concerned,

as al-Ashlari

attributes

meant

by these

be found

these

and

subsisting

entity.

Finally,

there

is the question

of the exact

position

of these attributes

according

to Ash'arites.

term, are
to it, or in a technical
entity
or
additional
with_the
CAA
isiafsi
not
itself
by
describes
the
they nafsi or mAnav .
entity
and
means which
(element
in it additional
to the
existing
a ma'n
which bears an attribute)

Are

they identical

entity. '/ manav

13
in it.

His entity,

and Kullbiyya

maintained,

means,

The AsWarites
additional

what

is attributed

knowing

by knowledge,

is the case in the phenomenal

The Development

When

the

anthropomorphism.
Wsil b. At'

11.
1 2.
13.

doctrine

denied

This

led

these attributes
by life

is additional

Doctrines

became

are ma'nawJand

which

is additional

to His entity.

and Christian

up to time

exaggerated,

to a reaction.

the existence

Ibid., P. 184
Ibid., P. 184
Islam
Sweetman,

which

a ma'n subsisting

to

The same

world.

of the Mu'tazilite

orthodox

that

So they say, God is living

to the entity.

from

to the entity

of

led

it

al-Jabbr

to

form

Thus it has been suggested

of any attributes

Theology,
117

'Abd

including

vol. II, Part

knowledge,

Z, P. 110

of
that

power

and will

on the

affirmed

matni

(sifa),

(elements

which

carry

he said,

when

polythism,

and

attributes)

an eternal

attribute

two deities. "14 - It is also possible to assume that it was in

in such a
themselves
that the Muslims should not get involved
Christian

as the

The followers
has neither

knowledge
because

thus

first

problem

the death

After

he

that

theory

interpreted

denied

all terms

(li-nafsihi).

are predicated

towards

of Him by virtue

Consequently,

Dirr

it

seems

interpretation

Mu'tazilites

multiplicity

all

is that

that

nor

semantic

by his two

Najjar

the

and Dirar

were

have

or essence

and powerless.

that

He had a

as being predicated

the first

to introduce

as

being

(tabifa,

independent

an

dhat).

the

14.
15.

16.

A1-Ash'ari,

17.

Philosophical
implications
A. H. Wolfson,
of the Problem
in the Kalm, J. A. 0. S, vol. LXXIX,
(1959) P. 75
Attributes
Al-Ash ari, Maglt, P. 284, Shahristani,
Milal, P. 62
Maglt, P. 281
A1-Ash'ari,

existence

Qdi
his
see
a1-Qu4t,

element
They

'Uthmn
A. K.
A1-Shahristni,

pointed out this view,

Milal, PP. 31-32

of Himself

theology.

attributes

any

He

of the statement

these

not

God.

his

positive
18
in meaning.

that

attributes

from

in which

as being negative

into Islamic

divine

in

by virtue

of the Creator

attributes
19
(li-nafsihi).

contemporaries,

attributes

meaning

was

of the

aspect

one can conclude

real

He is not ignorant

of God's nature
did

knowing
16
Jahm
than Him.

propositions

the

the other

of attributes

in the unity

any

affirmative

maintained

regarded

the

is concerned,

God are to be taken

that

God

He is neither

to other

was modified

of

that

to God as being predicated

that

of Himself

they called

that

theology

existence

attributed

or powerful

attitude

negative

the

about

hand,

God is knowing
similar

his theory

He suggested

On the other

Islamic

As far as Najjr

and Dirr.

Al-Najjr

into

of Jahm,

belong

would

permanent
15
hypostases.

of Wsil maintained

They believed

such attributes

three

affirming

which

a contemporary

nor power.

to introduce
17
of attributes.

by

before,
and life

knowledge

of Jahm b. Safwn,

powerful
the

done

had

i. e., existence,

attributes,

18.
19.

"Whoever

has affirmed

doctrine

The

implying

of

grounds

his subconscious

terms

their

but

of

alleged
were

P. 153

A1-Ibna, P. 54

118

of

Divine

merged

in the Unity

Among

the

seeing
knowing,

living
life

power,

mighty,

described

by virtue

Ab

(d.

849),

rest

two

of

views

the

are

is also reported

report,

knowledge

is other
predicated

One has reason

attribute

than God.

to believe,

formula,

and

recognise

as al-Nazzm's

Ab

another

Hshim

as terms

attributes

seem to mean

that

thereby

God is knowing
On the other

that

not

predicated

each of these

reporting
he

which

theory)
modes

hand, al-Na;

contradicted

of Himself

means that

zm affirmed

to these Mu'tazilite

a positive

while

by virtue

which

that

any

to Him only.

according

have

formula

called

a doctrine

as maintaining

of Him belongs

Al-Shahristani

negatively.

that

namely

of God could

by virtue of a life
23
When both al-

of God.

a property

al-Hudhayl

and He is living

the divine

(h) and He is

is Himself

the rest of the attributes.

described
they

(li-nafsihi).

which

God is

by which
ZZ

attributes

of Himself

is Himself

which

of Himself,

the earlier

later

of knowledge,
the

to

regard

and other

of a knowledge

and Ab al-Hudhayl

indicate

property

by virtue

and the same with

God by virtue

terms

with

al-Hudhayl

and greatness

of power

is Himself

Nazzm

Abd

God is continuously

that

but not by virtue

case

of Him by virtue

are predicated

powerful

of

splendour

God is knowing

which

Mu'tazilite,

the

the

was

same

hearing,

power,

to hire.

Glory,

2.

(Ii-nafsihi)

of Himself

etc

regard

attributed

1.

by virtue

knowledge,

denied

and maintain

attributes

essential

to

(d. 845),

al-Nazzm

and the
21
attributes.

essential

With

of God's being.

Mu'tazila,

and other

is that

meaning
the

details

the former
or

must

the

same

20.
21.
22.

Watt, Islamic Philosophy and theology, P. 49

T, Maq lt, PP. 884-6
Al-Ash
Ibid., P. 177, see also R. M. Frank. The Divine Attributes
A1-4A1llf,
Le Museon, vol'.
Teaching
of Al;, aPP. 459-467

23.

Ibid., P. 165
119

al-Hudhayl's
(but

one

is an affirmation
as

any

be interpreted

Abu

of

anonymously

quoted

(ahwl),

but

theologians,

the

can

of what
Christians

according
LXXXII,

to the
(1969),

24

Abu
denial
is
the
latter
hypostases.
Whereas
the
alof
modes.
a
as
Hudhayl was also the first to divide the attributes of God into two categories.

claim

1. Sift
16-

al-dht,

2. Sift

al-M,

The first

(essential

(attributes

category

ignorant,

pertaining

to the action).

of knowledge,

consists

be characterised

cannot

attributes

or attributes

powerless

by

their

God can be Characterised

25
etc.
unwilling

by their

opposite

Mu'tazilites

Ash'arites

also

Later

Christian

Even oriental

hikma

nutq and
26

differences

scholars

categorised

were

in

functions,

first

would

as His being

attributes

the

number

and

be

not

to second category
and

willing

into
of

these

attributes.

God
and asserted
of

the attributes

category

He

the

about

God

and seeing.

i. e.,

hand, according

divided

have

they

although

categories,

dht,

and

hearing

functions,

On the other

and so on.

life,

power,

opposite

to the entity)

pertaining

in

others

the

second

category.
Because

of this

Al-Baghddi
knowledge

forced

is Allah.
knowledge

performed

of unbelief

Ab

somewhat

with

faced
following

if he said that

is His power,

Abi

al-Hudhayl

by His power.

by His power

"
leads
it
is
like
it.
to
and what

al-Hudhayl
different

there
views.

were
bbd

two

because

He should

other

b. sulaymn

it
Z7

be

is Allah,

of Allah

His knowledge

is power,

must conclude

that

The being of God therefore

because

is

Allah

and powerful

knowledge
that

to saying

AslArites.
"If

argument.

be powerful.

cannot

and power

from

criticism

He should be knowing

This amounts

to Him is performed

be something

After

the

the same conclusion

and His power

form

his theory

be knowing

cannot

and if Allah's

al-Hudhayl,

it is not that

and power,

to draw

is known

new

countered

knowledge

Ab

theory,

is known

Mu'tazilite
(d. about

by Him.

scholars
250/864)

what
would

This

who

is a

have

maintained

26.

Milal, P. 34.
Al-Shahristni,
Al-Int-isr,
P. 75, see also R. M. Frank, The Divine Attributes
Al-Khyyat,
Teaching
the
to
AljAllaf,
Le Museon, vol.
of Ab al-Hudhayl
according
(1969), PP. 469-473
LXXXII,
Cheikho, Vingt Traites, P. 57, PP. 126-7

Z7.

Al-Boghddi,

24.
Z5.

Muslim Schism and Sects, PP. 130-131

iao

God is knowing,

that
and

power.

interpretation

is

He
(d.

-Mutammar

knowing

850),

is through

(an
element
a man

created.

He further

added that

Thus God is knowing

In the third

phase of the debate

Ab Hshim

of

both

although

scholars

described

virtue

His

"by

expression

of

this

bears

the

that

in this

of

Abi

any end.

'Ali

and his son

However

they

by al-Shahristnf,
God

to

attributes
they

He

that

without

As reported

relation

occurs

arguments.

(li-dhtihi),

entity"

a new

is due to a ma'n,

Mu'tazilites

matter.

powerful

an attribute)

and His knowledge

28

developed

more

in

opinion

change

and

life

introduced

are continuous

the renowned

introduced

al-Jubbli

a difference

had

any end.

without

every

which

ma'nf

a knowledge

through

and this maln to another

these

other

hand,

the

for this issue when he said, that

universe,

knowledge

without

on

any knowledge,

affirming

without

and powerful

Consequently

power.

without

living

by

the

interpreted

each

that

differently.

Abi

4Ali

denies

al-Jubb"i
or living

knowing

by virtue

is

There

is His entity.

which

by which
knowing

another

that

God is

His being knowing

is not

(41) that

requires
Abu

that

al-Ah'ari

that

maintained

and having

the fact

i. e., God is knowing

al-Hudhayl,

But he approved

Ali

with

He simply

the distinction

between

and *ift

al-fi'l

His being
al-Jubb'i

a knowledge

is no knowledge,

there

in reality.

power

to the entity)

pertaining

by

report

Al-Jubb .i

He is knowing
30
by His entity.

(attributes

that

or as a mode or state

of Ab

the theory

rejected

indicates

of His entity

as knowledge

an attribute
Z9
knowing.

he
when
says that

the attributes

(attributes

no power
said God is

sifat

al-dht

pertaining

to the

action).

Al-Ashtari
Allah
derive

and al-Baghddi

a name

for Him

from

considerations.

are rational

in replying

argued

This heresy

His entity.
calling

to the regular

are subject

Al-Ash'ari

have criticised

God

the

Maglt,

of grammar.

rules

deed which
$agliyya).
(iibrt
every

that,

of yours

Father

al-Jubb? i's claim,

of

"There
is worse
Christ

P. 228

28.

Al-Ash4ari,

Z9.
30.

Milal, PP. 55-56

A1-Shahristni,
A1-Ashi ari, Maglt, P. 524

121

Therefore

that

the heresy

although

they

the names of

it is possible
Consequently

He performs.

is nothing
than

that

we call
of the
do

not

it extra
Christians
hold,

to
they

from
in
that

He produced pregnancy
On the

hand,

other

names

were

mere

Mu'tazilites

is another

about

the

attributes

According

to

hearing,

While

hearing.

Unfortunately,

First

1.

Abi

of

generic

Ab

Hishim
between

atmosphere

the state

that

or unknown,

"God knows"

the

among

attributes

neither

God nor other

neither

opinion
of

a bitter

the

is
the case with
and same

nor temporal,

i,

there

are

and

number

existent

on both

of

to

regard

than God.

theologians

ai-Husayn

al-Basri

essential

i. e., knowledge,

seven,

Al-Jubb'i

(universility).

Doctrines

own

teachers,

only
denied

accepted

i. e.,

two

all attributes

The majority

attributes,

nor
32

sides

self-pertaining

will,

i. e., knowledge
except

he

maintained
life,

power,

and

one, which

of the Mu'tazilites

knowledge,

life,

power,

will

and

of Sif at

views

although
the first

the problem

of all

there

of attributes

attributes

attributes

were

two volumes

Abd al-Jabbr

God's essential

the

about

and Sharh, he has provided

Muhi

caused

known

are neither

and speech.

al-Jabbar's

discussed

corresponded.

that

33

al-Jabbr

earlier

reality

He suggested

of knowing

(kaifiyya)

al-Ash

five

least

maintained

that

Muslims.

difference

'lamiyya
al

called

which

Hshim

al-dht).

seeing

power.

the

or attributes

eternal

nature
(sifit

4Abd

words

neither

son, Ab

to

States

attributes.

There

4Abd

Abu

He is in a state

non-existent,

at

'Ali's

and orthodox

that

means
other

in Mary-"

the word quality

avoided

31

some

a fairly

similar

are missing

to his

developments.

and

in which

but in his two other

works,

he had
i. e., al-

clear picture.

the attributes

or attributes

God were

differences

of al-Mughni

in detail,

has divided

of

pertaining

into two categories.

to subsisting

entity.

(sif it

al-dht).

31.
32.

33.

Muslim Schism and Sects, PP. 188-9

A1-Baghddi,
Milal, P. 58. See also R. M. Frank, Abi Hishim's
Al-Shahristni,
Congress
"States",
Do
Acts,
IV
De
Estudos Arabs E. Islamicos
of
PP. 85-100
'Abd
Al-=Aql wa al-I urriya, PP. 254-5
Al-Rwi,
al-Sattr,

122

Theory
(1971),

2.

His functional

'Abd

al-Jabbr

existence

attributes

'^PV works

pertaining

division

and said that

this

explained
from

of an act

or attributes

Him,

whereas

i. e., Sharh and al-Muhit

others

declared

(sift

to action.

al-fi'l).

follow the
some attributes
34 'Abd
do not.
in his
al-Jabbr

that

there

four

are only

essential

attributes.

(cdir)

1. powerful

('lim)

Z. knowing

(h. yy)

3. living

4.

(ac dim)

eternal

He accepted

(attributes

as essential

in agreement

entity)
being

them

with

attributes
'Ali
Ab
and other
follows

to the subsisting

pertaining

Such attributes

scholars.

as His

the divine

names and qualities

on His
35 4Abd
being mighty, powerful
and great refer to His attribute
al-Jabbar
gdir.
1lim
4ilm
(knowing)
(knowledge)
it
and
made
clear that
are not two separate
willing,

They

things.

are actually

Christians

the

and what

non-willing

and the

On this point he considered

the dualists,
one thing.
sts
(including
Kullbiyya
in the
attrib
iu
and AsWarites)

same category.

In his opposition

to the Kullbiyya

if we admit

God is knowing

that

it

be existing

would

it would

existing,
categories
because

'Abd

attributes
matter

34.
35.
36.

or created.

invalid.
are

So there

of His subsisting

entity.

al-Jabbr

further

by arguing
fact,
of

life

'Abd al-Jabbr,
(Abd al-Jabbx,
Shard, P. 183

It

or non-existing.

be eternal

a knowledge,

through

would
36

criticised

who

if we admit

that

cannot

be perceived

except

Sharh, P. 130
vol. I, P. 100

123

be either

that

known

If it is known,

then

be non-existing.
In case of
'Abd
According
to
al-Jabbr
all such

be only one aspect

those

argued

cannot

that

al-Muhit,

it would

is impossible.

its affirmation

In case of latter,

or unknown.

and the Ash'arites

'Abd al-Jabbr

maintained

He is living
as a result

that

He is knowing

the

doctrine

through

life,

of

the

and as a

of its application

through

location

(mahall),

same way, power

a location.
'Abd

The first

cannot

gave two

was that

knowledge.
every

knowing

which

is invisible.

The second
knowing,

These

every

knowing

that

was no evidence

present

analogy

(shhid),

who is absent.

through

would be knowing

everyone

was invalid.

is anybody

is
who
present,

maintained

have to maintain

that

body was moving.

separate
regard

Whereas

at least

to eternal

is

which

it

Therefore

a knowledge.

he maintained

when

through
if

that

that

a knowledge.

everyone

who is

because

movement

a body can be movable

seven

then they have to

was a cause for a knowing

is cause of body.

movement

has mentioned

section

the discussion

that

was unacceptable

Christians

entity

aspects.

has
who
a heart,

knowledge

the

its

remarked

If they

a1-Jabbr

a subsisting

through

on the one who is absent.

tAbd

that

evidence

the same is the case for that

all

make the same decision

analogy

is one who has

is the case of one

then,
who is knowing has a knowledge,
'Abd
In
According
to
they relied upon mere existence.
al-Jabbr

this way, if there

this

He

that

required

person

of us was knowing

He further

them.

refuted

we see through

CAbd
by
al-Jabbr

attacked

were

that

Therefore,

be studied

must

and then

a knowing

is a cause for being

knowledge

and a cause

Thus their

argument

person has a knowledge.

arguments

there

their

In the

through
37
of the accidents.

He is knowing,

that

because

knowledge,

supported

was that

that

affirmed

through

They

of his opponents

the fact

'ism).

of its application

as a result

except

explanations

they

be knowing

requires

ultimately

be applied

be a body

God would

In this case, God would be a body and a location

al-Jabbr

would

then

the Kullbiyya
times

in his

person, they would

tAbd
According
to
al-Jabbr
could

only

and unmovable.

exist
38

when

discussion
during
the
against
sect,
39
al-Mughni
and there is also a

in al-Mughni
vol. VII, for the refutation
of Kullbiyya
40
In the same way he criticised
the Kullbiyya
speech.

about the Christians

three

times

37.
38.

Ibid., PP. 200-201

Ibid., PP. 205-6

39.
40.
41.

Al-Mughni,
vol. V, PP. 86,87,88,93,95,97,142
Al-Mughni,
vol. VII, PP. 95-179
Shan 9 PP. 294,295

1Z4

the

in his Sharb41

with
during

and once in his al-

--

--Mishit.

'"

In all these twelve

concerned

with

Kullbiyya

are more perverted

increased

the

Kullbiyya

the

difference

The Sif

between

conceded

Even

the
the

in

their

the

same

way of expression.

they

declared

al-Jabbir

his criticism,

During
are

there

doctrine
majority

is great
of

because

that

they have

he has declared

that
is no

There

category.
43

the

precise,

at one level

similarity

attributes,

of the

of a limited

the possibility

to be more

and the

Mu'tazilites,

number

attributes

of sifat,
pertaining

in the Islamic

Christian

doctrine

IAbd

including

the essential
to the

of

al-Jabbr,

attributes

subsisting

or

entity

(sift

li.. dhtihi).

It is noticeable
Christians
that

seems

Christians
the Trinity.

45.

except

that

clear

t,
of sif

hypostases.

42.
43.
44.

them

'Abd
once

that

t and Hypostases:

doctrines

It

Christians

the

than

and worse than the Christians

of the eternal.

and

It has become

rather

More

attributes.

the number

against

attacks

it is evident

Kullabiyya,

has

that

these

to describe
this

already

the hypostases,

is, in

as Christians
45

been

attributes

fact

not

are very similar

e. g. knowledge,

so much

using the Muslim

observed

that

a result
attributes

Christians

did

to the attributes
power

used by

and life.

of Muslim
to define

occasionally

borrowing

Yet

from

the hypostases

use the

it

of

word

Al-Muhit,
vol. I, P. 222
_
Abd al-Jabbr,
al-Mughni,
vol. V, P. 88
"that
Wolfson
has remarked,
Muslims
began
to discuss
the divine
He
attributes
under the influence
of a discussion
about the Trinity".
pointed
out that the Mu'tazilites
chose such attributes,
as he
especially
suggested were already used by the Christians
as knowledge,
power, life
Consequently
this idea and
etc.
one can say that the Muslims borrowed
their own doctrine of God.
applied it in elaborating
Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, PP. 126-127
Wolfson's
by S. H. Griffith,
theory has been criticised
who pointed out
initial
is that the Muslims have borrowed
that his mistaken
assumption
these lists from Christians.
He also remarked
against the theory of Wolfson, that he is missing the
Christian
the
that
apologists were taking their cue from the Muslim
point
and not vice versa.
mutakallimun
Habib ibn Hidmah Abi R'itah, Oriens Christians,
Sidney H. Griffith,
vol.
LXIV, (1980), P. 188

125

dht46

for

as a synonym

theologians.

jawhar,

this does happen

Where

under

probably
that

influence

the

the hypostases

describe
also

they

Muslim

of

as

t.
sif

The Nestorian

Christian
at
sif

doctrine

of

referring

to the ma'ani,

Kullbiyya
However,

apologist

life

and etc,

it

when

is

been pointed

(h"ayy)

to the Islamic

close

as

(This use of the word seems to involve

the

to

and

speaking

because

sift47)

(binyya)

of the constitution
use of jawhar

the

out

comes

(ntiq)

equivalent

he then adds, because

has already

al Basri

living

describes

he

when

usage

4Ammr

dhat.

the

of

of the 'awha_r.

As

to Muslim

was unacceptable

theologians.

The Christian

doctrine

bishop of Nisibis

"The names
essence
(dhtiyya)
actions

the

(filliyya),

which

in the writings

to two categories

that

which

are gift

the actions

of God.

to

pertaining

such things

life

as Him

the

entity
to His

refer

being

Creator,

in the

and very

fi'liyya

and life.

Creator

with

Him

and to those to whom

with

regard

from

Thus

and the creature.

He showed

from

verbs

the epithet
generosity

are not

Rather

life

and inseparable

nature,

to action)

is derived

are derived

Godhead

like creation,

pertaining

khalaga

For example,

the

to other

(being)

(attributes

fi'liyya

and wise, it is as affirmation

and wisdom

hand, the attributes

both

46.
47.

and

and those which

God is living

of God's essence

and etc.

are

refer

as they are in men's wisdom

powers,

these sift

generosity,

and are related

khalaga

will
to

yakhluqu

and they

.....
are related to

"generous"

is concerned

and the same is the case

attributes.

he concluded)
from

from

is that

All

derived

attributes

wise and living,

are derived

On the other

and mercy

(Finally,

or

attributes

The point

are part

His being.

to His being

He says:

When we say that

composite

and wisdom

the

merciful

as d.

additional

of Elias,

Thus to say
to that.
etc .... and what is similar
and wise is the equivalent
of saying that He is self-existent

providing,

(g im bi_nafsihi).

from

form

essential

God is living

of Him

in its

as we say self-existing,

generous,
that

(d. 1049).

of God belong

i. e.,

fullest

appears

dht

Thnaw, Dictionary
Sidney H. Griffith,
IVC, (1983), P. 170

that

the same

(essence)

would

i. e.

being,

be applied
wisdom

in all such names

and

Terms, vol. I, P. 519

of Technical
"Ammar
al Basri's Kitb al-Burhn,

126

life.

Since

Le Museon,

that
dht

vol.

(essence)

wisdom

generosity,

hypostases
named

From

(essence)
and will,

jawhar

khawss

quotation

also

although

heavily

unsatisfactory

shows

sift

that

he used

influenced

definition

li-dhtihi

arguments

48.
49.

like

has practically

adopted

that

and

would be

by

to

explain

about

the

need

the
for

4Abd al-Jabbr

hypostases.

of

dht

as equivalent

Muslim

theology,

Christian

traditional

Trinity,

each

Cheikho, Vingt Traites, PP. 126-7

P. 91, see also Chapter
A1-Mughni,

to
we

theology
As a result

they

hypostasis.
are

left

the
Thus,
the

with

have

would have applied

of using Muslim
opened

to be living
49
presses home.

II, PP. 110-114.

127

However

of

and substance.

hypostasis

ruthlessly

the Muslim

he has used dht as an equivalent

that

to each of the hypostases.

sift

which

and what is similar

of dht as both hypostasis

the sift

arguments

characteristics

as equivalent

and

it is the case that

the

as

Elias

It also appears

However

about

and mercy

we can see that

of sift.

and

and

wisdom

(khawss)

"48

quotation,

classification

life

will,

So they

to actions.

pertaining

are attributes

and

characteristics

pertaining

self

are

generosity

as attributes.

this

life

like
the
and

mercy

dht

called

and

themselves

and knowing

all

ideas
to
etc,

CHAPTER W

A Comparative

Analysis

almost

It

of Christian

doctrines
result

it is difficult

there

has been

general
Abd

to differentiate

of Christian

first

that

maintains

and as a

Whenever
he

statement
in Arabic

writing

if

possible
to

attributes

and other

to concede

which

without

He is therefore

exclude

from

it

problem

that

has concerned

any idea

of some

entities

self-subsisting

more

no longer

really

they

associated

to compare

opportunity
maintained

that

and not other

attributes

than God.

al-Jabbr,

an independent

However,
The

subsisting

Thus they can

subsisting

entity.

entity,

which

would

This

was a

up to the time
himself

al-Jabbr
of dhawt

had been possible

that

merely

of the
is guilty

as independently
for hypostases

in

discussion

that

attributes,
the Christian

It was
of the doctrine
of the Trinity.
`Abd
is concerned he
As far as
al-Jabbr

the hypostases

independently
are

they

of polytheism.

are guilty

doctrine

such as power,

vol. V. P. 86
128

with

knowledge

Thus by implication

al-Mughni,

'Abd

meaning

as being

of hypostasis

right

He

oneness of God.

(sift).

subsisting

of the

(agnim)".

independently

attributes

theologians

translation.

do insist

with

with

doctrine

argument

"hypostases"

a definition

Christian

days of the Christian

if

hypostases

of an independently

the early

that,

by

was a meaning

a possible

of three

some of their

demanding

terminology.

exaggerated

Christian

predicating

of this doctrine.

acceptance

general

mean

accepted

of God or absolute

can be associated

God as knowing

knowledge.

'awhar)

the unity

do not

they

(dhawit)

describe

to the generally

destroy

is prepared

terminological
entities

objects

this will

al-Jabbr

1.4Abd

the

Trinitarian

of

systemisation

his arguments.

scholars

"God is one substance

that

entities

criticism

rigorous

substantiate

doctrines.

works.

al-Jabbr

argued

between

to

concentrates

and Christological

lacks

his own presentation

an attempt

a1-Jabbr

4Abd al-Jabbr's

to categorise

in the light

Trinity,

4Abd

in al-Mughni,

doctrines

necessary

because

Christians

'Abd

on two areas, i. e., Trinitarian

exclusively

has been

Doctrines

of Trinitarian

critique

In his study

'Abd
of
al-Jabbar

accusing

that

subsisting
He uses this

of the Kullbiyya

and eternity

who

were not God

the Kullbiyya

of making

the attributes

(sift)

the word dhawt,

of

ma'ni

describe

elements

attributes,
'Abd
the

within

Kullbiyya

the

which

Christians,

they

eternal

distinguish

the one from

presented,

it seems to involve
hypostases

the other.

Although

the implication

would

is little

He then argues that

if the Son is identical

he would

in His self-subsisting

be similar

has a Son who is called

and

the

sift,

that

by anything

were

in speaking

point

substance

identical,

(essence).

of God

inseparable

of His Father,

This means that

(Kalima),
Word
and

His knowledge

would

of them as three.

and shares the eternity

entity

which

is not effectively

the eternal

they

to

are, according

the argument

that

necessitate

Thus there

and undifferentiated.

the Father

since the hypostases

be characterised

cannot

ma'ni

to

to dhawt.

to them the equivalent

then goes on to argue that

al-Jabbr

the

that

doctrine

He seems

attributes.

carry

indicating

by

view

are according

in the three

deity

By using

the Kullbiyya

distorting

he seems to be deliberately
the

hypostases.

to the Christian

of God equivalent

as

the Son in

also another Son that would be called his knowledge

4
in an infinite
The same is the case with the Spirit.
series.

the same way would require

and word
This

(kalima)
is

argument

one

for scoring

discussion,

except

He follows

this with

the hypostases
argument,
refer

(i. e.

the

they

and the

A second

difficulty

nothing

to

the

of argument.

kind.

'awhar)

requires

of God.

out the fact

He points

Therefore

same.
being

adds

really

Nor

that,

that

as in the previous

Fatherhood
can the

and Sonship
terminology

of

from
God
Son,
the Father
the
exclude
when used of
5
him back to a
This again brings
these attributes.

Word,

God),

one

the doctrine

must be a separate

raised
deity

the Father

is a deity,

hypostases

and another

P.
P.
P.
P.
P.

be the

each

and

of a similar

to the subsistent

with

Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,

neat points

an argument

must

comparison

Z.
3.
4.
5.
6.

casuistry

are of one substance

inevitably

knowledge

logical

of

of the Kullabiyya

by the
since

then like
infinite

they

earlier

on God's attributes.

theologians

are identical

is that

through

hypostases
6
series is established.
Him

the other

86
87
86-87
86-87
87

129

being

each

hypostasis

eternal.

must have their

Thus
own

Again

he accuses

involved

for unity

subsisting

that

hypostases
8
Kulllbiyya.

but

(in reality)

Even though

'Abd

in this way, they

by separate

the

to the set to which

these

it belongs,

in their

He has repeated

the same argument

intention

our statement

behind

of the group of the people.

in contrast
in

reality

confirmed.

to what
of
11

that

objection

that

must admit
9

or of a man being

Similarly,

they are saying

three

someone

things

7.
8.
9.
10.

Ibid., P. 88
Ibid., PP. 88-89
Al-Mughni,
vol. V, P. 89
Ibid., P. 89-90

11.

Shan , P. 293

in

are three

is illogical

reality.

of

130

the

If

the distinct

one thing

composed
the

he argued

as

of many
Christian

that

the

he is a member

They are making

Therefore

he is

attributes.

that

to him,

in which

the

is one and

in reality

is one man is that

God.

that

like

when we say one house or one group,

about

three

of a set of ten and

Arabs can speak

in his Sharh,

they

of Trinity

by his own

According
10
doctrine.

the

three

speech,

are mode of expression.

escape the contradiction

cannot

attributes.

that

are just

to say that

in general

total

the

with

who maintain

man may be part

doctrine

removed

that

in substance

he is characterised

are characterised

because

the implication

since

total,

to their

refer

al-Jabbr

identical
parts

the

the

with

God is

to take on this argument

To him the doctrine

a single

that

and one substance

that

so

he accuses

position

the Christians

different

not

is irrational.

one man may be identified

from

with

by maintaining

the argument

and inconceivable.

hypostases

(sif t) that

of their

He proceeds

He goes on to show that

are different

He then pursues

Christians

hypostases

are three

there

and use of language

entities.

the

separate

defence

the Christian

as logically

he becomes

discussion,

be one when it has been demonstrated

cannot

is
three
one

in his

point

of God on one substance.

of meaning

hypostases

which

dispute

then presents

one by declaring

in terms

this

are to him

about the attribute

7
of being worse than the Christians.

al-Jabbar

stress

tendencies

of

At

in the inter-Islamic

the Kullbiyya

'Abd

Christians.

as the

erroneous

Kullbiyya

the

it is

Him one thing

contradiction

is

He goes on to declare
is

thing

existing
is white

substance

that

argues

subsisting

entities

but
subsisting
entities
4Abd
intends
al-Jabbr

to elements
by this

hypostasis

as a dht to which

knowledge

and therefore

have

they

to apply

other

attributes

are

applies

to

specific

in their

living

knowing

living

knowing

are in fact

Father.

Similarly,

according

to

Abd

define

to him,

at the same time

their

are not

which

being

have

knowing

al-Jabbr

three

all

is a

the Son is a

that

Therefore

spirit.

is that

to

the Father

that

to admit

specific

of all such

applied

own doctrine

each

is
Son
the
e. g.

in the contradiction

would

is a living

Son and the Spirit

saying,

they

not

their

when

hypostases

each

do

in

same

(sifa) applies,

to the hypostases

would

the

Christians

specially

be involved

are

them

attribute

a particular

Thus they have to admit

hypostases.

is that

refer, -- to the
13
What
to attributes.

which

entitle

argument

sift

attributes.

attributes

which

"Knowing"

In this way they

which

in

different

hypostases

the

say that

cannot

but

According
12
it.

at the same time.

that

as saying

that
a
or claiming
4Abd
to
al-Jabr this is

time,

same

is no need to refute

there

they

the

at

non-existent

black
or

that

so unreasonable

He

and

is as contradictory

the doctrine

that

they

what

the hypostases

are the

same and different.

In another
that

argument

if the substance

substance.

In his

Shard

must

with

one hypostasis.

suggests

substance

12.
13.
14.
15.

he argued

the

could

that

same

in another

to

is to say that

So that

say

the

because

attributes,

in this

that

in
terms
and
This

Father

each could sometimes

P. 90
A1-Mughni,
Ibid., P. 91
Ibid., P. 95
Shark, P. 295

131

require

be said that

and

each

have

same

they

case they

of what

would

it could

it means that

the

refers
that

the

must

confine

share in eternity,

these hypostases

where

by maintaining

objection

is one substance,

way,

because

be the other.

the rest.
is

a similar

made

hypostases

one another

resemble

one of them

He

to

to one hypostasis,

themselves

dispense

al-Jabbar

of three

is entitled
14

hypostasis

they

4Abd

to their

entities

one of them

could

God is one substance

Son are

different

be one substance

but

and other

and

of

one

times

'Abd
To

not be of it.
they

would

reason
irrational.

He

have

as they
16

further

because
their

to

al-Jabbir
admit
the

were

entities

entities

must

Again

same.

if

that

explained

of their

that

they

their

would

same

different

is the same,
be different

and it is totally

in hypostasy

as they are different

17
of Melkites
and Jacobites.

are

substance

the hypostases

Otherwise

also in substantiality
the doctrine

if

then,

the

that

is logically

this

hypostases

the

that

argue

and substances,

be the same.

were
Abd al-Jabbr

to

for

different

hypostases

the

he argues

Consequently

this is nonsense.

against

'Abd

doctrine
be
deliberately
distorting
to
the
al-Jabbr
seems
of aspect
'Adi
that they were the same
as put forward by Yahy b.
when he maintained
18
1Abd
from one aspect and different
from another
to
al-Jabbr
chooses
.
"aspect" here and referring
He
to either substantiality
understand
or hypostasy.
Here

further

argued,

that,

the Son can become

the

is

substance

when the substance

a Father.

common.

affirmation
attribute

God and one of

Consequently,
be

would
Christian

must

further

He

is necessary
of

So they

because

of the Son is same as the Father,

things

his

extended
to

according

the

the Son as a Father

affirm

which

them
must

that

charge,

because
such

an

is

an

Fatherhood

the

imperfection.

be without

the Son who is God

the Son must be called as Father, otherwise
19
(Abd
incomplete.
has again misrepresented
Here
al-Jabbar
The doctrine

doctrine.

is that,

the Father

is perfect

God, the Son is

God and the Holy Spirit is perfect

but they are not
reference,
20
1Abd
interprets
Gods but one.
However
this as the statement
al-Jabbar

perfect

"Fatherhood
perhaps
Fatherhood

tAbd

is one of the

anticipating

yet

this is a series
at the beginning

16.
17.
18.
19.
Z0.
21.

an

then

things
argument

turns

must

which
that

to the Melkites

the substance

he

be without
will

present

imperfection.
about

the

"

three
that,
He is

idea

of

its meaning.

a Son to complete

requiring

al-Jabbr

substance

so

is different

the hypostases are the

Zl
To him again
the hypostases.

doctrine
from

that

forward this Melkite doctrine

In putting
contradictions.
LAbd
of the section,
al-Jabbr
stated that they claimed there

of total

PP. 95-96
A1-Mughni,
Ibid., P. 96
Adi,
Maglt, P. 28
b.
Yahy
Ibid., P. 96
Cheikho, Vingt Traites P. 56
See translation,
cf. P. 21.

132

was no fourth
they

(entity)

that

say

automatically

If they

tried

hypostases,

own belief,

that

the substance

then they

of declaring

be guilty

would

when

they

are

was one

that

one thing

by virtue
that the substance was
of their doctrine
23
CAbd
has been constructed
from the hypostases.
by
This argument
tAbd
It is a good example of
and is not held by the Christians.
al-

was different
different
al-Jabbr
Jabbr's

to their

contrary

hypostases,

of the three

the

different
substance
22
involving
four (entities).

to argue,

that

from

is

the

to demonstrate

He now proceeds

involved.

from

polemical

fact

adds nothing

'Abd

al-Jabbr

undermine

itself

style

of setting

to rebut

It in

them.

to the discussions.

Christianity

presents

the basis of the doctrine

Elaborating

in order

up arguments

this

with

three

each

of

which

of the Trinity.

he goes on to declare

argument,

options,

if

that

God is a substance

has three hypostases,

then these would be things added to God which
24
He does not present this argument clearly but it seems that he
were not God.

which

is

trying

to

that

argued,

hypostases,

substance

for

that

for

three

the Melkites,

the hypostases

al-Jabbr

switches

his

presented

in the logic

that

an argument

God is one substance

three

substances

which

is not

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
V.

which

to

attack

with

of arithmetic.

he repeats
in three

can exist

Ibid., P. 96-97
Ibid., P. 96
Ibid., P. 97
P. 97
A1-Mughni,
P. 97
A1-Mughni,
P. 104, tran,
A1-Mughni,

are identical

numbers

later,

27

hypostases,

of one hypostasis.

a substance

make

them

Especially
by itself.

P. 47

133

and
Z6

this

is either

four.

from

since it is distinct

that

deity

the true

cannot

they

since

substance

Using

one

plus

separate

arguments

hypostases

of attributes,

the Kullbiyya

the

the

that

admit

for he goes on to suggest

25
who hold this view.

manifestations

He further

Christians

make

are

eternal

would

be like

substance

There

presents

the

us with

that

the reverse

is possible

Therefore

if they

maintain
if

and a
4Abd

substances.

he demands

as they

be

must

the substance
two

making

or

same

maintain
that

that

He is

nothing

the hypostases

are

independently

existing

is an eternal

there
kind

dualism

of

Perhaps

In an argument

is that

Jubb i, he argues

Knowledge
for

framework

and the Spirit

each of the
If

that

attributes
deny

they

seeing

etc.

Living

Knowing
and

has Power

as Life,

these
Him?

with

and the other

by saying

Life
Lif e.

is Knowledge
29

Life

that

they

and Knowledge?
hearing,

He is

Son as

the

many hypostases

they

maintain

hearing,
associate
that

of His subsisting

part

If they try

seeing

al-

whom he

God, e. g. Power,

hand, if

as an integral

and thus limit

as well

the Kullbiyya,
By describing

with

to

All

attributes.

to God, why should

On the other

is Power,

concept

understanding

have to affirm

associate

why should the same not apply to Life

attributes

would

effective.

the Christian

being
of

Christians.

attributes

attributes

really

or at least based upon, Ab

in terms

they

they

seem

rejects

is
and
attacking

as the

as much

not

the substance,

does not give proper

from,

taken

Thus if

own substance.

for
one
and

totally

the hypostases

Mu'tazilite

their

does

argument

and therefore

against

specifically

must

al-Jabbr

directly

either

using a rigidly

This
'Abd

have

the hypostases

for

emerges.

a substance,
28
view.

the Christian

mentions

entities,

substance

the reason

of God being

they

God to two hypostases,

entity,

limit
and

then

etc,

God

the

why not say

the Father

and

############

The Christian

on the inter

bears

also

doctrine

to

of the Son as the eternal

Islamic

some

debate

in arguing

Therefore,

uncreated.
is

identification

extent

of the eternal

be a substance.

against

Muslim

So God

cannot

theologians

Word of God.

i. e. sound (sawt)

the genus of accident

the Word of God is eternal

and
'Abd
Christian
doctrine,
the
al-Jabbar

of whether

attacking
uncreated

Word of God immediately

In his view

is an accident

be called

who

speaking

speech belongs

and consequently
from

the

maintained

eternity,

to

cannot
because

speech is created.

identify

When Christians
and

Speech,

created,

they

namely

must be created
be a Speaker,

28.
29.
30.

are

in

speech.

effect,
If

speech.

which

A1-Mughni,
A1-Mughni,
A1-Mughni,

the Son, who is according

identifying

God the Father

However

must involve

Him

to them
with

God, as the Word

something

is the Speaker,

then

which

is

God the Son

if the Son is God, He must also

30
him also in having another who is speech.
paradoxically

P. 104
PP. 91-92
P. 98
134

In stating
into

because

three

Abd

created,
Christianity
'Abd

the

logically

to

he refers

this,

and then

also denies the eternity

In his hostility
doctrine

is,

requires

which

doctrine

and not

suggesting
hypostases

know

in identifying

as life

identified

what

by which

is no cause for God's existence,

there

for that.

If they

refuse

In the last

part

be

himself

to

allusion

to that
dealing

with

he begins

theory,

il. theory
However,

31.
32.

Ibid.,
Ibid.,

that

matters

so involved

adoption

allusions

against
have

sonship
expated

has he became

to sweep their

is possible

but

for

the

because

al-Jabbr
by

of an

they

to be

seems
the

which

three

live,

the

equivalent

to

hypostases

as almost

then

cannot

claim

for

P. 95
P. 95
135

those

to the

he does not

of the Trinity.

He allows

Although

to the Holy

in terms
him

of

there

Ghost,

This becomes

he is not

clear
the

are

when we

adoptionist

to have some sympathy

in his polemic

arguments

turns

the Trinity,

refutation.

to the Trinity.

one would

not

which

accuses

4Abd al-Jabbr

or hypostasis

and brief

related

must

then why do they need the Son and the

3Z

Trinitarion

his argument
that

he also attempts

argued

his

kind of sonship

see that

He

for

of

must also be a cause or ma'n

there

is
he
discussing
as

Surprisingly

diverted

this

of the Trinity,

God the Son as second person

discuss

really

and living.

of his discussion

of Son of God.

concept

that

to accept

for God to be knowing

Spirit

In doing

body

this is a Kullbiyya

the three

the Son and the Spirit

t
the
and
of the Kullbiyya.
sif

He

We know that

Son as Knowledge

the

and the Spirit

have in fact

Christians

However,

but

Christians

and living

'Abd

that

to division,

subject

the

out,

Father

the

Kullbiyya.

is knowing

(ma'n)".

an attribute

being

against

discussion

emerges

to attack

the

of

"the Eternal

that

a doctrine

him,

of Him

a doctrine

anything

that

argument

he proceeds

a Christian.

is that

that

fact,

in

of maintaining

element

ini
ma

Kullbiyya,

to the

that

Christians

for.

Thus for

of God, by virtue
31
of God.

Unity

the

been pointed

as implying

of the Trinity

and is

change

arguments

as being

substance

to add the

proceeds

his

of

It has already

to concept

to

subject

two

together

understand

cause the Son to exist.

denies

He is body

way.

confused

refused

substance

that

is bringing

to division

God is subject

that

to admit

that

maintain

in a rather

using

only

they

al-Jabbar

al-Jabbr

'ism)

forced
are

Christians

that

against

Christianity

away as linguistically

unsound.

who

must

be from

the

same

and Christ

species

have

could

someone

from

the same status

for God.

teachers

agree

between

beings

brotherhood
that

the

who

different

essentially

in this sense, then both

But since it is inconceivable

both

then

is no difference

there

and since

be

can
from

His creature,

between

calling

make anyone His

33
His
to be used of him.

in

naturally

related

prophet

are theoretically

father
son and

between

every

He should

that

are not

and sonship

relationship

Otherwise

of God.

the species

him brother

son and calling

possible
equal,

is not

this

is only

possible
God

Since

way.

in any

is impossible

so the relationship

is

sense.

Through
CAbd

reference

like his early

al-Jabbr

such

to the New Testament,

is

verse

accordance

with

it

Jabbr

language

in

Arabic,

of

be

in

taken

CAbd
to
al-

according

it

a son to god, even though

to attribute

acceptable

another

In classical

interpretation
must

passages

scriptural

since

principles.

the literal

that

argued

scholars34

permitted,

rational

is not
in

possible

not

where

Son of God,

is called

Christ

different

have

metaphers

which

may be
meaning.

by experts

and
of translation
must be carried out with great sensitivity
35 gAbd
idea
Christ
the
in language.
of
also argued against
al-Jabbr

as Son of

God through

Therefore

the work

and Your

Father

the

reference

Christians

all

preference
37
God.
of

Christ

are

In this

saying

God
would
way

is used by Ibn Hazm

Children

therefore

have over them,

"I am ascending

Gospel,

(John 20: 17), and Christ

Father"

(Matt
12: 49)
brother"
are my
.
36
dcSciples.
A similar argument
that

to the

of

to his desciples
be Father

about

God,

to my
"You

or uncle

of

the verse of John,

then

he

asked

what

if he is the Son of God and they are also Sons

In his Tathbit,
of

(in fact

Christ

servant
father
Epistle

he further

or

out,

was Aramaic),
friend

a sincere

is used as lord,

master

to the Romans,

33.4Abd
al-Jabbr,
'Abd
34.
al-Jabbr
'Ali
35.
36.
37.

it

pointed

where

(al-wall

that

for

is
applied
son

which

language
the
was

a noble

and obedient

In the same way

t
(mudabir).
By referring

al-mukhlis).

and organiser
there

in Hebrew,

is the statement,

al-Mughni,
vol. V, PP. 105-6
meant his Mu"tazilite
scholars

Al-Mughni,
vol. V, P. 111
Ibid., P. 110
Ibn Hazm, a1-Fisal, vol. II, P. 67

136

"For

especially

the

word

to Paul's

all who are led by

al-Jhiz

and Ab

the
that

Spirit

of God are Sons of God. "

God is a man, human

in reality
three
that

through

birth

(Melkites,

sects
Christ

of Christ

view

when they

and Jacobites)

or metaphor.

of respect

theory

the adoptionist

among the

is no one who believed

39

orthodox

Christian

both ideas at the same time.

his arguments

bit more systematic,

out that

the more

with

as the Son of God and attacking

he had been a little

there

of believing
a Son to Him

attributed

He pointed

and sexual reproduction.

is Son of God in terms

the Christians

He accused

being and person

Nestorians

Thus he is confusing

38

If

have been clearer

would

and had more force.

to, he in his al-Majmii

In addition

to describe

that

saying

in expression.

mistake

of Word is irrational.

the Eternal
In classical

criticised

as Father

as eternal

again,

by

a Son, is a

to Him

and attribute

father

Arabic

this doctrine

and the son in terms

of the father is that which gives birth

40
So Christ cannot be Son of God in
of his sperm.

The real

and he is product

to a child

fi al-Muhit,

meaning

any sense.

Here

we are getting

be concerned

should really

of God the Father

with

He further

pointed

birth

generation,

or

anthropomorphic
this

is not a view

the term
al-Ghazli

closer

to some kind
is discussing

with

Word of God.

on

the

hand

other

from

elements

as generation

shared

by all Muslims.

Father

and Son as applied

42
has done.

as the Christians

that

What he

of the Hypostasis

the relationship

God the Son who is also termed

in
his Tathbit,
out

discussion.

of Trinitarian

praise

God through

Muslims

the

the concept

Some of them

to God and Christ

eliminate
such
41
However
of deity.

are prepared

in a metaphorical

to accept
sense as

************
As has already

been pointed
accidents.

substance

and

acceptable

to Muslim

38.
39.
40.
41.
42.

out Christian
On

theologians

the

other

theologians
hand

to use of God.

divide

neither
For

all existence
of

these

the Muslim

into

terms

is

theologians

(Rom 8: 14) In fact 'Abd al-Jabbr

slightly
misquotes Paul as he says, "The
Holy Spirit itself witnessed to our spirits that we are Sons of God".
'Abd al-Jabbr,
Tathbit,
PP. 120-1
fi al-Mubit,
Al-Majm'
vol. I, P. 222
Tathbit,
vol. I, P. 96
_
1i, al-Radd al-Jamil,
PP. 242-3,287
A

137

substance

'awhar)

Christians

understood

implies
the

takes

up the Christians

claim

that

then

all

Christians

to admit

maintains,

for

left

his argument

is characterised

life

the concept

by life

if

God would

add further

must

like

that,

argued

'Abd

it

as moving,
a living

to their

that

writer

be

to

to

applied

Father

the

of the Son and Spirit

categories

would be nine because

that

with

substantiality,
be

numbers.

43.
44.

only

incomplete,
He criticised

because

if

who

of number

God because

and speaking

individually.

these

He is living

person

must

be

they can speak.

He

that

because

in this

could
way

The same

138

would

would

would

have

apply

to

to the

of hypostases

to three.

in its

God is not

So according

to this

argument,

He

two

categories

of

not

include

God would

al-Kindi,

this

to them,

He is incomplete.

(Abd
RisWa
A1-Kindi,
a1-Masiti
PP. 98-103
A1-Mughni,

because

was perfect,

be a

would

Then the number

according

it

categories

is wrong

that

(i. e. 3).

in His hypostasy.

that

both

of them is entitled

everyone

he charged

but

He further

to a Christian
also by
argument
which is presented
43
(3)
is
The
that
the
al-Kindi.
consists
argument
number

hypostases

Eternal

every

He

turns

encompass

must

living

they

otherwise

etc,

body who has not such qualities.

He became

that

characteristics,

drinking
and

eating

every

Then he

characteristic.

these

without

then

have to admit

they

for a third

argument,

both

Along

it is a substance,

Consequently

that.

includes
even and odd. So whatever
gAbd
al-Jabbr
argued that
number.

perfect

be

would

if substance

that

maintaining

because

only,

be incomplete

does indicate

then

al-Jabbr

of both

the

as the Muslim

Christians

the

Then the angels and human being would be God, because

the Christian

have

like

according

and speaking,
God.

He wants

or accident,

substance

characteristic

attributes

be incomplete,

would

he then argues that if that

of one substance,

and speech

be something

must

that

which

and speaking.

back to the attributes

and speech have become

argues

is living

Gods.

He then shifts

substance

be living

God is neither

that

a substance

of substance,

must

substances

without

three

with

which

and their

and accidents

substance

is not a body,

Using his own definition

case,

into

of things

God is a substance

and speaking.
is the

division

the

of

meaning

be
The
used of God.
cannot
'Abd
term differently.
al-Jabbr

and body

'ism)

body

P. 30

the

be created

three

and not

as an

tAbd

turns

al-Jabbr

the oneness of God while

in its

given

most

reason

of man,

admit

that

fire,

the light

there

there

are three

of the fire

hypostases.

The comparison

(Similarly)

men.

we do not have

of man,,

"the

we say,

when

"
fire,
the
we do not have
of

and heat

is

"When we say the

by Paul of Sidon who say:

flame

to

of the

to admit

that

"the
light
the
the
orb
of
say
sun,
we
when

(Similarly)

fires.

three

of man and the spirit

the speech

are three

analogies

used to demonstrate

Christian

being

still

form

complete

there

known

to the well

of

sun and the heat of the sun, " we do not have to admit there are three
45
This analogy is also used by Christians
to describe the generation
suns.
of the
the

Son from
the light

al-Jabbr

Father
derating

First

points.

can produce

words
by

that

like

Son being

is

necessary

knowledge

muktasab).

Necessary

knowledge

is reason

is produced

tAbd

by reason,

comes

knowledge,

by

al-Jabbr

to acquired
tAbd
reason,

and

which

contradicts

of

and

two

(film

knowledge

that

in the mind

if the Christians

and what they are saying

defined

this

neat

kinds

the

up

argues

is generally

of

is

is nonsense.

which

the

When the defence

is established

which

al-Jabbr

from

of

relationship

acquired

it is the same as reason

kind of knowledge,
that

darri)

is knowledge

by the subject.

no effort

mean that

((ilm

brings

he

of the fire

and

is not true because ignorant

involved.

being

by reason

by a series

words,

this statement

knowledge,

meant

knowledge,

through

producing

any reasoning

the

of

comparison

reason

he shows that

without

word

speech being produced

the orb of the sun and the heat

Christian

the

answers

and the

made

from

of sun coming
46

the fire.
(Abd

Where they describe

the Father.

at

However,

when

as knowledge
this

point

he

produced
is

clearly

inconsistent.

As far as the heat and fire

analogy

the same substance,

heat

then

are concerned,

is produced

from

he points
its

own

out that
substance,

they are of
which

is

nonsense.

His rejection
physics.

and sun comparison

He seems to regard

but is reflected

45.
46.
47.

of the light

by the surface

light

is based on his understanding

as being a body that

47
of the sun.

Cheikho, Vingt Traites, PP. 21-22

Ibid., PP. 2,5,14
PP. 102-103
A1-Mughni,

139

is independent

of

of theSun

He made

it

in

Father

of

from

it is also confirm

reason,

in

if they affirm
Him

bodies and God is beyond

only in created

Christians

that

aware

because

offspring,

'Abd
to
al-Jabbr,

According
word

that

clear
terms

he was fully

this

He

way

be

would

created.

as the production

Him Father

as created,
48
that.

because

Christ

as Word

Using

avoid

always

of the

such things

occur

************
In objecting

to the

has

Jabbr
because

insist

to

Christ

description

Christian

this

that

of

description

Word of God (Kalimat

is also called

is also used by Ibn Hazm.

This argument

It

is

interesting

Damascus
Muslims,

assert

to

that

note

that

is uncreated

Christ

some

is exactly

apologists

God and Word

the

same

Qu?

49
n.

non-Mu'tazilite

50

and uncreated.

Christian

is Word of

and this

he believes

OAbd al-

metaphorically
in the

-Allah)

However

"Word of God" i. e. the Quron, to be eternal

of

be used

only

can

God,

of

as the

as John

such
God,

according

Christian

of
to

faith

in

version

of

Christ.

However,

the Mu'tazilite

the uncreated

(Abd

al-Jabbr

accept

neither

Ibn Hazm's

"Word of God", nor that of John of Damascus.

c

A1-Mughni, vol. V, PP. 98-103

48.4Abd
al-Jabbr,
49.
Ibid., PP. 11 Z-113
50.
Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal,
vol. II, P. 9

140

CHAPTER

The Theology of the Incarnation

The second

main

controversial
and it

issue of incarnation
problem

and status

person

survey

general
order

to give

Christian
much

a clear

more

Christian

doctrine.

or inherence

is often

Christianity

described

This

assuming

the form

is applied

point,

inevitably

will

will

faith,

as an incarnational

of the

to

examine

involve

make the views

for,
If

is only the relation

and manhood

to the act of a divine

of a man or animal

incarnation.

the

without

and it is to be found in the union of the Godhead

'incarnation'

this

a
in

However,

or misunderstanding
at

the

with

to this thesis,

was given.

this section

the key to the salvation

The term

and the

some
with

clearer.

has no meaning

is to be true,

with

is necessary,

it

but in the main, it is hoped that

Christianity
some,

al-Jabbr

Union

concerned

In the introduction
dealt

is the

and Christianity

It is mainly

of his understanding

picture

that

to incarnation

regard

'Abd

of incarnation,

closely

in Christ.

in Christianity.

of the sects

doctrine

repetition

faith

Christ
of

Islam

such issues as the hypostatic

covers

and two wills

of two natures

between

problem

the Christian

of God to man,
in Christ.

or supernatural

being

to live in the form

and continuing

to

according

in

upon

the earth.

The Christian
took human

doctrine

for their

in any
salvation

is held to be the incarnate

1.
2.
3.
4.
S.

that

the eternal

Son of God

from his human mother and historical

Christ is at once fully
4
In other words, God, in one of the modes of His triune
man.

and without

mankind

affirms

flesh

God and fully

being

of the incarnation

way

to be

ceasing

by coming

amongst

word or Son of God.

God,

has revealed

them

as a man.

Himself

to

The man Christ

(ed),
incarnation",
in
M. Wiles, "Christianity
John
Hick
The Myth
without
God
1.
Incarnat
P.
of
(ed), Essays on the
in A. F. J. Rawlinson
L. Hodgson, "The Incarnation",
Trinity
P. 363.
and the Incarnation,
E. R. E., Vol. VII, P. 183.
Oxford Dictionary
Church, P. 696.
of the Christian
N. D. C. T., P. 289.
B. Hebblethwaite,

L41

It

that

seems

gradual
human

being

within

Christianity

Bef ore going

better

this mystery

to describe

doctrine

the entire

dilemma.

held that

theologians

acting

According

to

before

that

Wolfson,

the time

the

early

of both an irrational

consisting

the existence

which

They

and rational

it

not

will

not of

of the problem

the soul of Christ,

But when Appollinarius

the Orthodox

seems

of wills.

Godhead,

conscious

mentioned

soul.

has

it
make

a duality

entailed

was an act of the whole

soul in Christ,

of a rational

of natures

(d. 390).

of Appollinarius

of them

and argumentation,

were

in

of view.

of the incarnation,

Fathers

of

and discussion

and everyone

to his point

the duality

incarnation
6
independently.

They also emphasised

of debates

Fathers,

controversy

the orthodox

easier to understand

one person

whole

of a process

God incarnated

easy to say that

Church

according

the

is a result

is a long series

There

the early

among

to present

Orthodox

is all.

and that

to interpret

tried

It is not

and thought.

revelation

of incarnation

doctrine

Christian

the

Fathers

as

denied

came out openly

him,

that there was in Christ a rational

maintaining
soul in addition to
7
However there were some other sects who held that Christ
an irrational
soul.
8
him as the son of Joseph and Mary
They represented
was a mere man.
against

to the ordinary

according

Christ

held that

This study

discussion

God with
because
nature

man?

condemned

it
as

of incarnation

and apologists

and latter

was understood
on the eastern

(Jacobites),
because
Monophysites
and
CAbd
to know about
al-Jabbr's
criticism
of

relation

doctrines.

theological

the nature

Fathers

But any opinion which

9
by the Church.

generation.

such as Nestorians

the Father,

of

with

has direct

the Christological

The critical

the doctrine

by the Church

sects of the Church

this

of human

was a mere man, was always

is concerned

and interpreted

course

question
so partake

is, how could

of our flesh

of God was something

In

trying

to

answer

as to become

entirely
this

the eternal

man as we are man,

alien to and remote

question

two

6.
7.
8.

Church, P. 696.
Oxford Dictionary
of Christian
A. H. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Father,
Theology, P. 341.
A. C. Headlam, Christian

9.

Ibid., P. 343.
14Z

Son, who is equally

different

P. 365.

from

the

forms

of

teaching

unorthodox
denial

other,

arose.

of humanity

(354-430)

Augustine

One was the denial

of the divinity

of Christ

and the

of Christ.

has expressed

his views

on the incarnation

in the following

words:

"Just

as soul is united

in the

same

Christ.

to the body in uniting

God united

way,

In the former
is a mixture

there

Regarding

that

explains

of God and man. "

of nature

have been joined

11
"God the Logos".

every

to express

apologists
same

knowledge.

of

is the

case

with

searched

for

Aristotle

and other

at least

three

become

united

1. - Union
union

remain

a union

two

kinds

original
That

of reciprocally

H. A. Wolfson,
Ibid., P. 3 7 2.
H. A. Wolfson,

and the barley

and

their

and passive

The Philosophy
Philosophy

changes

143

discussed

union

Their

there
objects

by
are
may

to a grain

"composition".

bodies
from

Fathers,

which

of

of the other.

In

species
12

P. 374.

or natures

are easily

P. M.

only

in mixture

its own nature

Father,

In such a
being

unity

are called

respective

of the Church

of Church

and apologists

and passive.

unchanged.

kind of union is called

each of the constituents

The

individual

active

of the one is juxtdposed

active

manner.

object.

remain

as the wheat

that is

and

of Aristotle

different

two

theologians

Fathers

of physical

are not reciprocally

individual

the

In the philosophy

union by which

elements

each grain

unchanged.

In this union

10.
11.
12.

constituent

for

Church

the various

these

as it affected

in a philosophical

The

one individual

which

and logic

necessary

theology.

of physical

of Chalcedon

and one hypostasis

philosophy

views

Greek philosophers.

so as to form

In fact

2. - Union

from

of two things

an aggregate

such

kinds

theological

Islamic

an analogy

of two things

the two

the two.

their

constitute

and that

natures",

in one person

became

It

the Creed

of person,

by Greek

man,

of soul and body, in the latter

is in "two

to one another

was influenced

theology

phase

and unity

so as to

of person

is a mixture
10

one and the same Christ

natures

Christian

there

person

duality

the

man in unity

to

so as to constitute

of person

divisible.

towards

the

Both became

other.

constituent
There

i.

intermediate

changes,

been mixed.

while

destroyed.

This

being

without

the nature

of each of the

is called

union

mixture.

for this union.

are two examples

out of the four

are formed

As the bodies

and common,

The qualities

of the mixed

insofar

elements,
'corrupt'

elements

as these

have

the essence of each

other.

ii.

Honey and water

3.

Third

kind

one, is that

of union,

active

A drop

of

wine

of

two

treats

of the second

as a subdivision

bodies,

and passive

of action

power

are four examples

There

Aristotle

which

of reciprocally

but are of unequal

i.

are such a mixture.

divisible,

are easily

which

and passion.

for this kind.

into

thrown

ten

thousand

gallons

It

of water.

is not

one

is

mixture.

ii.

Union

exclusively

bodies

solid

or superlatively

as 'tin'

such
but

passive,

the

'bronze'

and

is passive

other

of

which

in a very

slight

degree.

iii.

Mixture

iv.

As fire

changed

into

of wine with

fire.

penetrating

The Orthodox

13.
14.

kind
by

the

one another

Fathers

H. A. Wolfson,
Ibid., P. 384.

of

burning,

already

in a very slight
13

union,

which

corruption

of

at every point.

examined

the

all
14

degree.

Stoics
the

The Philosophy

of the Church

144

be

He speaks

For the sake of clarity,

call

original

all these categories

the wood will

to this kind.

name is given by Aristotle

or a mixture

is another
about

No special

"predominance".

it can be called

brought

water.

fire
if
to
and wood,
one adds wood

of it as a mixture

There

a little

"confusion"

which

distinctive

qualities

for their

Fathers,

analogies

P. 377.

is

in their

discussion

of the union of incarnation.

analogy,

of the union

analogy

based

suitable

for

further

that

the

gave

composition..

term
15

there

it

predominance,

al-Jabbr

Orthodox

1.

major

loosely

the

to them

one that

for

was most
Wolfson

for

the union

described

was an

he

which

as a mixture

or

as

of the sects discussed

by

are used in the sense of predominance.

theologians

place,

they could use an

of predominance.

term

and Fathers

of the Christological

take

can

the

of

outline

was

So all these terms

any examination

'Abd

to be the union

was no special

Orthodox

Before

However,

confusion.

seemed

purpose

suggested

of

union

to Wolfson,
and less useful

or mixture

of composion

on the

their

According

it

would

theological

doctrines
appear

contribution

appropriate
the

of

early

to give

a brief

Fathers

to

the

position.

Tertullian,

the

of the Latin

earliest

Fathers.

His writings

between

the years

190 and 225.

He developed

Christ.

According

to him,

are two substances

there

were produced

the idea of the two natures

in one person.

in

The divine

is real,

the human nature is real, and the conjunction

of the two in one
16
flesh and spirit,
is real.
He means by two substances,
as a kind of

nature
person

it and said that, "We see plainly

the twofold
explained
IVIbut coloined in one person - Jesus God and man. " In other
state not confounded
17
(muw ara in Arabic).
words this analogy is called conjunction.
He further

mixture.

In another
With

a certain
with

to the question

the term
According
sense of

to such a kind
whether

and being

virgin

after

Answering
the union,

mixture
to him,

formed
another

X.A
replied

question,

in her womb,
whether

insnegative.

"predominance".

So that

"conjunction"
after

the union,

is born

he

man mixed

the flesh was considered

Wolfson

has suggested

in an Aristotelian

"mixture"
and
the Logos

H. A. Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 385-6.

theology, P. 354-5.
Headlam, Christian
Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 388-9.

145

union?

in the past, came down into

could have been used by him literally

he uses the term

before

was a person

foretold

flesh

into

'association'.

of union by the term

the flesh

'This Ray of God, as was always

the Father.

a person

15.
16.
17.

place,

regard

answered,

he referred

loosely

that
sense.
in the

is both a nature

and a person, whereas the flesh is only a nature.

Z. Origen,

the great

an answer

to a question,

he must

be eternal,

in time

the

since

in time.

is as eternal

the sun.

It is not possible

possible

to

think

the union,

explained
that

their

mixing

union

and

up,

of course,

with

Wolfson,

the

He gave

kept

in the

of admitting
but rather

from

communion
the

receive

all excellent

term

fire,

it

would
In other

cold.

despite

18.
19.
20.

a predominance.

of Nazianzus

the duality

(329-389).

of natures,

Him,

with

origen

become
words,

where

wholly

and

after

already

was superior

is in

to all

the union of fire

When dealing
in several

with
places

the

sense

if a mass of iron
into

converted

Origen

fire,

of
was
and

and iron is not a

compounded,

the unity

of persn

upon the analogy

H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, PP. 387-392.

Theology, P. 353.
Headlam, Christian
H. A. Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 392-6.

146

but by

The soul of Christ

used by origen

from

he draws

His

qualities.

mixture

an example

of

body and human

powers,

to a body which

was

It is not

a beginning

mortal

highest

from

There

the Father.

merely

into God.

His

to it.

assume
19

to Christ's

regard

by their
they

eternity,

generation.

which is produced

with

or

and

also used the term

20
but it is also seen to be in the sense of predominance.

3. - Gregory

and comes

a relationship

eternal

of relationship

wisdom

were changed

with

predominance.
constantly

a time

the Logos, was united

bodies and invested

to

of the

as the brilliance

His

with

only

not

in His divinity,

participating

'mixture'

be

God, but if so

from

fundamentally

doctrine

is a process lasting

since that

soul by asserting

incapable

could

In

is to be eternal.

derived

The Son is co-eternal

God without

of

implies

to predicate

when the Son was not.

According

a son is necessarily

and everlasting

no time

other

of incarnation

of the Godhead

essence

is the

This

generation

united,

very

the idea of Sonship

that

not succession

He further

A. D. 185 to 254.

than the Father.

He answered

begetting

from

The Son of God must be in his essence

can he be a son, since

How then

lived
who

theologian

he was asked how the union

to the Godhead?

applied

later

Alexandrian

'8

of

"commixture"

or "mixture".

he had become

after

4. - Gregory

even the body

that

assert

the

divine

nature,

assuming

nature

is

with

Here

the

unequal

term

being

....

the stronger

the term

"predominance".

generally
the

"nature"

"natural

other

who used
highest

the

Like

for

"two
and

person

"without
in
is
Jesus
the
and
man

he explained
term

"mixture"

merely

meant

"
of

the stronger,

in

"natural

is

what

he used

sometimes

property"

and

He maintained
Contrary

confusion".

by it

the

which

he believed

"commixture"

the union without

mixed

elements

into

for nature.

of existence"

"we

also seem to come under

like

expressions

by being

of two

though

natures",

were

and incorruptible.

changed

Fathers,

orthodox

which

to be that

sense of a union

It would

God

and said that

is divine

what

is said to have

and the

that
to the

and he said that

that

he

was of the

the union

kind.

it by an example,

soul and body,

which

the other

that

of the soul.

Regarding

the union after

is correct,

to composition,

the incarnation

to

after

Wolfson,

"predominance",
and wood,
"composition"

he

because
fire

which

the

term

So all these

in the sense of predominance.

21.
Ibid., PP. 376-7.
22. Ibid., P. 397.
Wolfson, Philosophy
23.

only which

man consists

which

"composition"

of the Church

Father,

147

examples
23

P. 409.

"one"

are simple

are conjoined

of soul and body.

the union of incarnation

he explained

of the body and

the use of the word

to those things

manner,

of

to union or composition.

to those things

reference

we are composed

the one that

he said that

reference

used

and iron.

that

man is one according

but also with

according

he explained

as two natures,

Yet

when used not with

to nature

According

in which

we consider

according

term

into

the

other

He illustrated

of fire

"permixtion"

unchanged.

remained
zz

"one
as
person"

the union of Logos

Fathers

the passion,

transformed

and "the quality

quality"

he underwent

the weaker

(315-386).
spoken

the union

by that

became

of that

He explained

is used in

of which

whereas

S. - Cyril,

in which

was made

mixture

power

term

(330-395).

of Nyssa.

man below

as the

God and by the victory

with

commixed
21
he became one,

more potent

it

He explained

in

the

sense

of

by the analogies

show that

he used the

6. - Leontius
of

a twofold

hypostases,

Regarding
of

four

Some

meaning.

is a union

it is to be called

one to call essential

even

when

illustrated

united

by him

preserve

by the

and "wick"

in a lamp,

or mixture,

and

in

of these

four

simple

of the

four

simple

it pleases

or whatever

things.

proper

as that in which
principle

of

the constituent
It

subsistence.

is

of soul and body in man, of

of the union

"fire"
of

divided

a union can be either

composed

by Leontius

examples

are

in hypostases.

composed

already

their

species

to say that

of hetergeneous

kind of union is described

The other

"flame"

of things

in

and united

already

as "interwining"

cohesions

to him, union and division

united

in species

things

or of

elements

When it

elements

are

kind of union he proceeds

the latter
simple

According

things

are divided

things

other

elements.

part

(6th cent).

of Byzantium

and "wood"

in a torch.

No special

name

is given by him to this kind of union.

According

to the Leontius,

for the explanation

to be found
union

described
sometimes

kind

described

thing

cannot

he illustrates

just

Accordingly,

(675-740).

as the

25

He has explained
from

different

whole and to make a complete

of soul and body.

Neither

are enhypostatos,

but

Concerning

that

it

by the

union

of

of the Logos

in substance

which

results

analogy

for it is

example

in order
hypostasis.

from

the two

of the

and body

is

and the flesh

is

soul

is compounded

to produce

used
with

something

Thus man is composed

soul alone nor body alone is called

which

as an analogy

the union, John of Damascus

it as that

and composite

serve

The proper

so also the union

24
by him as "pre-mixture".

enhypostatos.

another

which

"mixture",
as

7. - John of Damascus
a term

of union

and body.

by him

of confusion

of the union of the incarnation.

in that

of soul

the union

hypostasis.

is a hypostasis

They
of the

two.

He further

24.
25.

says that

enhypostatos

could be said to be a nature

which

is assumed

Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Father, P. 409-415.

is a technical
Enhypostasis
the relation
term for a theory
concerning
They maintained
between the divine and human natures in Christ.
that
human personality
there is no independent
of Christ but that he became
fully personal with the incarnation.
V. A. Harvey, A Handbook of theological
terms, P. 68.

148

by another

hypostasis

and which

the flesh of the Lord,

a hypostasis

but

having
never

rather

hypostasis

of

hypostasis

of God the

God

the

union

the

only

which

by

word,

it

which

has

It

Whence

indeed,

subsisted

has been

is not

assumed,

in

it

and

is a hypostasis,

Logos

whereas

flesh

the

the

is this
26
The

it had and still has as its hypostasis.

WV"
in Christ( described by John of Damascus

that

word

subsisted

hypostasis.

even for a moment,

by itself

enhypostatos.

flesh
the
and

union of the Logos

in

an

in that

has its existence

as a

is only

an

enhypostatos.

to the Orthodox

Finally,

according

divine

and human,

are held to be distinct

its own properties,,

Christ

is spoken

Still

of as a divine

described

by his divine

This interchangeability
distinct

1. - That

between

Z. - That

the

natures

"total
a
or

of the divine

"mixture"
a

refer

to Christ
divine

nations;
attribute

26.
27.

he can still

be described

so that

when

by his human
he can still

being,

of as/human

despite

by the Fathers

be

being

their

of two

properties

in two ways.

from

distinct

though

the properties,

underlying

the two distinct

them

each other,

and human

as it were,
"the

nature

there

is what

nature

and to penetrate

and similarly,

and describe

if you refer

to him the properties

call

him

to him

nature

union

may be said to
so that,

if you

to him the properties

as sitting

of the human

at all

It means/the

one another,

attribute

"the
as

into

a pericharesis27

the two natures

into

the two

is "a penetration

penetration".

in Christ,

son of man" you may still

in him

they

of pericharesis

"thorough
or a

penetration"

as well as between

sets of properties

translation

accurate

nature

form

the

each of them having

properties.

underlying

The

other.

points"

each other,

the

one in person.

are still

distinct

being,

of the properties,

the natures

in Christ,

the two natures

are said to interchange;

when he is spoken

is explained

natures,

though
from

these properties

and conversely

properties;

Father,

lord

in judgement
of Glory"

over

of
the

you may still

in him and describe

him as

Ibid., P. 415-16.
is the term used in the doctrine of the Trinity
Pericharesis,
to refer to the
interpenetration
Godhead,
the
the
of
persons
so that although
of
mutual
is
distinct
in
to the others,
nevertheless,
relation
each person
each
fully
in
the Being of the other.
The being of the Godhead is
participates
thus one and indivisible.
Terms, P. 155.
V. A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological

149

Zg

crucified.

All

Fathers

that

warned

is no exact

example

incarnation

one contains

each

would be something

always

The Christological

controversies

The

Christological

two

great

Nestorianism

in the history

dealing

Before
thought

incarnation.

of Antionch

on the human

Alexandria

tended

emphasise

particular

established

by the Orthodox

fifth

the

of

i. e.,

century,

permanent

for

places

the

aspects

divinity

of

the

of Christ.
of

Out
Christ,

school of

doctrine

the

of

On the other

nature

the great

its beginning

traced

which

that

undertaking

of Christ.

nature

to stress

to understand

on their

emphasis

The school

stress

greater

as heretical

controversies

it is necessary

different

placed

The

expression.

of the Church.

them,

with

There

and a mystery.

are regarded

have

too literally.

inappropriate

some
unique

that

Monophysitism

and

themselves

should not be taken

such analogies

of
laid

to Lucian

hand, the school

these

tendencies

these

two

of
to

heresies

emerged.

1. - Nestorianism:

As it has been said, that

because

of Nestorianism,

On the other

hand the orthodox

Mary was truly

Mother
forth

Nestorius

but not that

the virgin,

the

Christ

was a man who grew up as other

lived

three

a child
on

knowledge

the

earth

is God?

drew a distinction

Z8.

Wolfson,

months

natures

the divine

The Philosophy

she was the

to say that

She brought

God came
forth

led to a controversy
further

Nestorius

believe
you

body,

with

that

human

of the Church

150

Fathers,

P. 418-421.

on the
that

believe

the man who

limitation

in a God who was dead and buried?

logos and the man Christ.

a man

argued

He asked: could you really

Could

a growing

Could you believe

between

men.

old was God?

as a child,

This

in Christ.

question

to say that

it was true

Logos.

whole

that

of

two

who was born of the virgin

it was correct

he was born of her.

by the divine

who was accompanied

as Christ

that

maintained

Theotokos.

the title

that

argued

the Son of God, therefore

of God.
from

of his condemning

is said to be the founder

Nestorius

of
So he

in Christ.

dual
personality
was a

Nestorius

taught

The divine

the man Christ was not

in the man Christ and therefore
29
God bearing.
Fathers,
Unlike
the orthodox
to whom, after the

God,

Nestorius

that

maintained

there

are merged

persons

is a person

and two natures,

and the union

in a new person,

results

flesh

the

the union

whereas

other

the Logos and the man in him.

is another

According
Christ
of

to them,

divinity

in him.
together

nature

exists

Christ

are two natures

in their

two persons
Christ

with

in him.

of the divinity
not only
30
in him.

humanity

Finally,

according

natures

before

continued

component

one person.
Since five

with

the union

were

parts,
31

kinds

after

the union,
in

the two

of physical

Headlam, Christian
Wolfson, Philosophy
Ibid., P. 461.

there

and these

united

but

were

two
with

one

two

persons

natures

remained

union

were known

of

151

in

that

every

that

in

these

The humanity

in

persons
with

which

their

with

their

being that

the
from

two

natures
while

persons

one another

four

of the

respective

respective

to the Fathers,

P. 457.

may be said to

the person

also with

distinct

Theology, PP. 370-71.

of the Church Father,

Fathers.

in the person

argued

in him

the only difference

person,

up of two

its own person but also with

the divinity

own person

in a

and the divinity

of Christ.

not only with

Similarly

its

to Nestorius,

to exist

persons

together

made

maintained

He further

in the one person

two

and the humanity

the humanity

so that

the

the original

can be said to exist

as two persons.

union result

between

and Orthodox

hand Nestorius

other

Still,

union.

does not result

a person

without

a nature,

of two persons

of which

Nestorius

in Christ

a person

as well

together

exist

29.
30.
31.

On the

may be said to exist

the person

two

the humanity

the

is one person

between

can be a nature

there

is only a nature,

the

to Nestorius

of difference

point

after

The union

of Christ

Christ

Accordingly

There

is only

of the two natures

new nature.
persons,

flesh

is a difference

there

of the natures.

the person

namely,

the

and nature,

person

even

are two persons

of the persons

union

is both

the Logos

while

though

there

Logos dwelt

but

union,

that

the
were

in that

are rejected

by Nestorius,
of

for his purpose

as unsuitable

incarnation.

He

terms

other

all

rejected

of providing

of the union

an analogy

and

the

preferred

term,

conjunction.

(Jacobites)

Monaphysites

This sect was later

than the Nestorians.

against

the background

heresy

of Appollinarius,

heresy.

of an earlier

its doctrine

Perhaps

who believed

Its beginning

should be seemed

can be traced

by the

flesh or the body was not a complete

that

man.

He maintained
which

of that

denial

soul possessing

with

Appollinarius

has described

"commixture"

"composite
as
a
or

fathers

of Logos and the man, man as the weaker

irrationally
without

body,

animated
its being either

One has reason

Alexandrian

According

to

that

the

century

the same century.

However

century

The new kind

32.

Wolfson,

as the

under

to prove

is a nature

"mixture"

or

that

in the union
a person.

without

is only

a property

are already

found

member,

weaker

tendencies

in Appollinarius`

monophysitism

of

Entyches

Appollinarius

only to decline

(d. 454) and Severus

from

differed

of the Church

Fathers,

15Z

in

theology.

a new kind of Monophysitism

of Monophysitism

Philosophy

of God

nature

in the union of Logos and the

that

Monophysite

and flourished,

fourth
in
the
arose

in the fifth

was in him only

there

by the term

tried

member

maintained

and certainly

Wolfson,

of

a person or a nature.

to believe

theology

body

the existence

nature".

the orthodox

hand Appollinarius

it.

was one incarnate

incarnation
of

soul,

from

inseparable

was

He said that

and that Christ

the union

In the face of this heresy,

and

irrational
an

only

soul, he not only denied

but also two natures.

(substance)
one nature or ousia
3Z
the Logos.

On the other

body

the

of the rational

in Christ,

two persons

a rational

together

conceived

was

Because

it lacked

that

Appollinarius

P. 433-4.

and his

followers

and disappear
made its
(early

fifth

during

appearance
century).

and accepted

the

orthodox
Christ

point

of view

was between

the Orthodox

the Logos and complete

Fathers

the weaker

on the question

in such a union

that

the man in Christ

So like

the weaker

interesting

dialogue

questioned

them,

"Explain

they
between

to us, however

The Monophysites

the Godhead

that
they

words

There

and the Monophysites.

both,

is an

The orthodox

one nature

or that

that

argued

the union.

after

one nature

after

remains

and the manhood

remains
the

accepted

analogy

of

by it. "

was absorbed

"predominance"

which

they

as "absorption".

described

The

they

view

answered:

"We maintained
other

from

from

Appollinarius'

in Christ.

one nature

sense do you assert

derived

in

"
the
of
other?

the destruction

In

only

the orthodox

in what

Do you mean one nature

Adopting

was only a property,

33
and not a nature.

of

departed

they

member

spoke

the union

in a union of "predominance"

of whether

was only a property

Appollinarius

However,

man.

or a property.

was a nature

member

i.
e., that
soul

had a rational

Christ

that

orthodox

find

it

absolute

nature

difficult
and

and

unapproachable

to understand

and asked

uncompounded,

uncircumscribable,

the

comprehending
have

absorbed

How

again.

the

could

universe;

nature

which

it

assumed?

The

Monaphysites

illustrated

a drop of honey
34
vanishes.

receiving
water

The

orthodox

refused

between

two

between

the incorporeal

examples
without

33.
34.

that

to

corporeal

there

their

for straight

divinity

being confounded

and remain

while

such as honey

instances

of

153

the sea's

is possible

They illustrated

substances

Fathers,

the sea

it is not possible

which

unimpaired.

of the Church

with

absorption

and water,

humanity.

and corporeal

several

Ibid., P. 444-5.
Wolfson, The Philosophy

analogy,

like

example,

way the drop as it mixes

this

accept

substances,

are

point

by a concrete

PP. 445-6.

are

it by
mixed

The orthodox

produced two analogies.

1. - At the rising

light
the
the
sun, all
of

This penetration
for

mixture,
"illuminated

of all the light

the

mixture

in the air,

present

the

that

it can be moist

light

the air afterwards

air still

its

whole

iron

remains

three

were

on the

Jacobites

Eutychius
presented

faith

orthodox

guardedly

of the

with

is

of the

first

part

Its

totally

the iron continues

a hammer
35
the fire.

during

but

the

world

himself

the

of

"mixture

to

and the

with

trends

al Burhn,

refutations

penetrates

I
Scholars during the Isa-mic period

orthodox

who

is

still

with

in the Islamic

scholars

Muslims.

of fire,

and is smitten

the

in his Kitb

his viewpoint

power

and the fire

it

though

theological

(877-940)

Alexandria

the

by the fact

the departure

after

it is fired,

by its contact

represented

also had prominent

of

fire,
yet,

anvil

Christian

Melkites

The

period.

is
as
evidenced

nature,

argued by Christian

main

Now,

And yet when the light

light.

Similarly,

with
And

substance.

Doctrines

Christological

the

in contact

and is put

to be called

is mixed.

that

all

all the air.

alone by itself.

of the iron was not damaged

nature

There

retains

and the iron has the active

penetrating"
be called

its

hot or cold.

or dry,

2. - When iron is brought

through

through

and is called

is seen as light

air"

is,
therefore,
the
air
all

through

penetrates

through

seems to penetrate

which

the

early

Nestorians
during

is devoted

Nestorians,
with

Christian

God

with

His

pateriarch

to exposition

Jacobites

deals

and the

this period.

a Melkite

was

Islamic

and

doctrine

of

more
of the

incarnation.

He started
"Then

his argument

came

immovable
incarnate

the

hypostasis,
from

the indwelling

35.
36.

down

Mary

he
said,
as
creative

who has never

the virgin

ceased

- so that

of the consubstantial

Wolfson, The Philosophy

Eutychius
of Alexandria,

of

word

cease to be.

nor will

(the Holy

abiding,

Spirit)

word of God within

her. "36

and

He became

made her worthy

of the Church Fathers, PP. 446-7.

Kit-ab al-Burhn,
Vol. I, P. 68.

154

eternal

of

He goes on to argue,
"The creative

word

Himself

with

the concurrence

creation

without

human

seed. - He was perfect

and his rational,

logical

spirit

The spirit

became
God
of

for veiling

God's creation
for it,

as a veil

"37

He further

explained

According

to him,

God with

the mystery

became

humanity

was not

created

nor

word

of

God who

created

it

thing

in the

seed from

beginning
which

substance

of man which
Him

one with

the creative

later

(Christ)
word

soul acted
(alt of )

was more tenuous

it

out

the substance

with

spirit.

humanity

out

of a cause

of the

The word of

whose substance
it.

of God constituting

except

by the hypostasis

of the

of no previously
through

The

existing
it

which

had

the hypostasis

of the creative

and known

among men through

without

enumerated

(God) joined
by the unity

of God, which

the Father

time

He then

and not

else, except
38
Trinity.

and one in mankind

one with

was anything

is a hypostasis

hypostasis

divinity

of

word

on to express his views,

He carries
"That

of the word

anything

is one of the divine

of that

and constituted

of Mary,

womb

it was the worthiest

logical

and rational,

a hypostasis

by the hypostasis

complete

up His abode

of union.

its body and blood,

His hypostasis

for what

God
of
word
mingled

the creative

with

for God's taking

for
him, the animal
a
as veil

It acted

soul

of God in man.

and likeness

Therefore
-

and the solid body was a veil

than itself.

man complete

God.

Himself.

as a new

man in his body, his animal

of God's creation

and His veiling

Spirit

and the Holy

is the image

which

was the most worthy

in it, His indwelling

became

of God the Father

for

man who He created

a created

one with

separation

37.
38.

Ibid., PP-68-69Ibid., P. 69.

39.

Ibid.,

it

of that

by two

from

hypostasis,

is one in the Trinity

the Father

examples

P. 69-70.

155

to try

begotten
or from

and made

the hypostasis

by the substance

of his humanity.

is
likewise
He
-

for Him

and created

single

by the substance

and Spirit

illustrated

to (Christ)

of

of His

He is not two but

of Mary

the virgin
39
the Holy Spirit. "

to explain

the

the problems

at a

of the

incarnation,

specially

and earth,

enters

house

same

without
because

it has not been cut off

likewise

the son of God dwells

He

truly

example

in humanity

intellect

from

intellect

is known

in the intellect

which

"The indwelling

one

the

transformed

two

substances

from

being

the

it

what

into

from

from

of
the

it; the

it
and all of

itself

he said,

or change
is;

divine

the

the substance

or transformation

from

of
of

is not

substance

nor the human

human

being

fully

neither

wine

nor

water,

is accompanied

mixture

for

and corruption.
each

by corruption,

state.

Kitb a1-Burhn,
Ibid., P. 71.

example,

the

of silver

The mixture

and they

Vol. I, P. 70.

156

only in three

of two different

is transformed

of them

Nestorians

and accused

comes about

of gold and silver,

before

of the union of incarnation.

the nature

by the mingling

and corruption,

is a transformation

(as it has been mentioned

and then he criticised

union)

and honey,

kinds

three

of Alexandria,

like
and

40.
41.

on a sheet

is in it and all the word is

about incarnation,

and creative,

(may be produced)

of vinegar

original

(the intellect)

For

Spirit.

separated

it, and all of it is within

of not understanding

transformation

mingling

is written

so

the Father.

and Holy

nor is the intellect

from

divine

mixture

to Eytychius

1. - Amixture

water,

from

it is not separated

yet

by transference

about

types of physical

and Jacobites

their

the illumination;

word of God and His union with

of the creative

He categorised

According

originated,

"41

and created.

different

on the paper,

any doubt

does not come

of

his intellect,

and warmth,

really

separating
Father

the

heaven

"40
it
is
which
united.

to try to remove

humanity

from

has generated

whence

without

with

by the word, because

is on the paper with

In order

and truly

it was generated

which

by light
it

is

sun which

is between

the sun's disc or from

in humanity

generated

word

as the

what

there

truly

sun's disc

the

from

all of it is really

so that

paper,

separating

a man's

and become

from

however

was

fills

the sun's disc whose illumination

from

generated

He says "just

Christians.

to none

mixture

elements

and

of

wine

and

All

this

and copper.
of wine
from

its

ways.

and water
nature,

have been changed

from

is

their
their

2. - It

is a mixture
so that

separate

different

two

where

the two natures,

and appearance,

be
can
recognised

in a single

and linen

with

lamp,

two natures

are never

In respect

to Eutychius

of

nature

hypostasis
divine

a divine

natures,

of two intertwined
a lining

strands,

whose outside

to

believe

necklaces,
two Christs,
intertwined

in

is silk and its inside

one

and the garment

are divine
necklace

human like

that

with

a lining

by his nature
and like

the copper

strand

Kitb

al-Burhn,

Vol. I, P. 73.

157

and

they

the

made
a

neither

copper,

different

and a human.

the necklace

made

or the garment

with

involve

Christ
and

like the golden

is
likewise

strand

garment,

and the cotton

them

compels

necklaces

of the lined

of the

no mixture

necessity

is two garments,

of

mixture

had two

divine
a

intertwined

outside

the

of)

because

is cotton,

in the necklace

garment.

42.

idea

hypostases,

and hypostasis

the silken

transformed,

and made Christ

to this belief,

because

the

natures,

doctrine,

the one Christ

one gold and the other

Christ,

had been

(the

to

adhered

According

different

of gold and copper.

(one of) separateness,

or hypostasis.

two in nature

and death,

and two known

and a human

they

the divine
he had one

so that

to his blashemous

and asserted

he made the mixture

Hence

other

hand,

and severance,

separateness

union

to (the idea

that

and asserted

of two

to accidents

other

error).

(composed),

According

is

and

associates

Jacob adhered

mingled

their

of the

and oil there

and his

in one Christ,

ingot
like
just
the
man,

the

on

(into

and corruption,

Through

of God subject

true God nor a true

Nestorius,

fell

nature

is corruption.

transformation

not

nature

human.

and the

ribbed

these two kinds of mixture

4Z
things.
solid, material

Nestorius

mixture)

became

and one mingled

the nature

(of

kinds

and his partisans

and the human

regard

in the case of corporeal,

of transformation

of) the mixture

linen,

of the separateness
to the water

According

(Baradaeus)

Jacob

mixtures,

of two.

two

from

woven

because

with

these

oil and water

is
head
gold.
whose

Likewise,

found except

for example,

garment

remain

by its hypostasis

the other

mixture,

and hypostases.
together

no mixture

in that

be
to
called
not

ought

from

in
a single
and silk

silk and an idol of copper

Such things

natures

distinct
each

hypostases

and their

inside

two
is

in the
and the
of the

Eutychius
both

these

accused

of not

sects

mixtures
and then
43
for this analogy.

the nature

to understand

able

he mentioned

these

suitable

being

kind

another

of mixture

of
is

which

He argued,
This is the third
transformation

corporeal

and corruption

Yet there

is no transformation

and severance,

nature

penetrates

spread

out through

material

into

of

it is a mixture

in

the

and

material

the whole

and mingles

the hypostasis

(consisting)

hypostasis

(or confusion)

of its strength
red-hot

conveyed

of its blackness

Then he concluded

Mary

son of

hypostasis,
divine

human

with

and human.

natures,

a divine,

and with

which

of the divine

virgin,

hypostasis

the

that

is always

and the human

Ibid., PP. 74-75.

Kitb al-Burhn,

of iron

the

and pervading
and without
fire

The

the

has spread

to the iron some

the iron

has glowed

iron's feebleness,
44
to the fire. "

the creative

begotten

of the

He became

are

the

of

He is one Christ,

unique

He is one Christ
which

Examples

mass, one in the

of severance

until

and

it

and
has

by saying that,

nature.

the

because

it

its solid

and the piece

it all, and has conveyed

and coldness

to this kind of mixture

His mixture
is the

his theory

yet

with

and corruption.

and has heated

heat

the

with

nothing

"According

and invested

and brilliancy,

united

the separation

without

of them.

of the fire

fire

of

nature

of transformation

the iron

all through

become

in either

and spiritual

from

mass, it is a glowing

glowing

the

of

of iron,

of the piece

mingling
itself

of a single

its immaterial

and corporeal

of soul and body, and the mingling

the mingling

nature

of the material

nor any change or corruption

nature,

from

of the spiritual

nor any transformation

nature,

43.
44.

it becomes

the mixings

one, without

all of it.

with

into

is the true

or of separation

and spiritual

so that

nature

that

of mixture

immaterial

the

which

kind

united
nature,

of

word

the son of God.

her

at

a later

Son of God, combining

by one pre-eternal

God and a human

through

Mary

combining

Vol. I. PP. 75-76.

158

of God has arranged

which

the virgin

He, it is who

time,

with

both

hypostasis

with

them both without

that

natures,
with

He created

one

two

for him

hypostasis

any mixing

as

transformation

that,

"If the two natures

become

or separation

or corruption

He explained

had been mixed

one nature,

Christ

would

Father

and the Holy

Spirit

after

Father

and the Holy Spirit

no compounding

which

be counted

been
have
part
not

is an immaterial

in the confusion

for him to be one God with

come upon His substance?

"that

the

particular.

Everything

everything

the Son wills the Father

Holy Spirit

wills

them. "

From

all

he argued,

will,

Father

the

the Father
47

this..

after

Spirit

the will

belongs

and the Holy

and the Son will.

(in this way he used the Qu? nic expression)

the acts
examples

Christ

from

He created
(Knower

hguyb

He is Creator

of divinity.

will raise

to life

through

Then he made another

to the human

by an example,
sunlight,
Therefore

as the

because

being

the tree

45.

Ibid., P. 77.

46.
47.
48.

Kitb al-Burhn,
Ibid., P. 89.
Ibid., P. 91.

suffering
cut

down

the death

being

doe's not

(khliq

or division

Christ

that,

lima

yash)u)
fallm
He is

man.

(forgiver

and pain

cut

with

belong

to

the

al

on the day
"48

"that

suffering

and

He illustrated

axe does not

the

for

of sins).

of Christ,

because

essence.

may be cut down by the axe, whilst

159

the

God by His performing

a blind

not to the divine

Vol. I, P. 86.

and everything

concluded

were by his humanity,

of

and

(Lord of the Day of Judgement).

concerning

essence,

will,

all those in the tomb

His own power

and death

Spirit

li_dhrdhunb

and ghffr

has

confusion

is no difference

He wills

for

eyes

yawmiddin

analogy

crucifixion

death belong

hidden)

He is Malik

of Resurrection.

his suffering,

clay

things

of

two

that

Holy
will,

is perfect

of what

substance,

to the genus not to the

he finally

and discussion

argumentation

seeing

Spirit

There

son to

or how would it be said

Son and

the

their

in

light

a creative

He had left

the

of the

for the incarnate

and Holy

wills,

of

the substance

substance,

of compoundness;

the Father
46
"

Concerning

of the substance

it be right

Spirit

they had

till

mixture

because

simple

How would

and Holy

the Father

with

in a confused

together

His incarnation,

appears.

seeing He was invalid

between

"45
of severance.

sunlight's

the sunlight

it

affect

essence.
is resting

upon it,

but

cutting

ibn 'Adi,

a tenth

had a close relation

'Adi's
In Ibn

tract

of the basic

doctrine

fact

The

metaphysical
According

of Christ

nature

bore the babe possessing

Ibn

'Adi

in

maintaining

a single

nature.

in his divinity

the word is of composite

that

the Jacobites

nature

it is united

of God, they
but

that

necessarily

mean divine

experiences

of

the

being

to

Christ

49.
50.
51.

Word.

that

by

However

Perir

be

to

of his day say that

Ya yya maintains

is the

mother

nature

when they

human

nature.

growth.

Pain

to Mary

as

the substance

of

refer

who is God.
4Adi
Ibn
contends

does not

have

Physical
in the

and privation
4Adi
Ibn
wishes to attribute
He insisted

cannot

of Christ

of Christ.

the

arrived

Mary

that

affirm

she has begotten

embryo,

who is God.

and Mary

the human nature

The Jacobites

to the

Yet

judged

birth

and

nature, when they affirm

51
'Adi
Ibn
and human.
maintained

united

like

increases

Mary

constitutive

though

successive

before

in his humanity.

conception

do not mean by this that

rather

nature

divine

to the word.

death

of a single

of the creator.

is one of the two

born,

by that

understand

God, the substance

the divine

and created

nature,

is

Melkites.
the divine

that

crucifixion,

and Monaphysites

do not deny the doctrine

that

the Creator,

thesis

Yet Ibn 'Adi

the Jacobites

mother

suffering,

certain

the

believed

sects

and

from

that

Monophysite

the

that

at the moment,

Christian

to the defence

natures,

Jacobites

the

to his birth,

two

of

relation

of three

believe

and

to the mode of incarnation.

regard

the union occurred

50
the two natures.

discussing

the word is eternal

beget

the

was subjected

They rather

atonement.

with

distinguish

considerations
'Adi
to Ibn
none

in Baghdad

he seems to be dedicated

of the Jacobites
incarnation,

has lived

scholar

friends.

incarnation,
the
on

the

of

Muslim

with

Jacobite

century

because the iron's

the tree,

"49
sunlight.

but
does
not affect
wood

affects

Z. - Yahy

down
with
cut

is not

the sunlight

on the

that

to go through

growth
body

credal

This

does
may

not

not

be

all actions,

even

statement

"He

de

The

Ibid., P. 101.

Yaiy b. IAdi, Magalt, PP. 96-97.

YahY,
by Robert
PP. 192-193,
Perier,
cited
4Adi,
Yahy
b.
PP. 78-79.
Apologatic
of
writings
(unpublished
Ph.D. thesis submitted
to the faculty
1973).
foundation,

160

Henry

of Hertford

Vale,

Seminary

died".

He

accused

alleged

that

since Christ

true that

Ibn'Adi

Fakhry,

LAdi's

the

fire
as

essence,
to other

things,

or just

of that

entity

or appropriates

Yet Ibn 'Adi

Jacobite

century

different

totally

four

wrote

his

elements

in Christ,

treatise,

that
his

to communicate
their

communicate

assumes the form

an entity,

identified

becomes

it.

with

forsaking

thereby

without

essences

his

identified

his unity. "53

the divine

a single

like

nature

in which

nature

to mention

Christian),
from

or dies.

suffers
the

4Adi's
famous
Ibn
toward

approach

whose

his teacher.
to affirm

treatises

from

has

century,

The two

is substantial

union

soul and body.

I would

In this respect,

tenth

as the son of man has become

to say that

making

to that between

similar

form

in

was driven

and in so doing

and Christ,

is reluctant
in

it

He

he lives.
Yet it is
52
and he died.

quoted

goodness

active

the human

destroying

concur

natures

views.

as the mind, in apprehending

or his Godhead,

God without

He

died".

Therefore,

differences

philosophical

and the other

Thus God has assumed

with

die.

"He

phrase

that he was crucified

polemical

just

the

omitting

he cannot

"God in His infinite

to him,

identity

sects

is divine,

discussing

Ibn

according

other

wishes to affirm

while

evaluated

two

for

Like

his teacher

Christian

the

Ibn Zur4a (tenth

pupil

union

of

incarnation

is

he was a Jacobite

doctrines

against

the

and

Jews

and

Muslims.

According
is like
He

to Ibn Zur'a,

an intermediate

described

intelligence
symbolic

three
(lgil)

substance

with

nature,

which

members

of

and the object

expressions

him, the original

of the divine

the unity

of the Father,

substance
an attribute.

become
54

essence with

is neither
the

trinity

of the act

purely

divine

as intellect
intellect
of

the Son and the Holy

united

to man, because

the human

essence

or purely

human.

(aql)

act

(ma'ql),
Spirit.

the

of

as they

are

According

to

the hypostasis

is the

52.

Ibid., P. 92.

53.
54.

P. 225.
Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy,
_
qs
Thomson,
ibn Zur'a,
Jr, Four
Treaties
H. Fergus
PP. 123-4.
of
(Unpublished
Phi, thesis submitted
1952).
to Columbia University,

161

I, he was a Nestorian

3. - Timothy

There was a debate between

discussion
on

days, later

patriarch

I which

Mahdi and Timothy

for two

took place

form by the Christian

down in its present

was written

(775-785).

of Mahdi

in the time

protagonist.

two sons, but Son and Christ

"clothed
56
expression.

itself"

The expression

but

relations,

mutual

He illustrated

Son.

in
his
one

his soul

between
latter

visible

Christ,

he put

which

and not two, although

on from

fact that

he is also two.

confessed

fact
the
as one, and

The very

the known

that

same

one Christ

and

he is two:

in reality

found

distinction

and the

of God, together
is one and the

with
same

between

the

he is one does not preclude

the

Christ

difference

is
indeed
Son
and

known

does not imply

confusion

he is also two

are kept

of his natures

attributes

nor their

and spiritual,

Mary,

is in him the natural

there

and the f act that

word God and his humanity;

mixture

is invisible

with

as a semi

of natures

the

In the same way the word

and corporeal.

because

and

former

the

in

two

itself

clothed

constitute

a man is one, while

- nor

one of which

translator

the

of them

individuality,

and his body;

of humanity

the clothings

by

out

both

that

it by an example,
and

Mary,

"we do not deny the duality

we profess

composition

is from

one which

is pointed

goes on to argue,

The patriarch

is not two beings

Christ

that

are in him two natures,

are one; there

and the other

belongs to the word

55
the Word God.

Nestorian

he argued

Christ,
of

the nature

In discussing

in one person

and
or
of

the Christ. "57

Then he explained
word are one with

this

mystery

the voice

with

by another
which

word God.

and in them

one does not expel

He is one with

his invisibility

and his

they

his humanity

visibility

are clothed,

but one word,

are not two words nor two tongues,

the voice,

example,

two.

while

A. Mingana, Wood Brook Study,

1.
Ibid., P. 155. Footnote

57.

Ibid., P. 155.

tongue

and the

in a way that

the two

the tongue

and

This is also the case with

the

together

preserving

and between

55.
56.

"as the

his

with

the distinction

between

and his

humanity.

divinity

B. J. R. L., Vol. XI (19Z8), P. 155.

16Z

Timothy

the

used

illustration

but he is said to be living

this living
.

and rational

by the nature

us in union with

When Timothy

that
but

our nature,
its mortality
created

58.
59.
60.

of all this, however,

of word

not

the Jacobites

the Nestorians
but

that

of Christ,

in his divinity.

Refuting

and Melkites
not only

immortality,
His
and

being is capable

Jacobites

the

say that

God suffered
that

the possibility

his Creator.

Ibid., P. 156.
Ibid., P. 156.
Ibid., P. M.

163

"60

with

one living

nature,
that

and on
he took

Son of God died in

he

and Melkites,

and died in the

God suffered

and died

of our human

nature,

and He made it to resemble

of resembling

God,

and is, Christ's

of his humanity

he said, "the

do not assert

He even removed

from

he is called

our human

God with

His God by the nature

59
the word God.

the death

and

its association

through

In the same way God is called,

of the union

considered

but

our nature,

flesh,

soul.

is living

has indeed been received

in his body,

In spite

Man

and soul.

hand He is called

the other

argued

man

and rational

man and not two.

and rational
Father

of

body
as

of his soul which

only by the nature

rational

from

"58
his
natures.
of

is one in his sonship and two in the attributes

Christ

divinity

in
and

that

VI

CHAPTER

Analysis

A Comparative

doctrine

has devoted

outlines
his

within

the different

assessment

However,

them.

of

He sets out

refutation.

was in fact
it

doctrines

these

a term

seems

used to try

and thereby

that

section

It is taken

although
the fact

not alter

the

wills

are

in his empire.

the one will

that

was acceptable

the Melkites

separate,

is on the basis of rational

the topic
about

It had not,

they

he is dealing

with.

have

would

unacceptable,
which

He develops

of knowledge.

the attribute
be

knowledge,

then

how can he have His attribute

1.

al-Jabbr,

al-Mughni,

concur
though

with

'awhar

If

man

can

never

for jawhar

in the outline.
desire

to deal

by Heraclius
much

to try
support

it still

did

of two natures.

to

according
his argument
ignores
by using
then their

have

of will.

Vol. V, PP. 114-116.

164

terminology,

gained

completely

If they are separate,

will

separate.

to

his argument

knowledge

tAbd

while

to the Monophysites,

held the doctrine

still

probability

however,

it
as

in the

a synonym

had been put forward

In

Also at this

English

strained

to refute

incorrect

that,

about/which/mentioned
'Abd
may indicate
al-Jabbr's

He finds this to be totally

Jabbr.

fact

it
takes
and
as about

theory

rational

incarnation)
or

or incarnation.

to the

attention

come

confusion.

This is clearly

dht in rather

and this

The one will

because

of

up the argument

out of place

the dispute

guilty

(inherence

inherence

of

capable

he did not use dht as in any way synonymous

takes

to solve

la,

to explain

one to translate

this problem.

the term

is

(mujwara).

he now uses dht to mean "essence"

1
"substance".

His next

he

to draw

appropriate

forced

out

that

to his attempt

as a prelude

them

setting

therefore

and

rational

of conjunction

on the Trinity

section

being

in

even

the doctrine

excludes

If

the

and criticising

doctrines

of the Christological

aspects

he seems to suggest

particular

with

to discussing

sections

about eight

of union of incarnation.

He first

point,

Doctrines

Christological
of

Critique

4Abd al-Jabbr

of "kbd a1-Jabb7ar

God's

In this

'Abd

alit

against

the nature

of

the argument
attributes

of

attribute

of

argument

'Abd

al-Jabbr

completely

so strenuously

the Mu'tazilite

ignores

He

elsewhere.

advocated

theology

of attributes

should

which
has

as he

know,

he has
it

said

frequently

enough in al-Mughni,

is a sifat

Mu'tazilite

His whole

the doctrine

to attack

enthusiasm

he does present

However,

there

union, then
Z
prophets.
this

seems

God could not be the will

he mentioned

Sharh3

of will

aspect

(mashila).

that

He first

argued

However,

a false

of will

interpretation

such a union of wills

all

the

to al-Radd

is often

attributed

doctrine.

for his will

of

but in his

through

union

of their
4

the

the will

the sect,

which

He also

whereas

of God would

the will

occurred,

from

in his preface

R. Shadyaq,

the union

of his over-

that

in the

believed

God does not need any location

that

by being located

accident

that

alleged

a union

by claiming

will

they used to say that in the beginning.

admitted

does.

Father

is in fact

to the Nestorians,

Nestorians

by al-Ghazli,

al-Jamil

the

such

He does not indicate

of mankind.

attribute.

is to the basis of

if will

that

exclude

through

of union

that

to

and a created

will

will.

argument

no need

whereas

down because

crumbling

of union through

a reasonable

on his discussion

He carries

to knowledge

has come

structure

is a sifa li-dhtihi

knowledge

is secondary

Thus will

al-M.

that

become

man
an

in Christ.
j

He

then

from

distinction
argument
value

He

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

God

and

between

As a result
from

Christ

is a rather

to the discussion.

further

doctrine

that /that

to all creatures.

applied
wills

suggests

contradicted

could

all mankind

one

another.

and the

rest

ineffective
6

the

be

applied
could

Consequently,

of mankind
argument

of

by

wills

three

evil

there

concerning

debating

union

will

not

and

it

Christ,

of

the

could

be

and differ

in

union.

contributes

more

be
5

would

little

arguments.

no
This
of

He

Ibid., PP. 117-118.

'Abd

Sharh, P. 296.
al-Jabbr,
R. Shadyaq, preface of al-Radd al-Jamil,
P. 217.
Vol. V, PP. 119-120.
Idem, al-Mughni,
has repeated
Here Abd al-Jabbr
the same argument,.
Vol. V, PP. 117-18.
before in section 4. See al-Mughni,

165

he
has applied
as

suggests that a union of wills implies

any facet of the doctrine of incarnation.

Abd
To
al-Jabbr

this would involve

is
impossible.
him
God's.
For
this
becoming
Christ
simply
of

all the attributes

A more

does
as of course

God in Christ,

locating

critical

based on will

argument

and crucial

God is willing

is that,

from

do
He
In
to
the
so,
same way
will continue
act of will.
eternity
7
How then can God's will be located
because there is no change in his nature.
tAbd
incarnation,
three
in Christ's?
While criticising
the union of
al-Jabbir's
is
in
Abu
to
the
the
of
union of will are very similar
reference
arguments with
by an unlocated

of his al-Radd8

the second part

and contain

of arguments
which were
between tAbd al-Jabbr

a number

is
in
difference
But
the
there
earlier
a
applied
works.
qs.
ts
find
in
his
Abi
Ab
tries
to
out contradiction
and
CAbd
depends mostly upon pre-established
al-Jabbar
arguments,
while

opponent's
principles

laid down by his predecessors.

************
By referring

to

illustrative

doctrine

Nestorian

the

Christ's

of

example

body

of

conjunction

being

aware of the theological

basis of this argument.

Wolfson

that

and

has suggested9

was

accepted

generally

by

the

of

most

a temple,

is found

such language

(mujwara)
fAbd

al-Jabb.

in the writings

Orthodox

with

its

r seems

of St. Paul

and particularly

the

Nestorians.

For

4Abd

al-Jabbr
(jawhar)

substance

Mu'tazilite

this

relaxes
dht.

However,

bodies
one

have

essential

common.

doctrine

quality

According

by admitting

he emphasises

mean that

would
should

here

is

and therefore

sense corporeal
doctrine

impossible
as he maintained
10
have
We
body.
already
noticed
or
this

that

"awhar

of God.

qualities

in

they

common,
(Abd
to
al-Jabbar

must
both

have

that,

at

was

not

times,

he

can be equivalent

to

to God.

to be applied

God should have the essential

the essential

God

qualities

Because
all

conjunction

To accept

essential

things
qualities

and also mixture

Vol. V, PP. 121-ZZ.

Al-Mughni,

8.
9.
10.

PP. 43-48.
Abii
al-Radd'al
al-Firaq alThalth,
sa al-warraq.
H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, P. 367.
'Abd al-Jabbr,
Vol. V, P. M.
al-Mughni,

this

of a body and

if two

7.

166

as in some

of jawhar

his understanding

impossible

that

have
in
are

only possible

"awhir

among substances

not presumably

dhat) and bodies.

ll

************
He rejects

any attempt

According

to

formula

must

miracles

Abd

be taken

argued,

these occurred
13
any location.

through

He again

that,

criticised

dead body,

or healing

of miracles
because

if the appearance

only one of them.

God consisted

person,

during

The former

of many parts.

If it was only some atoms,

be characterised
CAbd
by
al-Jabbr,

discussed
union,

and

concerning

the

Bakr a1-Bgillani.

other

also

prophets

by Christ

does not affirm

of Christ's

could

miracles
by other

without

such as raising
without

uniting

the union God has conjoined him in all his atoms

because

was unacceptable,
To Abd al-Jabbr

it would

union would

Christian

based on divine

inherence
the

the

God is able to do that

be affected
14
God, then the same can apply to Christ.

He then asked whether

but

l2

conjunction

blind

because

al-Jabbar,

God is everywhere.

that
phrase,

for

argument

the performance

that

of

Any

IAbd
to

that

creed

is a metaphorical

literally.

such kinds of miracles.

He further

with

it

al-Jabbr

is unacceptable

performed

the Muslim

to exploit

indicate

that

it would

was obviously

require

or

that

impossible.

such atoms which took part in

is
The nature of union
and Son of God.

as Christ

that

is based on the materialistic

explanation
of the act
lb

Such analogies
similarities
s7a's al-Radd.
with Abu

has
union

of incarnation

can also be seen in al-Tamhid17

Al-Bagillni's

argumentation

than

Abd al-Jabbr's

and more comprehensive

is not extensive

by Ab

but it is clearer

criticism.

************

11.
12.
13.

Ibid., P. 123Ibid., PP. 123-24.

Ibid., P. 124.

14.

in
does
believe
McDermoft
that
al-Jabbr
miracles, subject
confirms
They must be professed by the prophets.
to certain conditions.
For detail,
The Theology
of al-Shaik
al-Mufid,
see M. J. McDermoft,
PP-84-86Vol. V, PP. 124-5.
Al-Mughni,
qs
4al
6.,
P.
Para 10, P. 30.,
Abu
al-Radd
al-Warrq,
al-Firaq
a1Thalth,

15.
16.

tAbd

Para 6.
17.

Al-Bgill-ani,

al-Tamhid,

PP. 87-88.

167

'Abd

In a long discussion,
the verb 'haha'
Jacobites,

al-Jabbr

is

indicates

he argued

it can be applied

If

combine.

disprove

the

of

createdness

this

circumstances.

He maintained
instance
it

applies

interpreted

(that

halla

spatial
Him

make

would

other

that

God

that

limitation

1 alla

in its

that

and substances

can

it

demand

the

polemic

to

will

in

body

physical

is said to inhere

literal
20

or interpretation.

explanation

al-Jabbr

alleges

a long

devoted
in

to the

On the basis of that

Christ,

inhere

of

any

in first

in the other)

upon Him and He would be like a substance or

4Abd
has
being.
In this argument
al-Jabbr

a created

the verb

in

al-Jabbar

one thing

According

al-dht)
'Abd
al-Jabbar

how accidents

inhere

cannot

in him.

of a thing.

qualities

to describe

of the meaning

tAbd
as

in Arabic,

God can
'Abd
So

that

divinity.

theory
19

essence

(ittihid

materialistic

admits

one

to inhere

Ordinarily

the word alla

that

in Christ

the

through
18
it in his Sharh.

described

examines

i. e., God's coming

union

the implications

is
and
sense
not

ready

to accept

any

4Abd

in
the mouth of opponent an argument
that according
to
al-Jabbr
puts
Ab 'Ali speech (kalm) comes to exist on a writing
tablet,
sound or tongue
21
from
In order to
moving
one place to another for its existence.
without

understand
(sawt)

and its

limbs".
which

this

argument,
relation

it

it would

cause great
Human

subject.

the

meaning

of the

five

acts, but they are produced

the sound. - Sound is an accident

generates

perceptable

to examine

Sound is the last

to speech.

Sounds are not direct

remains,

is necessary

for

difficulties
beings

and other

that

does not remain.

subject.

exist

it. - Like the other "act of the limbs"

22
(ur
location
in.
inhere
to
only needs a
all)

Abii

'Ali

movement.
that

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

that

sound

To explain

if we knock

could

the latter

exist

in

every

location,

it

gives

tAbd

a1-Jabbr, Sharh, P. 296.

P. 126.
Idem, al-Mughni,
P. 126.
Al-Mughni,
Ibid., PP. 126-7.
Peaters, God's Created Speech, P. 139.

168

a- sound,

If it

Sound is a

sound in order

but

always

if

we stop

its

to

needed

he gave the illustration

half of this statement,

on a brass basin,

the

of

beings need the instrument

of the ear to perceive

held

"act

sound

by means of a cause

the hearing
living

of

movement,

sound ceases also.

No one can say that

as according

Although
said that

al-Jabbr

such analogy

Consequently
Z3
inconceivable.

The Christian

as it is described

by their

by his own logical

these

in mirror

that

of man's reflection
24
in clay or wax.
(Abd

al-Jabbr

actually

him and the mirror.

al-Jabbr's

As far

On the other
He insisted

of the sun.
different

to recognise

views

of the physical

must
'Abd

indicated
Z5
accident.

assume
al-Jabbr

substances,
occupy

that

His

reflection
to it,

that

that

replied

that

23.
24.

in Christ

without

even though

a1-Jabbr,
Ibid., P. 129.

25.

Ibid., P. 132.

al-Mughni,

attempted

to refute

for

inherence

was

of the seal

is no connection

and not

entity

between

changes and is affected

is an instrument

like

seems to be concerned

'Abd

an eye
gAbd
with

P. 127.

169

al-Jabbar

alleged

that

If it is so, then God would

God is existing

in Christ.

'Abd

analogies

there

impression.

accidental

without

any inherence

we admit

He would have to obey the natural

a place

two famous

a physical

the mirror

in which

in a non-materialistic

analogy

hand, such reflection

he

world.

if we admit

existence

a location

is not

of the seal was concerned,

such an analogy

To the argument

it requires

The first

This explanation

things.

as the engraving

an inhering

since

in

viewpoint,

and the second was the engraving

by the man, looking

produced

by the light

that

asserted

with

viewpoint
with
4Abd
but
al-Jabbr

argumentation.

'All's

Ab

their

apologists,

location

as sound.

(inheres

to use the verb balla

had supported

scholars

agree

apply here, because

cannot

it inheres.
thing)is

does not

himself

in every

sound can exist

in Christ

and inhering

the same way God is existing

gAbd

'Ali
Abt
to

that

any location,

be

we

and conjunction,

God is not like

physical

laws if he was going to inhere

or

He again repeated his previous argument that Christ would have to follow a new
be
God
has
would
and ultimately
occurred,
characteristic
after the union
26
death
through
such
as
and so on.
the qualities of contagents
affected
Repeating

arguments

argument

about

inherence

in Christ
27

be possible.

in one atom or many atoms,

inherence
God's
about

in polemical

he then goes on to suggest

miracles,

so would

was possible,

this inherence

style

and the
if

that

in any inorganic

being

tAbd
by
by early Muslim
The two analogies mentioned
al-Jabbr,
are criticised
28
s
discussed
in
for
his
They
by
Ab
are
also
al-Radd.
example
polemicists,
29
in his al-Tamhid.
by al-Bgillni

Christian

From

take place,

of Nisibis

Elias

side,

by arguing

accident

was it completely
dignity,

this inherence

that

in the substance,

nor

nor partial.

conciliation

and

in Christ

not

in one person,

the heaven

earth,

and chosen people.

In order

to explain

the

Nisibis

claimed

applied

to everywhere,

beings,

even to the earth,

even though
prophets

Christ

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

the noun of existence

cannot

application

as the noun of existence

of inherence

was through

union.

etc.

in them.

the inherence

of

and

of Christ

hand,

in one

His inherence

of worship,

and the prophets,

that

noun

is applicable

in

in the

Elias

of

can

be

to God, human
approach

God

for him,,

in the same way, other

through

Mary,

But the difference

On the other

substance

He can inhere

As a human being cannot

is applicable

the position

nor

essence

is a common

inherence

of an

body,

For example

Christ

between

fire
soul,

of

in the places

inherence

of

is like

equal.

not the other.

or His
30

noun

just

achieve

are everywhere

difference

the

that

inherence

the

could

the inherence

His inherence

will,

prophets

like

was neither

of the body in another

place not the other,

the

how the incarnation

to explain

the inherence

because His essence and substance

not

tried

in the

is that
prophets,

through

such an

the inherence
there

was no

Ibid., P. 132.

Abd
has repeated
Ibid., 135.
al-Jabbr
Sit
Para 10.
Ab
al-Radd, PP-R-35,
PP-87-88Al-Bigillni,
al-Tamhid,
Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 37.

170

this argument

in section

in

7, P. 124.

union

incarnation

of

disciples

or

Elias differentiated

prophet

Z. - He was born without

4. - God has raised

al-Jabbr

repeats

section.

based his critical

volume

the

in this

However

any kind of sin.

with

of al-Mughni

on the

where

one and in the same way one cannot

He went
substances
in it

if

on that
become

(resulting

that

introduced
Jacobites

31.

he repeats

as being
but

accidental

All

these

forms).

change

All

P. 137.

171

refer

although

He

in earlier

cannot

it will

become

entail

nature

two

inhering

these options

the physical

arguments

in general,

teaching

Ibid., P. 37.

32.
Ibid., PP. 38-39"
33.4Abd
al-Mughni,
al-Jabbr,
34.
Ibid., 137.

previous

discussion.

entities

which have already

the arguments

to the Christian

the

may have more than one accident

of many

material.

for

used

of the Jacobites,

gAbd
for
to accept as this would
al-Jabbr
34
CAbd
it.
as
al-Jabbar
world
understands

In his discussion

did not have.

he had maintained

two distinct
33
become two.

one, or substance

never had intercourse.

wide-ranging

that

the doctrine

we admit

in possibility

as he had

principle

he argued

of his union.

there.

is a more

there

section

position

prophets

is no

There

32

heading

same

with

It was only because

and he is living

him to heaven

5. - He was unfamiliar

the other

which

are

So he is one

Him.

Word of God.

and he himself

sexual relation,

3. - He had signs and miracles

(Abd

Word of God.

can be called

that

they

reasons.

and you call him

We call him the Messiah

Messiah.

because

prophethood,

of God, united

is the Word

Son that

1. - The eternal

other

for
certain
union

Christ's

Christ's

then

that,

we concede

in his

to participate
31
prophets.

to be called

entitled

union.

complete

be able

would

If

toare

of the

been analysed

and

to

the

not

only

he himself

put this

heading

the

under

Trinitarian
then

4Abd

discussion

united

and this

to be relying

seems

al-Jabbr

by Abii 'Ali

made earlier

to be independent

appear
35
Gods.

implicit

issues

Jacobites

If only one hypostasis

would

independent

the

of

deity.
the
of

two

other

three

In this

of

conception

the

entail

a discussion

in

the

Christ,

with

seem

would

to

had been

on statements

i.

al-Jubba

Christian

From

I explained

side Timothy

to al-Mahdi,

the king clothes

itself

his mind

cannot

be said to do the same,

separated

from

themselves

his

it

word,

cannot

on our human

Father

and the Spirit,

36
on our human body.

problem

ceased to be united
was discussed

which

only the humanity

The Melkites

unaffected.
fact

of Christ

limit

death

contradiction

only

in their

to

problem
maintain

that

The

hand, while

all the suffering-

been

separated

from

the

be said to have put

Nestorians

on the other

of

them,

and death

saying that

the

Thus
were

Julianists,

of Christ

that

maintained
of Christ

the divinity

Christ.

The Monophysites
of

clothe

died. He points out that

37
death.
This was indeed a

and died while

sect

they

not

when Christ

man or suffered

humanity

that

said

cannot

suffered

the

his soul and

while

the Word of God, because

having

by Christians.

doctrine.

and an extremist

be

and the Spirit

of deity

with

as the word of

and as his soul and his mind while

without

the Father

yet

it is written,

nevertheless

body

He moves on to discuss the nature

God either

on which

So also is the case with

the papyrus.

with
He put

although

the papyrus

with

the caliph,

was

God died, they in

there

seems

by this

also troubled
went

so far

were only apparent

some

as to
and not

real.

This criticism

of

4Abd

al-Jabbr

has some similarities

with

Abu

isa

s al-Radd.

38

************
5Abd

al-Jabbr

Gospels

then

and their

turns

procedure

his attention

to the sources

of transmission.

35.
36.

of Christianity

He attempts

to subject

Ibid., P. 140.
Trois Traites.
Wood Brooke
Cheikho,
P. 7, A. Mingana,
Vol. XII (1928) PP. 162-163.
37.4Abd
a1-J abbr, a1-Mughni, P-139.
is,
1-9,
PP.
Paras I-VI and XXVI.
38.
Ab
al-Radd,

17Z

studies

i. e., the
this to an

B. J. R. L,

analysis

basis

the

on

of

('aql)

reason

feature

is a distinctive

which

the

of

Mu'tazilites.

4Abd al-Jabbr

argued

revelation

4Abd
What
al-Jabbr
say anything

here is that

is saying
God which

about

does say anything

revelation

interpreted

by reason.

God, which

about

in accordance

for true revelation

it is impossible

be supported

cannot

for

of knowledge

a source

of being

it is capable
39
of reason.

the requirements

so called

(same) is not

of God unless

the attributes
with

that

if any

Therefore

contradict

to

that

reason,

for
be
This
the
opens
an attack on the Gospels,
way
must
rejected.
revelation
CAbd
for putting
forward the
have been responsible
al-Jabbr,
who according to
irrational
not

doctrines

be established

hand,

did not contradict

On the

basis

concept

of

have

been

after

the

of

him

is one

that

limited

of the

books

their

facts.

by a large

was transmitted

could

them

of
40

number

and forged

they altered

revelation

mentioned

in their

distorts

He

and

majority

and

features

other

as

resemblance

time

victim,
that

and it

they

that

crucifixion

is surely

(4:
157)
well-established
was

and the

He
of the prophet.
41
Qu? 5n.
This interpretation
by most

of the

because

possible,

a miracle

could

a confusion

caused

(i. e. Christ)

of a prophet

by the

such possibility

of

He claimed

person.

in the

the

that

He argued

of event.

Christian

the

attacked

demonstrate

to

sought

understanding

the

he further

argument,

Christ.

of

occurred

about

position

above

and the

Christ's

that

that

the sense or reason.

confused

such incident
took

Muslim

crucifixion

killing

between

indications

He argued

accept.
because

as authentic

because of the clear

On the other

Christians

that

substitute
his

supported
of the

verse

in such

commentators

way.

However,
crucified.
Christian
had

not

4Abd

al-Jabbr

The crucifixion
faith
been

fails

of Christ

and connected
universally

'Abd

39.
40.

al-Jabbr,
Ibid., P. 143

41.

Ibid., P. 143.

to investigate

with

recognised

al-Mughni,

why the substitute

is a central

and perminent

the doctrine

of Redemption.

and

PP. 14Z-143.

173

it

may

well

be

of Christ
feature

that

of the

However,
the

was

it

Muslim

of it was influenced

understanding
'Abd

al-Jabbr

the Christians

accused

as Nestorius

and Jacob

and so on.

Gospels are far away from

with

that

In this way he quoted

"That

answered,

knowledge

now he must of firm

is feminine

about

life

their

of a rational

one of his companions

in gender. "

as the

such

Along
4Z
thinking.

asked a Christian,

(h"ayt) ". The Christian

as Son not the life

it is a daughter

that

sources

blindly

and incarnation.

as the Trinity

His follower

argued

of God, because

quality

be inferior

to God.

or inferior,

be superior

form
be
could not
a

that

1}ayt (life)

have a wife,

Theodore
Cheikho,

because

Qurra

such an argument

there

over Christ.
but

there

excellent

some

procession

there

Arabic

work

in applying
He argued

qualities

and mastery.

This

so it could

since

the father's

object
not

the mastery

authority

over

would be like Him.

in this way God must

43
and effective
mastery.
that

by
edited
and published
sa)
(ra
in the reference
the mastery
that

that

is no comparison
by

as Him,

and argued

would be complete

in his

God must have

an object.

His mastery,

so it must be like

He must have a Son, that

in some qualities,
are

and have

Since He has to express

involved
be
to
seems

of God's mastery

be eternal

of subjugation,

mocked

Ab

must

(d. 8Z0) the Melkites,

Son on the basis that

it must be the same nature

Consequently

IAbd
al-Jabbr

Ab Qurra

of Theodore

God must have an eternal

So this

mastery.

generation,

original

is masculine

an explanation

that

who claimed

the son.

While

leaders

religious

in gender.

He also reported

cannot

their

the requirements

a dialogue that
Film (knowledge)

"Why do you explain

of following

such doctrines
do not fulfil

doctrines

their

by Docetis-w,.

was

Adam

and God seem to be equal

between

which

As Adam

them.

Adam
was born

In the same way

resembles

God,

and proceeded

i. e.,
from

42.

Ibid., P. 144

43.

Ibid., PP. 144-145

in Ab Qurra's own words is given in G.
The full version of the argument
Graf, ed., Die Arabischen
des Theodore Abu Qurra, Poderborn,
Schriften
1910, Mimar VII, PP. 184-188. CF. PG, Vol. 97, Col 1557D -1561D.
Cited by S. H. Griffith,
The Controversial
theology of Ab Qurra, PP. 17ZPh. D thesis, submitted
176. (Unpublished
University
to the Catholic
of
1978).
America,

174

Him,

'Abd

He too became

al-Jabbr's

involved
are
his Ris i a.

a Father

in blind
45

of the

criticism

reason
leaders

and consequently

four

is incritical

faith

their

early

the

criticised

behind

his
argument
and

evangelists

of their

initiation

Al-Jhiz

from
born
those
who were
of

and Master

leaders,

is taken

acceptance

Him.

Christians

that

1
iz in
al-J

from

the

of

the

that

and asserted

evangelists

44

doctrines

their

of

in anthropomorphism.

belief

************
1Abd al-Jabbr

then

to

turns

the

criticism

He maintained
that Christ
worship of Christ.
4Abd
to show
tried
al-Jabbr
worshipped.
the different

among
and

therefore

debating
Christ

points

be

Christian
worshipped?

being

that

point

something

nature

like human being.

out that

He died and suffered

Christ

himself

pain.

Such a person

must

restrict

say that

themselves

they worship

those who alleged

Christ
that

44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

other

that

action

trivial

such

that

him to

entitles

he seems to be using the

who maintained

then Eternal

that

cannot

that

God would be

God and called

worshipped

in Christ

be an adored

to worshipping

according

others

to

one as it

Christ

They cannot
subject.
4Abd
criticised
al-Jabbr

should be worshipped,
for

good

(ed) Mayrnar li-Tadrus

Cheikho,
PP. 825-26.
Risla, PP. 24-25.
Al-Jhiz,
'Abd al-Jabbr,
P. 146.
al-Mughni,
Ibid., P. 146.
Ibid., PP. 146-47.

human

Ab

175

CAbd
to
al-Jabbr,

the divine

as he is in both natures.

and all who had done

prophets
48
worship and adoration.

divine
are

and contradiction.

two natures
only

existed

which

of Christ

Julianists

He argues

God and

he goes on to argue

Again

as God.

and

adoration

to become

seen

any divine

to that.

was God.
47

would lead to an anthropomorphism

Those sects who maintained

already

systematically,

perform

the

inconsistency

the

We have

Christ

regard

is not entitled

He asked what parts

God is entitled

the Christians

He goes on to point
do so.

used.

Only

in his human

Christ

More

body cannot

as a corporeal

be worshipped.

sects.
46

of

possibility

Qurra,

beings

by arguing
would

Al-Machriq,

that

be entitled

other
to

Vol. XV (1912)

humanity),
of

His Son praised

eternity

like

person.

That

In this

the worship

is discussed

by Timothy

our human

He answers

as God, because

like

the

similar

argument

4Abd
to

further
He
-

as such he is the receiver

and terrestrial

but he worshipped

as a man, son of

for

our sake,

(or inherence)

is totally

and prayed
50
,
and prayer.

of

in conjunction

being,

and prayed

worshipped

was in no need of worship

himself

adored

and

worshipping
49
to be used about the Eternal God.

of both the celestial

and the Spirit,

kind.

I.

that

alleged

way.

and worship

and prayer

the Father

way

the

made

earlier

the Son is equal in divinity

while

impossible
as an

was regarded

did not pray

they

(on the grounds

the Christians

that

argued

Him

and worshipped

in the following

al-Jabbr's

with

Him
God.

This problem

"Christ

Qsim b. Ibrahim

as Imm

been applied

has
already
and

This is not a new criticism

because

he

************
4Abd

al-Jabbr's

by his Mu'tazilite

it is clear

Christian

oriental
put into

Jabbr

that

realise

particular,
characterises

that

behind

the philosophy
that

background.
to use trivial

quite prepared

However,

their

the doctrine

to defend

formula

Him both mortal

real union between

in
Asia
was

did

as Mu'tazilite

not

of

and immortal,

who especially

arguments

of incarnation.

But one must

is

possible

discussed

to understand

was unable

is obvious
4Abd
alwhich

in general

incarnation

It

(Abd
al-Jabbr
and to
self

and impossible.

the presetation

of the oriental
the
understancL

doctrines,
has accused them /not
51
God and man.
He also pointed out the reason
an old myth

soul coming

down

and said,
to earth,

'al
Qsim b. Ibrhim,
in R. D. Studi Orientali,
al-Radd
al-Nasr,
(1921-3), P. 312.
Wood Brake
Studies,
B. J. R. L, Vol. XII, (1928),
A. Mingana,
Cheikho, Trois Traites, P. 9.
in Asia, P. 72.
L. E. Brown, The Eclipse of Christianity

176

in
It

contradictory.

of their

of the divine

he is

as ridiculous,

incarnation.
of

use the

the union

polemists

influenced

it.

of the union

apologists

Christian

scholars

51.

al-Jabbr

to Muslim

Christian

50.

4Abd

the doctrine

to ridicule

arguments

according

L. E. Brown,

49.

As he regards

mouth

However,

"There

of the incarnation

critique

and

Vol. IX,
P. 167.,

being

clothed

the garment

with

the Creator

in the absolute

same

believe

in the unity

way,

Damascus

of

of Christ,

(the Nestorians)

days of His sojourn

they

for oriental

gap between
in

to believe

writers

God and man. "53

John

In the

actions

it was very difficult

and creature,

a real union between

"They

itself from
52
home. -

said,

this sort of idea in the air, and also the belief

"With

freeing

and eventually

its way back again to its heavenly

finding
and

this encumberance

He further

humanity,
of

the humbler

things

to

by the Lord in the

wrought

to His manhood;

us solely

to God the Word,

attribute

failing

when he said,

attribute

with

for

the Nestorians

criticised

the loftier

while

and they do not attribute

and divine

both together

to one and the same person. "54

L. E. Brown
"We find

in many

of these

the perfect

express

his criticism

concludes

in Arabic

writing

were

who were

this

have

may

scholars
that

In

believe

to

Christians

been

facing

that

up under

incarnation,
presentations

understand
it

might
of

that

had

they

in pure unity

is true

that

the Muslim
discuss

to

their

ideas to their

in

scholars
fellow

One of the reasons

doctrines

their

of God without

they

and some to Him as

Christian

rule.

to

of actions

oriental

to present

tried

in Christ,

two sets

were

they

attributing

with
anything

for

Muslim
to God

like His creatures.

Abd
be

human

and the

there

much

to Him as divine,

difficulties

may make Him something

to

it

that

brought

who believed

order

the idea that

could be attributed

some of which
55
human. "

has reasons

divine

the

however

that,

writers

between

union

Christ,

One

oriental

get away from

could scarcely

by saying,

al-Jabbr's

useful

doctrine

to

which

look
gAbd

52.
53.

Ibid., P. 70.
Ibid., P. 70-

54.

Migne, P. G. XCN,
"De Haeresibus",
in Asia, P. 72.
Eclipse of Christianity

55.

Ibid., P. 72.

177

and

critique
at

the

al-Jabbr

Col.

740,

understanding

of

the

some of the Christian

may have been familiar

cited

by Brown

in his

with.
discussed

It

is

It

noticeable

seem

incarnation

appropriate

al-Jabbr

while

Christians

held

necessary

for

Qurra,

According

to them

there

this family

family.

his

incarnation

union of
'Abd
that

philosophy.

believed

it

that

are few

was

reasons

from

towards

Ab Qurra

to

example

heaven

within

and manifested

person

him

handicapped

and he himself

a signal

come again with

"that

through

for
does
the deaf.
man

his hands.

Cheikho, Vingt
Ibid., P. 113.

for

Himself

in our substance

and

within

for
many years
us

and

our speech

PP. 110-111.

178

His humanity

Then He raised
56
His blessing.

Himself,

we may be

so that

He illustrated
who was deaf

In this

way

organised,

did
He
what
one of us and

Traites,

them

it by an
and dumb.

he benefited

the

anything.

who is well

nature. "57

and

was suitable

to serve a person

So He characterised

he mixed

honoured

and affection.

was not losing

us through

us and addressed

of his kingdom,

the

God incarnated

willing

God Almighty

of a man like

an

made

us through

lived
and

and His love

So he gave

the image

a king

us in a way that

the laws of goodness.

explained,

His Trinity

In the same way,

way,

friends,
sons and

of a rational

He

suppose

Creator

the

the person in which

to his house and finally

the

lived
us,

and He will

further

to know

same

Himself

the heaven

that

behind

philosophy

us through

example,

be moved

with

from

us as brothers,

demonstrated

an

the

for his son to one of the families

the

and mingled

that

maintained

by

would

In

He came down

called

it

for marriage

that

wished

56.
57.

its

to

refer
they

of God to honour

illustrated

He

engagement

like

not

because

scholar

it is will

is that

inhered.

able

did

the

is surprising

It

of incarnation

salvation.

a Melkite

incarnation

us.

their

scholars

in the union of incarnation.

believe

with

criticising

behind

philosophy

scholars.

doctrine

this

the doctrine

the

examine

by oriental

is described

as it

oriental

less detail.

with

to

Trinity,

the

with

compared

the union of incarnation

would

Ab

that

in

we used to do and struggled

and showed
Himself

manifested

Himself

with

a signal,

as a rational

what

was not in His

Qurra

Abi

further

said,

the human being from

living.

"that

from
keep
away
and

slavery

it by an illustration,

He expressed

become

instead

Abix Qurra

He described

over adam.

from him as being,

an enemy,

a sheep's fleece
as

sheep

one

a long
strength

sheep

Such is the wisdom

Qurra

pointed

the

birth

wolf

Abi

Qurra

with

humanity,

it never

the crucifixion

Ibid., P. 114.

59.

Cheikho,

Vingt

"that

power

of His people

was near to them

vanished

the

the

sheep

wolf

the wolf

our Lord

him

saw what

the

had changed
turned

faith

their
"

to flight.

the people

up as a man and participated

and disappeared.

that

Ab
without
a

and then
among

life. "

since

divinity

united

In the same way, it was in

and in the grave up to the time

179

and drove

a pregnancy

for the rest of the world

PP. 116-117.

came,

did not come through

It was through

Christian

of the

wolf

and God is wiser and craftier.

of that

The man took

the

on the wolf

Satan used to regard

and brought

it is the

till

When

Therefore

birth.

sleeping

Traites,

his

absolute

who gained

the sheep.

them,

that

supposed

Because

"that

concluded,

58.

flock.

the

of the creature

and drinking,

heart

our

Satan

and seized

sheep jumped

and craft

the virgin

by

curse

and the delivery

from

powerful

out the philosophy

Mary

them in eating

the womb,

from

or by an extraordinary

born through

his servants

and put it on, and then stood in the midst

like wolves.

and determination.

stability
great

him

showed,

and became

nature

them

The disguised

separating

way,

and

in

creates

of Satan,

indistinguishable

them,

he

to work,

with

slavery

and saves us from

tore

his flock

to its custom.

according

compassionate
from

them

the conquest

who continually

of

the

the day, then

he was unable

like a man who had some sheep and there

from

from

and gave him full wages.

incarnation

His

death

after

out himself

only during

work

they were

any sin. "58

"that

life

about

is to free

the curse in which

saw that

who is very
freed

and

was without

maintained,

knowledge

wolf,

them

of

which

crucifixion

Christ

our Lord

In the same way,

worked

When his master

tired.

the incarnation

a man hired

could

for
him
the rest of the time
of

instead

worked

that

The person

end of the day up to the night.

he would

behind

the philosophy

with

"59
end.

Yahy

b. IcAdi was not

philosopher

(incarnation)

ta'anns

there

image

and
Him

comprehend

God is without
Consequently,

is a possibility
His

His essence

would

essence

describing

While

Christ

actions

and clear

without

sexual

complete
one thing,
separate

Again

There

that

there

through

(ha " ), so His image

is a possibility

distinction

Christ,

of

from

So we distinguish
is a union,

one.

expression

incarnate

without

transferring

human

"that

there

existence

through

when our

nature

a discordant

is no other
the divine

with

was conceived

the characteristic

would be two combined

there

one, cannot

4Adi
Ibn
seeks to prove

leave

of

things

as

its parts

or

divinity

that,

that

infinite

can unite

by Paul of Sidon, a famous

and explanation

as a complete
from

that

When they are not one, they will not be united. "62

He maintained

become

Him

when it is continuously

4Abd
to
al-Jabbr
63

scholar

be His essence.

would

and

his early

of fact,

As a matter

impossible

he said,

and

one can say that

In the same way, nobody

signs and miracles.

Almighty

of union between

is not

It

reason.

When there

is another

is affirmed,

"60
Him.
with

the other

with the finite.

God

His image.

in which

of God through

His essence, it must be united

relation.

contrary

know

can

about
CAbd
Like

of view,

That requires

and one thing

from

One
When that

who was characterised

union.

his point

also a

arguing

a man.

be in our reason.

the

except

it.

can illustrate

matter

to become

to establish

his reason.
Him)

While

al-Frbi.

means

but

polemist,

of one being able to conceive

with

primordial

he concluded

God's
and
61
theory.

union

knowing

reason comprehends

it

that

a long argument

through

(while

his reason

philosopher

he explained

he said, "that

Finally,

famous
of

he presented

al-Jabbr

human

only

and disciple

and Christian

a theologian

"the

human being

Son that

Eternal
through

and separating

is the

the Holy Spirit

from

His

Melkite
Word

has

and Mary,

essence,

as the

word

60.
61.
6Z.
63.

4Adi,
Yahy b.
Mag .1t,
ed A. Perier, PP. 74-75.
Ibid., P-75.
Ibid., PP. 84-85.
_
'Adi,
Yahy
b.
The
Apologatic
Henry,
Robert
of
writings
(Unpublished
1973).
Ph. D. thesis of Hertford
Seminary Foundation,

180

P. 90.

from
his
intellect
becomes
is
letter,
being
and
produced
human
a
or speech of a
In
terms
ink,
it
is
of
paper
then
city.
and
to
taken
can be torn,
which
another
or burnt,

but in terms

is intellect
from

there

of word or speech,

is the source of production

which

is no interence

being any separation

there

without

It

of accidents.

it.

In this way, we can say that

and in

is Eternal,

terms
through

miracles

performed

his human nature.

Both

hot through

it becomes

of

the Lord
son of

Jesus Christ
Mary,

His divine

is created

in terms

of fire,

of the Word of God

and temporal.

So He

and showed his weakness

nature

acts are by one Christ.

fire,

in terms

Similarly

a piece

it can burn and light,

through

of iron

when

and in terms

of iron, it can be broken, fold up and cut. Nothing can enter the nature of fire.
C,
So such/piece is one that consists of two natures, i. e. simple nature, where is no
interence

of any accident

and the other

is physical

nature

which

is able to carry

the accidents.

Our doctrine,
substance

unites

It dominates
but only
Creator

64.

that

fire.

the Lord

with physical

the physical
Since

this

Vingt

dominates

is applicable

Traites,

being

divine
when

(latif)

nature.

fire
as

is more appropriate

Cheikho,

Jesus is God, comes into

wood.

to the union

to be called

P. 14.

181

something

Nobody

fire
says

of the created
64
like that.

and wood,
things,

the

CONCLUSION

This
were
the

works

of earlier
works

such

Such scholars

naturally

fully

was

polemicist

by

the

of

to

able

rely

in terms

from

their

Christian

doctrines

The authors

Muslim

their

that

theology.
theological

own

that

approach

two

a considerable

scholars.

of

of

on these

on

of

which

hypostases

three

development

subjects

doctrines

treatise

by Muslim

written

clear

such

of

been

gradual

these

it seems

aware

has

the

major

In his polemical

mostly

addressed

However,

of thought.

school

influenced

were

Christ.

Christian

doctrine

the

al-Jabbr

in Arabic

the

of

namely
of

(Abd

Christianity,

of

number

Muslims,

incarnation

and the

Trinity

concerned

to the

unacceptable

aspects

of

has been

thesis

two

with

Muslim

every

may

his

contradict

basic belief.

This

attitude

belief

that

Christian

late

the

writers

third

They

differences

less

literature

attitude

Unity

of

their

criticism.

it they

also

who in their

the

longer
and no

Muslim

general

the

reflected

between

arguments
presentation

of

further
of similar

the

for

Abi

`A1i's

approach

in a more

has also followed

true

doctrine

the

They

theologians

the Unity

of

This
also

and

discussion.

arguments
1Ali
Abu

arguments

Kullbiyya
by
used

and

`:\bd

and

method.

doctrines
in

rigid

is
their

Trinity

is an even

it

priority

first

In their

attack

in

upon

and Ash'arites,

Kullbiyya

the

of God.

in
attacking
and
God.

give

God.
of

to the Unity
like

the

of

systematic

their

more

even

were

century

doctrines

Christian

towards

Christianity.
and

contrary

of Christian

a summary

they

them

doctrines

attributes

their

because

Muslim

Trinitarian

century/tenth

of Mu'tazilites

had also compromised

views,

about

as totally

fourth

early

`Abd al-Jabbr

others

Islam

other

and

with

works

sects.

Thus

attacked

in criticising

their

God.

saw the doctrine

Jabbr's

by

reinforced

corrupted

developed

and approach
than

of

issue

central

began

Christian

sympathetic

more

terms

usually

the

doctrine

Both

was

century

century/ninth

among

However,
even

theology
had been

scriptures

of anti-Christian

manner.

They

Christian

of Christ.

teaching

In

towards

can
even

Kullbiyya

the
be seen
morn

al-Jabbar
in t xplainin-_

in ': bbd

precisely
described)
the

they

al-Jabbr's
in

}tho

doctrine

used

`.bbd

al-

Trinity

in

of divine

attributes.

The

Jabbr's

The

4Abd al-Jabbr

of

knowledge
doctrines,

'1s

Jubbi,

Ab

them.

It seems

an independent

were some
on the

Hazm

not

internal
only

However,

one

goes

to rAbd

have

originally

imported

'Abd

Clearly
incarnation
discussion

himself

did

there

not

sometimes
habit

to

to be

ie
but

main

tawhid.

continued

to

In the

later

period

forward

way

of

had

been

not

Christianity.

This

its authentication

is not

of the

that

Ibn

Gospels.

of the

there

al-Jabbr,

concen-

traditional

criticism

fact

There

tried

as

origins

of the

a detail

discussion

how

of

the

pure

and

true

teaching

of

Christ

conceive

of

the

doctrine

of

the

Trinity

and

and

for

this

he

included

his

devoted

specially

to

chapter

of tawhid.

the

polytheism
in

volume

some

five

the

inadequacies

principle

Kullabiyya

doctrines

to Christians

reed-ting
inconsistent

arguments

same

about

al-Mughni,

in 'Abd

arguments

183

the

al-Jabbr's

of establishing

he established

especially

reason,

under

has
he
applied
way
sect,

the

of

al-usl-al-Khamsa

He was in the habit

In the same

attributed
of

but

are

apply

and dht.

applicable

textual

historical

put

the

issues

'Abd
of

inspite
he

in shark

his criticism.

presenting

words

who

al-Warrq

doctrines.

to the

time
the

cannot

religionsand

of

the

only,

Christianity

that

his

that

was

to them.

anything

of

polytheistic

Inspite

his study

from

al-Jabbr
as

'Isa

doctrinal

the

on

upto

diverted

to

was not

framework.

Mu'tazilite
a

within

in Christian

contradiction

al-Jabbr

doctrines

differences,
of

points

as Ab

such

In his Tathbit,

confirmed.

seems

him,

say that

real

doctrines

who had investigated

scholar

Christians

the

Christian

concentrated

can

the

al-

referred

Mu'tazilites,

the

of

as Ab

'Ali

information.

but also he extended

criticism,

jawhar

for

principle

of

he often

In other

doctrine.

such

first

to investigate

before

scholars

trate

fully

affirm

discussed

al-Jabbr

of

such

Christian
of

his study

behind

the

Mu'tazla,

his

that
Christian

reFutation

his discussion

During

z.

analysis

on his own teachers

to rely

credit

impartial
to

only

intention

the

he was unable

Evidently

single

that

from

to indicate

seems

In his

hand.

teachers

and al-Jhi;;

al-Warrq

and

was

purpose

IAbd

on his early

he depended

first

was not

doctrines

two

these

about

doctrines

these

of

of attributes

of the Trinity.

understanding

study

doctrine

Kullabivva's

Ab

influenced

1Abd aland

rAli

in the
which
again

can

see

arguments

case

they
and

as he leaves

of

never
again,
the

in the

which

the

word

held.
and
basic

while

and then

a principle

as one
such

arguments

he

case

were
ma`n.

of

only
He

He was also in
sometimes
discussion

he
and

jumps

has
done
he
particularly
one as

to another

he is unable to differentiate

and sometimes
'Abd

Christian

with
his

on the

polemic.

incarnation

position

For

irrational

illogical,

man.

on this

This
and

of Christ.

and nature

person

The

'Abd
may have led

subject,

in the

is made

his argument

main

and impossible.

He fails

belief

that

the crucifixion

omission

puts

the

Christian

he

should

have

dealt

stronger.

183A

with

fact

were

doctrine
it

in

for

that

al-Jabbr

order

Christian

in

of incarnation

as

necessary
an
to

was arguing

to be less systematic

for

the

the salvation

of

the Christian

in

right

by the Christian

him

doctrine

the

to discuss

and their

is quite

of these sects.

easier

rejects

on the incarnation.

sometimes

al-Jabbr

the doctrines

incarnation

of the

critique

al-Jabbr's

disputes

1Abd

doctrines,

In the case of the sects and their

in the section

for

reason

ridiculous

unjustifiably

have

made

his

argument

APPENDIX

Recent Studies on
I.

'Abd

and his work

al-Jabbr

Books:

(Abd
1.
al-Sattr.,

'Uthmn,
Z.

a1-Aq1

A. Karim.,

about

wa
'Abd

Beirut,

1980.

Qdi

al-Hurriyya,

'Abd

al-Qudt,

J. G. T. M.,

comprehensive

biography

Jabbr)

1967.

Beirut,

George F.,

Hourani,

(A
al-

1976.

Leiden,

The Ethics

'fAbd

of

Speech, (A study in the

'Abd
theology
alof

God's Created

Jabbr)

b.

a1-Jabbr

al-Hamadni,

speculative

4.

study

thoughts)

a1-Jabbr's

Ahmad

3. Peters,

(A

1Abd

of

a1-Jabbar,

Oxford,

1971.

5. McDermott,

The Theology

M. J.,

(A

of al-Shaikh
al-Mufid,
'Abd
Comparison
of
al-Jabbr's

theology
Mufid)

6. Monnat,

2. Doctoral

Uthmn,
1.

of

al-Shaikh

al-

1978.

Beirut,

Musulmans

Penseurs

Guy.,

that

with

Iraniennes.

(fAbd

Devanciers

Beyrouth,

Religions

Et

al-Jabbr

et

Ses

of

Abd

1974.

thesis:

Nazriyya

A. Karim.,

al-Taklif,

theology).
approved

184

speculative

about

al-Jabbi

(opinions

by

doctoral

dissertation

al-Azhar

University

Cairo,

1965 and later

Beirut,

1971.

published

from

Z. Katz,

Judith.,

Reason

translation

annotated

from

Tawlid

al-Mughni,

for

dissertation

University

degree

the

and

of Doctor
by

approved

California,

of

alsmall

with

Philosophy

of

Kitb

of

introduction).
submitted

(An

Responsibility,

and

Berkeley,

1975. (unpublished).

3. A1-Musawi,

Muhammad

Jawd

Hasan Hshim,

The

Philosophical

problem

relation

between

revelation,

A dissertation

for

the

degree

Philosophy

and

University

and

reason

submitted
doctor

of

of
by

approved

1976.

Edinburgh,

of

the

of

(unpublished).

3. Articles:

"The

1. Pines, Shlomo.,

of

of Christianity

centuries
a

Christians

Jewish

Israel

Academy

early
to

according

Proceeding

source",

new

the

the

of

Sciences

of

and

Vol. II (1966) PP 237-310

Humanities,
(Jerusalem).

"Israel

Z. Ide m,

and the Sonship

My Firstborn"

of Jesus,
in

Studies
ed.

Mysticism
Ur, alch

F.

E.

(Jerusalem,

Arabic

Jewish

Proceedings
Academy
XXXV
York)

185

and

others.

1967) PP. 177-190.

Materials

"Judaeo-Christian

3. Idem,

Religion,

and

(1967),

an

Treatise",
of

for

in

Jewish

the

American

Research,

PP. 187-217.

Vol.
(New

4. Stern, S. M.,

"New

Light

Encounter,

on Judaeo-Christianity",
XXVUI,

Vol.

No 5 (1967),

PP. 53-57

5. Idem,

"t Abd

al-Jabbr's

Account

Religion

was falsified

Christ's
Adoption

Roman

of

Journal

How

of

by the

Customs, "

of Theological

Studies,

Vol.

XIX (1968), PP. 1Z8-185.

6. Ide m,

"Quotation
in

from

'Abd

Apocryphal

Journal

al-Jabbr",

Theological

Studies,

Gospels
of

(1967),

Vol. XVIII

PP. 34-57.

Idem,

8. Bammel,

Ernst.,

'Abd

al-Jabber,

Islam,

Vol. I, PP. 59-60 (New edition)

"Excerpts
Novum

Encyclopaedia

from

New

Testamentum,

Vol.

of

Gospel? "
X (1968),

PP. 1-9.

9" Schwarz,

Michael.,

"The

fAbd

Qadi

Refutation

the

of

Oriental

Studies,

translation
Mughni,

Vol.
(It

of

in the Teaching
Le

Israel
(1976),

VI

is

annotated

Chapter

of

al-

Vol. VIII.

"The Autonomy

R. M.,

Doctrine

(Kasb)",

PP. ZZ9-Z63.

10. Frank,

As(arite

'Acquisition'

of

al-Gabbr's

Museon,

of the Human Agent

fAbd
of
al-Gabbr, "

Vol.

VC

No

(1982),

PP. 323-355.

11. Hourani,

George

"The

F.,

Rationalist

Jabbr"
Islamic

186

Ethics

of

(Abd

in S. M. Stern and other

Philosophy

and

al(eds)
the

Classical
to

Richard

(Oxford

1Z. Bouman,

J.,

"The
the

Tradition,

Essays presented
PP. 105-115

Walzer,

1972).

Doctrine
Qur'an

'Abd

of

as the

on

a1-Djabbr

Created

Word

of

aspects

of

Allah, " in:

verbum,
the

(Utrecht

Robert.,

on some
functions

religious

dedicated

13. Brunschvig,

essays

to

Mu'tazilite

W.

H.

words,
Obbink,

1964) PP. 67-86.

Rationalite
1'analogie

Dr

of

tradition

et

juridico-religieuse
'Abd

dans
Chez le

al-Jabbr,

Arabica,

Vol XIX (1972), PP. 213-2Z1.

14. Khodeiri,

Mahmoud

Deux nouvelles

el.,

Qadi

Sections

'rAbd al-Jabbr,

(1958), PP. 417-414.

187

du Moghni

MIDEO,

Vol.

du
V

BIBLIOGRAPHY
rAbd

Q41 al-Qudt

al-Jabbr,

al-Hamadni.,

Idem,

Sharki a1-Usl al-Khamsa,

ed.
rUthmn.
K.
(Cairo, 1965)
A.

fi Abwb

Al-Mughni
'radl, Various

Idem,

Idem,

1958-65)

Tathbit

Dal 'o'il al-Nubwa,

2 vols. (Beirut,

A1-Ash&ri

Ab al-Vasan

b. Ism! il,

Athwater,

Donald.,

Taklif,

Vol. I, ed. J. J. Houben,

tan Usl al-Diyna,

Al-Ibna

1980)

Kitb

Maqlt

IkhtilXf

al-Musallin,

ed. Helmut

Ritter,

(Wiesbaden,

1963)

Christian

The

al-Islmiyyin

Church

wa

East,

the

of

1961)

Trikh

al-Khatib.,

bi- al-

al-Muhit

1965)

(London,

Al-Baghddi,

1966)

al-Majm4

(Haydrabad,

Idem,

fi

ed. A. K.

Kitb

(Beirut,

Wi

eds. 16 vols.

(Cairo,

tthmn,

wa al

al-Tawhid

Baghdad,

vols.

(Cairo,

(Beirut,

1973)

14

1931)

A1-Baghddi,

Abu Mansur,

Abd al-Qhir.,

bayn al-Firaq,

Al-Farq
Tr.

K. C. Seely,

Sects, (New York,

A1-Bgillni,

Abi

Bakr Muhammad

b. al-Tayyib.,

Kitb

Hamdi.,

Muhwara

al-Mahdi

m2Timtwis,
Vol.
(Cairo)

188

(Beirut,

Majt111a Kulliyya
XII,

(1950),

Schism

and

1920)

al-Tamhid,

R. J. McCarthy,

Bakri,

Moslem

Part

ed.
1958)

al-db,
Z, PP. 41-47.

Idem,

Risla

al-Hshimi

il al-Kindi,

(1947), Part

Baker,

Bethune,

F. N.,

al-Adb,

Vol. I

2, PP. 29-49.

(Cairo)

Kulliyya

Majalla

Nestorius
(Cambridge,

L. E.,

Brown,

The

John Henry,

Blunt,

Eclipse

of

Anwar

in Asia,

Christianity

(Cambridge,

1933)

Dictionary

of

(London,

Teaching,

1908)

Sects

Heresies

and

Parties,

Ecclesiastical

Chejne,

his

and

1874)

gAbbd
G., Mu4am mar ibn
al-Sulami,

Muslim

World, Vol. LI

(1961), PP. 311-320.

Celebi,

Ktib,

Hajji

Khalif a.,

Kashf

vols.

(Istanbul,

Theologiques,

(9th-13th

al-Zunn,

1941)

Cheikho,

P. L., (editor)

Traites

Vingt

Arabic

centuries)
(Beirut,

Trois

Idem,

1920)

Traites

Anciens,

Arabic

(Beirut,

1923)

Idem,

li-tadrus

Maymar

AbI Qurra,

Vol. XV, (191Z) PP. 825-

Al-Machriq,
842

Crow,

D. K., The death of al-Husayn

(A1i
B.
and early

Shi'i views

Imamate,
Husayn

in

al-Sert,

Conference

on the
Imm

The

Number,

Vol.

XII

(1984) PP. 78-81

A1-Duwayhi,

Mar Istifn.,

(Beirut,

Douglas,

fa
al-Ta'i

Trikh

The

J. D.,

New

a,

Dictionary

of

1890)

International

the Christian

189

rniyy
al-M

Church,

(Exeter,

1974)

The Encyclopedia

Encyclopedia

of Islam,

of Religion

First

(Leidon

edition,

and Ethics,

of Alexandria.,

Eutychius

1913-1938),

(London

and Leidon,

1960 continuing)

13 voll,

(Edinburgh,

1908-1926)

Kitb

al-Burhn,

C-achia,

ed. Pierre

Majid.,

History

Frank,

R. M., "The Divine

Attributes

al-Hudhayl

"Ab Hshim's

"States",
of

Theory

Philosophy,

al-'AL1

of Abu

f, " Le Museon,

Vol

(1969) PP. 451-506.

LXXXII,

Idem,

by W.

1970)

to the Teaching

according

of

1960-61)

Islamic

of

(New York,

Book

Translated

(Louvain,

M. Watt,

Fakhry,

The

2 vols,

Demonstration,

New edition,

its Structure

and Function,

"

Actas

do IV Congress

de Estudos

Finkkl :, Joshua.,

A Risala

Arabes

e Islamicos,

of al-Jahiz,

(Leiden,

1971), PP. 85-100

Journal

of

Society,

Vol.

Oriental

American
XLVII

(1927),

PP. 313-

334

A1-Ghazli,

Abii Hmid

Muhammad.,

Al-Radd,

al-Jami1

li_Uluhiyya

Abd
al-Injil,
ed.
al -'Aziz
(Cairo,
Hilmi,
1974)
al-Hagq
qarih

Guillaume,

A., Theodore

Abi

Qurra,

Muslim

World,

is

'Abd

Vol. XV (19Z5), PP. 42-

51.

Griffith,

Sidney H., Habib ibn Hidmah

Abt

R ith, Orien

Christians,

Vol.

(1980), PP. 161-ZO1

Idem,

4Ammr

a1-Basri's

Kitb

al-Burhn,

Le Museon,
PP. 145-181

190

bi_

Vol. VIC (1983),

LXIV

L., "The Incarnation"

Hodgson,

A. E. J. (ed) Essays on the Trinity

in Rawlinson,

(London,

and the Incarnation,

b. Ayyb.,

Al-Hasan

al

Al-Radd

in Ibn Taymiyya,

al-Nasr,

1928)

al-

al-Jawb

Sahih, Vol. II, PP. 31Z-363.

V. A.,

Harvey,

Headlam,

Ibn Hazm,

A. C.,

Abi

Handbook

'Ali

Muhammad,

Ibn al- md, Ibn al-Falh'Abd

b. Ahmad.,

al-Hayy.,

Terms,

Theological

of

(London,

1964)

Christian

Theology,

(Oxford,

Al-Fisal

fi al-Milal

wa al-Ahw'

al-Nihal,

5 vols. (Cairo,

Shadhrt

al Dhahab

1934)

1899)

fi Akhbar

Dhahab,

2 vols. (Beirut,

Tabaqt

al-Mdtazila,

wa

man

)
d.
n.

All

Ibn Mu; 1tad, Ahmad

b. Yahy.,
A.

Ibn al-Nadim,

Muhammad

Ibn Taymiyya,

Taqiyy

b. `Ali.

al-Din

Kitb

Ahmad.,

(Egypt,

al-Fihrist,

al-Sahih

al-Masih,

4 vols, (Cairo,

Idem,

Minj"aj al-Sunna,

Idem,

Al-Radd

Ab Ja'far

Kitb

Muhammad,

Said b. Mansiir.,

al-Tawhid,

Tangih
ed.

*11

Ab

A1-Jahiz,

(Amr.,

A1-Radd

'al

ed. H. al-Husayni

1967)
li-Milal

a1-Thalth,

Moshe
(California,
2
in J. Fin1d1

al-Nasr,

Raslil
(Cairo,

191

)
d.
n.

al-Mantigiyyin,

(Tehran,

al-Abhth

Perlmann,
LTthmn

1905)

1942)

al-Tihrani,

Ibn Kammna,

Din

Baddal

4 vols, (Beirut,

'al

(Bombay,

1961)

1348/1928)

li-man

Al-Jawb

Ibn Bbawayh,

(Beirut,

li

Abi

1967)

tthmn

19Z6) PP. 10-38

Thalth

a1-J. hiz,

4Abd al-Malik

Al-Juwayni,

b. Yu-suf., Kitab

al-Shmil

I1-Irshd,

1969)

(Alexandria,

al-Nashshr,

Idem,

S.
A.
ed.

fit usl al-Din,

ed.

(Paris,

Luciani,

D.

J.

1938)

A., "Ghevond's

Jeffrey,

text

Umar Rad.,

Review,

(1944), PP. Z69-332

XXXVII

Muam

IEEand Leo

Theological

Harvard

Vol.

Kahhla

between

of the correspondence
III",

'Umar

(Beirut,

15 vols,

al-Mu? allifin,

1957)

Abi

Al-Khayyt,

al-Husayn

4Abd

Intisr

al-Rahim.,

wa al-Radd

(Beirut,

Al-Kindi,

Ysuf

Abi

Ya4qb., Al-Radd

al

1957)

ed and tr. A. Perier,

al-Nasr,

de Yahy

traue

a1 al-Rwandi,

Ben {Adi,

Chre tien,

L'orient

de

Revue

(1920-

XXII,

Vol.

Un

21), PP. 3-21

Al-Kindi,

Kelly,

Abd

al-Masih.,

J. N. D.,

Rislat

'Abd

Kindi,

(London

Early

Christian

a1-Masih

ibn

Ishq

al-

1870)

(London,

Doctrines,

1985)

Arabic

Lane, W. W.,

English

(Cambridge,

Loof,

Nestorius

Friedrich.,

of

Lexion,

vols,

1984)

and his Place in the History

Christian

Doctrine

(Cambridge,

1914)

Al-Mturidi,

Abu Mansur

Muhammad.,

Kitb

al-Tawhid,

1970)

192

ed. F. Khuleif,

(Beirut,

Mingana, A., "The Apology of Timothy

before the caliph

I the Patriarch

of

Ryland

John

Bulletin

Studies,

Mahdi, " Wood Brook

Library,

XII

Vol.

(1928) PP. 137-289

I

Muir,

W.,

The

Apology

of

Theology

of al-Shaikh

(London,

al-Kindi,

1887)

J. M.,

McDermott,

The

(Beirut,

Al-Nshi

Ab al-4Abbs

al-Akbar,

gAbd-Allh.,

1978)

Kitb

fl a1-Maglt,

al-Awsat

J. van Ess, (Beirut,

New Catholic

Oxford

Dictionary

of Christian

Church,

De L.,

1974)

(London,

Perier,

TRA IT ES

J. R. M. T.,

Al-Qsim

ibn Ibrahim

al-Hasani.,

Fathers,

and

1909)

YA-N
I-AAF/y
'-iQUES
F?
LO
APO -.,
iDE
(Paris,

Peters,

Church

Syriac

The

A., (ed) Tr -TITS

1967)

ed! F. L. Qoss and E. A. Livingstone,

(London,

O'Leary,

ed.

197 1)

17 vols, (Washington,

Encyclopedia,

al-Mufid,

Al-Radd

1920)

(Leiden,

God's Created

Speech,

(al

ed. I. di Matteo,

al-Nasar,

Confutazione
Zaydite
Degli

Controi

al-Qasim
Studi

Cristiani

b. Ibrahim,

Orientali,

1976)

dello
Rivista

IX

(1921-

(Beirut,

1980)

Vol.

3), PP. 301-364

Rwi,

'Abd

Richardson,

Al-eAgl

al-Sattr.,

A. and Bowden

John.,

(eds),

wa al-Hurriyya,

A New Dictionary
Theology,

193

(London,

of Christian
1983)

(ed),

Karl.

Rohner,

Encyclopedia

(London,

Theology,

of

1975)

Abu al-Fath

Al-Shahristani,

Muhammad

(Abd
b.
al-Karim.,
(London,

Nihal,
'Abd
Ab Nasr
al-Wahhb.,

Subki, Taj al-Din,

Tabagt

Kate

Sweetman,

J. W.,

Al-Tabari,

Kitb

al-Din

1906)

Islam

and Christian

al-Nasr,

Book

" eds. I. A. Khalife,

and

Z vols.

Theology,

1923)

A.

tr.

Religion

of

(Manchester,

Idem, "Al-Radd

(New

ed. A. Mingana,

(Manchester,

4al

Sect,

1945-67)

wa al-Dawla,

The

al-Kubr

1906)

York,

(London,

4Ali b. Rabbn.,

1846)

Schisms

Moslem

Chambers.,

wa al-

al-Milal

al-Shfiiyya

(Cairo,
vols.

Seelye,

Kitab

Mingana,

and

Empire,

1922)

W. Kutsch,

Melanges

St Joseph,

L'Universite

Vol.

de
XXXVI,

(1959) PP. 113-148

Thnawi,

Muhammad

'Ali.,
b.
Alta

Dictionary

of Technical
vols (Asiatic

(Uthmn,

iAbd

al-Karim.,

Nazriyya

al-Taklif,

Qdi
A4mad

Al-Warrq,

%
Muhammad
Ab

b. Harn.,

Al-Radd

Chretiennes,
duplicated

al-

1971)

'4Abd

al-Thalth

ed. A. Abel,

Refutation

eds, 2

of Be/gal, 1862)

al-Hamadni,
(al

various

tAbd al-Jabbr

(Beirut,

al-Qudt

Nasr,

194

Society

Aar al-Qdi
Kalmiyya,

Idem,

Terms,

des

b.

al-JabS"ar

(Beirut,

Firaq

1967)

min al-

Le Liv_ rtPour
Trois

(Brussels,

la

Sects

1949)

Watt,

W. Montgomery.,

Free

in early

and Predestination

will

(London,

Islam,

1948)

Philosophy

Islamic

Idem,

(Edinburgh,

1962,1985)

Account

"Ash - Shahristni's
Doctrines,
Christian

Ideen,

Theology,

and

"
(1983),

IX

Vol.

Islamochristiana,

Islamicus,

Hamdard

PP. 249-259.

of

Vol.

VI No 2 (1983), PP. 57-68

formative

The

Ide m_,

(Edinburgh,

Thought,

Waardenburg,

J., Two light

Islam

Medieval

Perceived,

The Muslim

Wiles, M., "Christianity

without

Incarnation"

Harry

(Harvard

Tijdschrift,

(London,

Creed,

1965)

(ed) The Myth

(London,

God
of

1977)

Philosophy

The

A.,

1973)

and Christianity,

in John Hick
incarnate,

Wolfson,

Islamic

(1977), PP. Z69-189

Vol. XXXI

A. J.,

of

Theologisch

Nederlands

Wensinck,

Period

of

University

Kalam,

the

Press,

1976)
The

Idem,

Philosophy

(Harvard

Wright,

David

F., "Council

and Creeds",

University

in Robert

D. Linder

Brigg

(eds)

Christianity,
178

195

Church

of

Press,

Fathers,
1956)

and John H. Y.
The

(Bristol,

History
1977)

of

PP. 156-

Yqt,

'Abd-Allh,
b.

al-Rmi

al-Hamal

i., Kitb

7 vols,

ed. D. S. Margoliouth,

Adib,
(Egypt,

1923-30)

Mu'jam

Idem,

il marif acal-

Irshd al-Arib

(Leipzig,

6 vols.

al-Buldn,

1866-73)

Adi.,
Yahy b.

Maglt,

ed.

(Paris,

Perier

A.

tr.

1920)

8 vols. (Beirut,

Al-klm,

Al-Zarkaly.,

Unpublished

Ph. D. thesis.

1. Devalve,

Robert

Henry.,

The Apologatic
IAdi,

(tenth

Seminary

Z. Griffith,

Sidney Harrison.,

The

Qurrah,

3. Thomson,

Jr Herbert

Fergus.,

196

Theology

Catholic

Abi

of

University

of

Ph. D., 1978.

Treatises

Tenth

Century

1952.

Ph. D., 1973.

Foundation,

Four

Baghdad,

b.

Hartford

The

century),

The

America,

of Yahya

writings

Controversial

1980)

by

sa

Jacobites

Columbia

ibn

Zur4a,

Christian

University,

of

Ph. D.,