Definition of Ilm al-Kalam by Ahl al-Sunnah
Ilm al-Kalam is what the mutakallimeen (philosophers) introduced into the foundations of the religion by inventing new ways to prove beliefs, turning away from what the Book and Sunnah brought. It is the confirmation of beliefs through the methods of kalam, which depend on argumentation and what they call reason. Ilm al-Kalam uses a lot of debate and speech, which is why it is called this name. The mutakallimeen would write many pages about a single issue, which leads to confusion. This discipline only appeared after the Companions, when people from outside tried to corrupt Islamic beliefs using arguments and disputes.
The warning of the Salaf against Ilm al-Kalam
The Salaf heavily warned against Ilm al-Kalam because of the doubts and confusion it caused. Imam Ahmad said, “A person of kalam will never succeed,” and similar statements are found from al-Shafi‘i and others. The people of kalam were often left in doubt and anxiety. Some of the Salaf said, “The people who doubt most at the time of death are the people of kalam.”
Some wished to return to the simple faith of old women, who just follow the Book and Sunnah without debate. Al-Shafi‘i even said the people of kalam deserved to be disciplined publicly, to warn others because they abandoned the Book and Sunnah and corrupted beliefs with their arguments.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said this should be done to make them repent and to stop others from following them. He also said we should feel sorry for them, because they were clever but did not have true righteousness, so their knowledge did not benefit them.
Definition in the Creed Encyclopedia of Durr al-Saniyyah
Ilm al-Kalam is defined as a science that helps a person dispute and argue about beliefs by bringing arguments and doubts and responding to opponents. It is really just argumentation about beliefs, and is condemned in the Sharia. The people of kalam sometimes call it “Ilm al-Tawheed,” and some say the name came from their debates about the attribute of “Speech” for Allah, but Ibn Taymiyyah rejected this. The real reason for the name is because of all the unnecessary discussion and debate in this subject.
The words of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali in Ihya Ulum al-Din
Al-Ghazali explained that people had very different views about Ilm al-Kalam. Some considered it an innovation and forbidden, worse than other sins except shirk. Others said it was even obligatory, as it protects the beliefs of Islam.
Al-Ghazali said the opinion that it is forbidden was held by al-Shafi‘i, Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Sufyan, and all the leading hadith scholars among the Salaf. They all strongly warned against it because the Companions left it, even though they were most able to use it, to avoid the harms it causes. The Prophet, peace be upon him, also warned against going to extremes. The Salaf argued that if Ilm al-Kalam was part of the religion, the Prophet would have taught it and praised its people.
Al-Ghazali then said that Ilm al-Kalam has both benefit and harm. If it is beneficial in a situation, it might be allowed, recommended, or even required. But its harms are very serious. It creates doubts and removes certainty from the heart, and it often strengthens innovation by causing people to argue more. Sometimes it leads to more confusion and less clarity.
Al-Ghazali also said that whatever useful proofs Ilm al-Kalam contains are already found in the Quran and Sunnah in a better, clearer way. Its main problems are unnecessary complication, over-explanation, and using confusing words. He said the best guidance, healing, and certainty comes from the Book of Allah and the Prophet’s teachings, not from these new arguments.
The difference between Ilm al-Tawheed and Ilm al-Kalam
Ilm al-Tawheed is based on the Book, the Sunnah, the consensus of the Salaf, and sound reasoning that comes from these sources. Ilm al-Kalam is based on logic, debate, and outside influences. Ilm al-Tawheed is free of innovation, while Ilm al-Kalam uses many new terms and philosophical ideas. Ilm al-Tawheed goes back to the earliest generations, but Ilm al-Kalam is new and came from the translation of books of logic and philosophy. Ilm al-Tawheed leads to good results, but Ilm al-Kalam often causes harm and confusion.
The words of the Salaf in condemning Ilm al-Kalam
Many Salaf and their followers spoke out against Ilm al-Kalam because of its false ways of arguing and because it led people to deny clear teachings in the texts, especially about Allah’s attributes. Al-Baghawi said the scholars agreed to forbid argument and debate about Allah’s attributes and to warn against learning Ilm al-Kalam.
Ibn Abd al-Barr said the scholars of all lands agreed that the people of Ilm al-Kalam are innovators and not counted as scholars of fiqh. Even some mutakallimeen admitted that Ilm al-Kalam is innovation and not true knowledge. Al-Ghazali said all useful proofs are already in the Quran and Sunnah, and much of Ilm al-Kalam is just argument for argument’s sake, with little connection to the religion.
The ruling on learning Ilm al-Kalam and the reason the Salaf forbade it
The Salaf and early scholars like Imam Ahmad and al-Shafi‘i condemned Ilm al-Kalam because it leads to doubt, confusion, and weakens faith. Imam Ahmad said anyone who studied kalam would have his heart corrupted. The consensus of the people of hadith was against Ilm al-Kalam. They explained that the Companions avoided it because of the evil it causes, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, warned against going to extremes in research and debate.
Supporters of Ilm al-Kalam argued that the Quran itself uses arguments and evidence. They said it is not forbidden to prove Islamic beliefs using proofs and arguments, as the Quran does so. But the correct position is that Ilm al-Kalam can only be useful when needed, and it is harmful when not needed. Its harm is that it stirs doubts, weakens certainty, and often leads to more confusion than clarity.
Al-Ghazali said that only rarely is Ilm al-Kalam truly helpful, and usually it is harmful. If someone teaches it to common people, it can damage their beliefs and make repair difficult. Only if there is a need, and the person is skilled and wise, can Ilm al-Kalam be used like a strong medicine, only when necessary.
Reasons the Salaf forbade Ilm al-Kalam
The Salaf forbade Ilm al-Kalam for several reasons:
- It was mostly done by innovators who left the Book and Sunnah and relied only on their minds.
- It involved debate and learning all the objections of opponents, which the early generations avoided.
- It is dangerous because mistakes can lead to innovation or disbelief, and debates can end with accusations of disbelief.
- It often involves spreading doubts and mentioning the views of innovators, which can stick in people’s hearts.
- Some focused only on kalam and left fiqh and practice, which weakens religion.
- Most people are harmed by it, just as strong medicine helps only a few but harms most people.
However, if kalam is used in a way that agrees with the Book and Sunnah and only when needed, it is not blameworthy. Some great scholars mastered it to refute innovators, but this was only when necessary.
The two types of Ilm al-Kalam
There are two kinds of kalam: praiseworthy and blameworthy. The blameworthy type is what the philosophers and innovators did, putting reason above revelation and using confusing methods. The praiseworthy type is when Islamic beliefs are proven with clear arguments like those in the Quran, which are easy to understand and bring peace to the heart.
Some scholars, especially when faced with new doubts or innovations, saw a need to use kalam to defend the religion, but after those doubts faded, Ilm al-Kalam continued mainly as a subject taught in schools.
Distinction between Ilm al-Kalam and Usul al-Din or Ilm al-Tawheed wal-Sifat
The scholars said that Ilm al-Kalam, Usul al-Din, and Ilm al-Tawheed wal-Sifat are different names for similar subjects, but the Salaf only condemned Ilm al-Kalam in the blameworthy sense. The blameworthy Ilm al-Kalam is what puts reason (aql) above revelation (naql) and causes confusion, while the praiseworthy sciences of Usul Ad-Deen and Tawheed wal-Sifat are among the most important parts of the religion.
Definition of Ilm al-Kalam by Ahl al-Sunnah
The Warning of the Salaf Against Ilm al-Kalam
Ilm al-Kalam is what the mutakallimeen (philosophers) sintroduced into the fundamentals of the religion, through their invented methods of affirming beliefs, turning away from what the Book and the Sunnah came with.
This is a definition. Ilm al-Kalam is the affirmation of beliefs through the methods of kalam, which are built on argumentation that they call reason. It is the affirmation of beliefs through these speech-based methods, and for this reason, we call it Ilm al-Kalam, due to the abundance of speech in it.
You find that the scholars of kalam will write two or three pages just for a single issue. It is all chatter and nonsense. That is why we call it Ilm al-Kalam. It is the affirmation of beliefs through the methods of kalam built upon argumentation which they call reason. This is what Ilm al-Kalam is.
Ilm al-Kalam did not appear until after the passing of the Companions, when some of those who were forced to enter Islam tried to corrupt the beliefs. They brought these argumentative and disputatious methods, causing confusion and disagreement.
Some of them even said, “A person’s belief is not sound until it is preceded by doubt,” meaning he should first doubt, then try to remove that doubt. We seek refuge with Allah. But who can feel safe that if he doubts, he will return to certainty? I fear that if he doubts, he may return to disbelief. In any case, their speech is false from its foundation.
The statements of the Salaf warning against Ilm al-Kalam and its people are many, due to the doubts and confusion it leads to. Imam Ahmad said, “A person of kalam will never succeed” (al-Ibanah by Ibn Battah 2/539, Chapter on Condemning Argumentation and Disputation in the Religion and Warning Against the People of Debate and Kalam. This was also narrated from al-Shafi‘i 1/536, and from Ibn Taymiyyah in Dar’ Ta‘arud al-‘Aql wa al-Naql 7/147).
Explanation
A person of kalam will never succeed, because if we look at the condition of the mutakallimeen, we find them in confusion, doubt, and anxiety. A person among them dies while still doubting his religion. Some of the Salaf said, “The people who doubt the most at the time of death are the people of kalam” (al-Sawa‘iq al-Mursalah 4/1261–1262).
Some of them would say at the time of their death, “I die upon the religion of the old women.” This is because the religion of the old women is built upon natural instinct and complete acceptance of the texts. An old woman does not know how to argue, nor does she build her belief on debate. She reads the Book and the Sunnah and follows them.
These mutakallimeen wished to return to the religion of the old women, but it does not happen for them due to the trials in their hearts. One of them also said, “Whoever seeks Ilm al-Kalam becomes a heretic” (al-Ibanah by Ibn Battah, Chapter on Condemning Argumentation and Disputation in the Religion and Warning Against the People of Debate and Kalam. It is also attributed by Ibn Abi al-‘Izz al-Hanafi to Abu Yusuf in Sharh al-Tahawiyyah p. 209). Such statements are sufficient as a warning against it.
Al-Shafi‘i said, “My ruling concerning the people of kalam is that they should be struck with palm branches and sandals, and paraded among tribes and clans, while it is said, ‘This is the punishment of those who abandoned the Book and the Sunnah and turned to Ilm al-Kalam’” (Dar’ Ta‘arud al-‘Aql wa al-Naql 7/147, and Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’ by al-Dhahabi 10/29. Al-Dhahabi said, ‘This is likely to be mass transmitted from the Imam.’ Also cited by Ibn Abi al-‘Izz in Sharh al-Tahawiyyah p. 210).
Explanation
May Allah have mercy on him. They deserve this ruling because they corrupted the beliefs with the speech they introduced. They claim they established the beliefs, but in reality, they destroyed them.
They are to be beaten with palm branches and sandals as the one who drank alcohol was beaten in the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. In addition, they are to be paraded among the tribes and clans, and it is to be said, “This is the punishment of those who abandoned the Book and the Sunnah and turned to Ilm al-Kalam.” Why?
As a form of discipline and warning. Discipline for them, and warning for others, because they committed a forbidden act. Why did they not take their belief from the Book and the Sunnah? Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
They deserve what Imam al-Shafi‘i said, from one perspective, so they may repent to Allah, and so others may be deterred from following their path. From another perspective, we feel mercy for them, because confusion has overtaken them and the devil has gained control over them. So we feel sorry for them and thank Allah who saved us from what they were tested with.
Explanation
But the Shaykh’s speech is longer than this. He said: “They were given understanding but not knowledge. They were given intelligence but not righteousness. They were given hearing, sight, and hearts, but their hearing, sight, and hearts did not benefit them at all, because they denied the signs of Allah, and what they used to mock at surrounded them.”
This is the speech of the Shaykh in al-Fatwah al-Hamawiyyah. I wish I had quoted it, but I missed it. It contains great benefit. These people were given intelligence but not righteousness. Their souls were not purified, and we seek refuge with Allah. They had understanding, but they did not have knowledge, because they are the least of people in knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah. Even they themselves admit that they know nothing.
They were given hearing, sight, and hearts, but their hearing, sight, and hearts did not benefit them.
Fath Rabb al-Bariyyah bi-Talkhis al-Hamawiyyah by Ibn Uthaymeen pg 419-421
Definition in the Creed Encyclopedia of Durr al-Saniyyah
الفرع الأول: علم الكلام
هو علم يقتدر به على المخاصمة في العقائد والمناظرة فيها بإيراد الحجج والشبه ودفع إيرادات الخصوم فهو باختصار علم الجدل العقدي المذموم شرعا فهو مراء متعلق بإظهار المذاهب والانتصار لها.
Ilm al-Kalam is defined in “Al-Mawsu‘ah al-‘Aqdiyyah li-Durr al-Saniyyah” (1/15) as: “Ilm al-Kalam is a science by which one is able to dispute and argue about beliefs, by presenting proofs and doubts, and by refuting the arguments of opponents. In summary, it is the science of argumentation about belief, which is condemned in the Sharia. It is argumentation related to showing off sects and supporting them.”
Why is Ilm al-Kalam called by this name?
The people of kalam call this science “Ilm al-Tawheed,” and they trace the name “Ilm al-Kalam” to the large amount of debate in it about the attribute of “Speech” for Allah. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rejected this, saying that the mutakallimeen were called by this name before the dispute about the attribute of speech even began.
The truth is that it is called “Ilm al-Kalam” because it is based on excessive discussion and delving into what does not benefit.
Translation: From the Words of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali,in his book Ihya Ulum al-Din, which is among his greatest works
He said: “If you say, ‘Is the knowledge of dialectical argument and kalam blameworthy like the knowledge of astrology, or is it permissible, or recommended?’ then know that people have gone to extremes in this matter.
Some have said that it is an innovation and forbidden, and that for a person to meet Allah with every sin except shirk is better for him than to meet Him with kalam. Others have said that it is obligatory, either as a communal obligation or an individual one, and that it is among the best of deeds and the highest of acts of worship, because it establishes the knowledge of tawheed and defends the religion of Allah.”
He said: “As for the opinion that it is forbidden, it was the view of al-Shafi‘i, Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Sufyan, and all the imams of hadith among the Salaf. He then presented their exact statements and said: ‘The people of hadith among the Salaf agreed on this, and the harshness they expressed regarding it cannot be counted. They said…’”
“…That the Companions remained silent about it, despite being the most knowledgeable of realities and the most eloquent in arranging words, only because of the evil that results from it. And for this reason the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘The excessive ones are ruined’ meaning those who go deep into investigation and over-analysis.” (Al Ihya’ 1/95).
They also argued that had this been part of the religion, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, would have been the most eager to command it, teach its path, and praise its people.
He then mentioned the rest of their evidence, followed by the evidence of the opposing group. Then he said:
“If you say, ‘What is your preferred position?’ he answered with a detailed view, saying: It contains benefit, and it contains harm. So, regarding its benefit, when it is actually beneficial, it may be permissible, recommended, or obligatory depending on the situation. But regarding its harm, when it causes harm and in the time or place of harm, then it is forbidden.”
He said:
“As for its harm, it lies in stirring up doubts, disturbing beliefs, and removing them from certainty and conviction. This happens at the outset, and returning them to conviction by evidence is uncertain, and varies from person to person. This is its harm in relation to the belief in truth.
It also has harm in reinforcing belief in innovation and fixing it in people’s hearts, so that their desires are stirred and they become more eager to persist in it. This harm arises from the partisanship that debate provokes.”
He said:
“As for its benefit, some may think that its benefit is the uncovering of realities and knowing them as they truly are. Far from it. Ilm al-Kalam does not fulfil this noble aim. In fact, confusion and misguidance are perhaps more prevalent in it than clarity and understanding.” (Al Ihya’ 1/97).
He said:
“If you heard this from a hadith scholar or a person people label as hashawi (The Term Al Hashawi means the excess of useless things, and it was said about people who lacked credibility when it came to fiqh and our doctrine), you might think, ‘People are enemies to what they do not understand.’ But hear this from someone who has experienced kalam, then abandoned it after truly experiencing it, and after delving deeply into it to the furthest level of the mutakallimeen (philosophers), and even going beyond that into other fields that resemble kalam in type.”
“And he became certain that the path to true knowledge through this approach is blocked. By Allah, kalam is not completely void of some uncovering, definition, and clarification in certain matters, but this is rare.” (Al Ihya’ 1/95).
End of what Ibn Abi Al Izz quoted from Al-Ghazali
Such words from him are a powerful argument. The Salaf did not dislike it merely because it was a new terminology for correct meanings, as they did not dislike the use of technical terms for sound sciences. Nor did they dislike the act of indicating truth and arguing against the people of falsehood. Rather, they disliked it because it contained false ideas that opposed the truth.
Among these is that it contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, and it includes matters of true knowledge, but they made the path to attaining them difficult. They lengthened the discussion to prove them, despite their limited benefit. It is like the meat of a scrawny camel atop a steep mountain—neither easy to climb nor nourishing to eat.
The best they have is more clearly and beautifully expressed in the Quran. What they offer is mere affectation, lengthiness, and complexity.
And it is impossible that healing, guidance, knowledge, and certainty should not come from the Book of Allah and the speech of His Messenger, but would come instead from the words of these confused people.
Rather, what is obligatory is that what Allah and His Messenger said be taken as the foundation, that its meaning be reflected upon and understood, that its evidence be known through rational and textual proofs, and that its indication of both types of proofs be recognised. The statements of people, whether they agree or disagree with it, should be seen as ambiguous and general. One should say to those who use such phrases: “These words can mean this or that.”
Sharh Al Aqeedah Tahawiyyah By Ibn Abi Al Izz Pg 172-174
The Difference Between Ilm al-Tawheed and Ilm al-Kalam
There is a difference between the Sunni Ilm al-Tawheed and the innovated Ilm al-Kalam, as shown by the following:
Ilm al-Tawheed is based on the Book, the Sunnah, the consensus of the Salaf, and sound reasoning that relies on these sources.
As for Ilm al-Kalam, it is a science that is based on logical terms and dialectical analogies. It is influenced by factors outside the guidance of the Book and Sunnah.
Ilm al-Tawheed is a Sharia-based science with no innovation in it, while Ilm al-Kalam is an innovated science that was not known to the Prophet (peace be upon him), nor the Sahabah, nor the Tabi‘een, nor those who followed them in goodness until the Day of Judgement.
Ilm al-Tawheed contains no innovated terminology, nor philosophical expressions. Ilm al-Kalam contains many innovated terms, logical expressions, and philosophical opinions.
The origin of Ilm al-Tawheed goes back to the early preferred generations, the first three centuries. Ilm al-Kalam is not like this, but is a newly invented science that came as a result of external influences, due to the translation of books of logic and philosophy.
The results of Ilm al-Tawheed are praiseworthy, but the effects of Ilm al-Kalam are blameworthy.
Ilm al-Tawheed is a tool for the one who is upon the truth to use against the one upon falsehood, to show his falsehood. As for Ilm al-Kalam, it is a tool for both the one on truth and the one on falsehood, and it is closer to the one upon falsehood. (“Al-Mawsu‘ah al-‘Aqdiyyah li-Durr al-Saniyyah” 1/15.)
The Words of the Salaf in Condemning Ilm al-Kalam
The words of the Salaf and their followers in criticising Ilm al-Kalam and warning against it are many, because of its false methods of arguing, which led its followers to deny many facts clearly proven in the texts, such as the attributes of Allah, and because of its corrupt foundations built on what they thought were proofs, as well as the excessive argumentation, artificiality, speaking about Allah without knowledge, and turning away from holding firmly to revelation in many of its discussions.
Al-Baghawi said, “The scholars of the Salaf from among Ahl al-Sunnah agreed upon forbidding argument and debate about the attributes (of Allah), and warning against delving into Ilm al-Kalam and learning it.” (“Sharh al-Sunnah” 1/216.)
Ibn Abd al-Barr said, “The scholars of fiqh and traditions from all lands agreed that the people of Ilm al-Kalam are people of innovation and misguidance. They are not considered among the scholars of fiqh by anyone. The scholars are the people of tradition and understanding of it, and they are distinguished by their mastery, insight, and understanding.” (“Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlih” 2/942.)
Some of the mutakallimeen themselves have admitted that kalam is innovation, argument, and blameworthy delving, and that it is not knowledge.
Al-Ghazali said, “If you ask, ‘Why did you not mention Ilm al-Kalam and philosophy among the types of knowledge, to explain whether they are praiseworthy or blameworthy?’ Know that whatever Ilm al-Kalam contains of proofs that are useful, the Quran and hadith already contain them.
Whatever is not found in them is either blameworthy argument, which is one of the innovations as will be explained, or it is simply being argumentative with the contradictions of sects, or unnecessarily lengthening discussions by quoting statements, most of which are nonsense and ramblings despised by sound minds and detested by the ears. Some of it is delving into what is not connected to the religion, and none of it was familiar in the early generations. Delving into it was entirely innovation.” (Al Ihya’ Ulum al-Din” 1/22.)
Despite this clear statement, we find that al-Ghazali later says that it has become permissible because of necessity, and even that it is now a communal obligation.
The truth is that Muslims have no need for this science. Its harm is greater than its benefit, and its nonsense and so-called proofs cannot withstand a real philosopher or an atheist. They did not support Islam with it, nor did they refute falsehood.
Instead, they corrupted beliefs with it, spoke about Allah without knowledge, and went against the consensus of the Salaf in many well-known issues, such as the attributes, faith, and predestination. The cleverest among them admitted to confusion and regretted in the ends of their lives what they had wasted their time on.
From this is the statement of ar-Razi: “I have reflected on the books of kalam and the ways of philosophy, and I have not seen that they heal the sick or quench the thirst. I saw that the closest way is the way of the Quran. I read regarding affirmation: ‘The Most Merciful rose over the Throne’ (Taha, verse 5), and, ‘To Him ascends the good word, and the righteous deed He raises it’ (Fatir, verse 10). I read regarding negation: ‘There is nothing like Him’ (Shura, verse 11), and, ‘They do not encompass Him in knowledge’ (Taha, verse 110). Whoever experiences what I have experienced will know what I know.” (“Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah” 8/530.)
Ibn Kathir said, “It is said that he regretted entering into this field, as Ibn al-Salah said, ‘Al-Qutb al-Tughani told me twice that he heard Ar-Razi say, I wish I had not become involved in Ilm al-Kalam, and he wept.’”
From his poetry and words:
| نهاية إقدام العقول عقال | وأكثر سعي العالمين ضلال |
| وأرواحنا في وحشة من جسومنا | وحاصل دنيانا أذى ووبال |
| ولم نستفد من بحثنا طول عمرنا | سوى أن جمعنا فيه قيل وقالوا |
| وكم قد رأينا من رجال ودولة | فبادوا جميعا مسرعين وزالوا |
| وكم من جبال قد علت شرفاتها | رجال، فبادوا؛ والجبال جبال |
The end result of letting the mind go is restriction,
Most of the effort of people is going astray.
Our beings are restless in our bodies,
The result of our life is harm and misery.
We did not gain from our research through all our years,
Except gathering stories of what people said and what they claimed.
How many people and kingdoms have we seen,
All have disappeared quickly and vanished.
How many mountains with high peaks have men once climbed,
Those men have gone, but the mountains remain.
These lines were quoted by as-Subki and others who wrote his biography. See “Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah al-Kubra” (8/96).
The Ruling on Learning Ilm al-Kalam and the Reason the Salaf Forbade It
The best way to begin this article is with the words of a great imam, who was knowledgeable about Ilm al-Kalam and experienced in it, Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, “A person of kalam will never succeed, and you hardly see anyone who has looked into kalam except that his heart is corrupted.” He strongly condemned it, even shunning al-Harith al-Muhasibi, despite his asceticism and piety, because he wrote a book refuting the innovators. He said to him, “Woe to you, do you first describe their innovation and then refute it? Are you not leading people by your book to look into innovation and reflect on those doubts, which leads them to speculation and debate?” Ahmad also said, “The scholars of kalam are heretics.” (This was all collected by Ibn Asakir with chains of narration in his book “Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftara fima Nusiba ila Abi al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari” page 333 and after.)
Consensus of the People of Hadith and the Reason for Their Strictness
The people of hadith among the Salaf agreed on this. What has been narrated from them about strictness in this regard cannot be counted.
They said, “The Sahabah remained silent about it, although they were more knowledgeable of realities and more eloquent in expressing themselves, only because they knew the evil it would produce.” For this reason, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Those who go to extremes are doomed, those who go to extremes are doomed,” meaning those who overdo research and investigation.
As for the other side, they argued, “By kalam we only mean knowing the evidence for the origination of the universe, the oneness of the Creator, and His attributes as they appear in the Sharia. How can it be forbidden to know Allah through evidence? How can presenting proof and seeking it be forbidden, when Allah said,
‘Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful,’ and,
‘So that whoever perishes may perish upon proof and whoever lives may live upon proof,’
And, ‘To Allah belongs the ultimate proof,’
And, ‘Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord, to the end, so the disbeliever was confounded,’ and He praised Abraham’s argument
And said, ‘That was Our proof which We gave Abraham against his people,’
And He mentioned how the people of Noah argued with him, ‘They said, O Noah, you have disputed with us and argued much with us,’ and about Moses’ debate with Pharaoh, ‘And what is the Lord of the worlds, to the end, or even if I bring you clear proof?’”
In summary, the Quran from beginning to end is full of arguments with the disbelievers, full of proofs and evidence on matters of tawheed, the existence of the Creator, resurrection, and the sending of messengers. There is no correct proof that the mutakallimeen (philosophers) or others mention except that it is found in the Quran in clearer, better wording, with fuller meaning and less exposure to objections, as the leading mutakallimeen have admitted.
The main proof used by the mutakallimeen for tawheed is His saying, “If there were in them gods other than Allah, they would have been corrupted,” and for prophethood, “If you are in doubt about what We sent down to Our servant, then bring a surah like it,” and for resurrection, “Say: The one who created them the first time will give them life,” and so on. The messengers always argued with and debated the rejecters, as Allah said, “And argue with them in the best way.” The Sahabah also argued with the deniers, but only when necessary, and there was little need for it in their time, which is why they spoke little about it.
If you ask, what is your own view about it, know that to always condemn it, or to always praise it, is a mistake. It must be detailed.
There is benefit in it and there is harm. So, considering its benefit at the time when it is needed, it is permissible, or recommended, or obligatory, depending on the situation. Considering its harm, when it causes harm, it is forbidden.
Its harm is that it stirs up doubts, unsettles beliefs, and removes certainty and resolution. This happens at the beginning, and returning it to the truth by evidence is uncertain, and people vary in this. This is its harm to correct belief.
As for its benefit, it may be thought that it reveals realities and fills the heart with the light of certainty, but in reality, Ilm al-Kalam does not fulfil this high aim. In fact, there is more confusion and misguidance in it than clarity and explanation.
If you hear this from a hadith scholar or a person accused of ignorance, you may think that people are only enemies of what they do not know. But listen to these words from someone who has tested Ilm al-Kalam, immersed himself in it until he reached the highest level among the mutakallimeen, and went beyond that into sciences related to it, and realised that the path to true knowledge through this way is blocked.
Ilm al-Kalam cannot avoid sometimes clarifying and explaining, especially in some obvious matters that almost everyone can understand before going deep into its craft.
Its only real benefit is to protect the beliefs of the masses from being shaken by the arguments of innovators, since the common person is weak and can be swayed by the debates of innovators even if those debates are false.
Once its harms and benefits are known, the person who deals with it should be like a skilful doctor with a dangerous medicine, not using it except in its proper place, at the right time, and in the right amount.
To explain further, common people who work in crafts and trades should be left upon the sound beliefs they already have. Teaching them kalam is pure harm, as it may cause them to doubt, shake their belief, and repair is then difficult.
If a common person has a belief in innovation, he should be called to the truth gently, not with harshness, and with convincing words that affect the heart, close to the way the Quran and hadith use, mixed with a kind of advice and warning.
This is more effective than the structured debate of the mutakallimeen, since when the common person hears this debate, he thinks it is just a skill the debater has learned to drag people to his view. If he cannot answer, he assumes that the debaters of his own sect could defeat it. Debate with this type and with the first type is forbidden. The same applies to one who has doubts. His doubts should be removed with gentleness and accepted proofs, far from complicated speech and excessive debate.
If innovation is widespread and there is a fear for children that they may be deceived, then there is no problem in teaching them what I included in the book “al-Risalah al-Qudsiyyah” so that this will block the effect of the innovators’ arguments if they come.
If the child is sharp and begins to ask questions, or a doubt arises in his mind, the illness has appeared and the harm is obvious, so he can be taken up to what I mentioned in “al-Iqtisad fi al-I‘tiqad,” which is about fifty pages, and it does not go beyond looking at the foundations of belief. Adding more by raising questions and responding to objections is only going to increase confusion and ignorance for one who is not satisfied with what has already been presented, since sometimes more explanation only leads to more confusion.
With this, you now know the blameworthy and the praiseworthy type of kalam, when it is blameworthy, when it is praiseworthy, who benefits from it, and who does not.
The praiseworthy type is what uses words and evidence similar to those in the Quran, which touch the heart and convince the mind, bringing peace to the soul, without going deep into divisions and subtle points that most people do not understand. If they do understand, they think it is just a trick learned to confuse, and when they meet someone with the same skill, they match each other.
You now know that al-Shafi‘i and the Salaf only forbade delving into it and making it their main activity because of the harm we mentioned. What has been narrated from Ibn Abbas about debating the Khawarij, and from Ali about debating in predestination and other matters, was clear speech in a situation of necessity, and this is praiseworthy in all cases.
Yes, the times can differ in how much it is needed, so the ruling can change depending on that. This ends the summary of al-Ghazali’s words.
The prohibition of the Salaf against kalam is based on several reasons:
First: They forbade the kalam of innovators and people of desires, because in the past the people known for kalam were the innovators. As for Ahl al-Sunnah, their beliefs were based on the Book and Sunnah and they rarely entered into kalam.
Al-Bayhaqi said this, and Ibn Asakir mentioned it in Tabyeen Kadhib al-Muftara (334), and then said: “The one who said this, Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, was a scholar of narration and understanding.”
Ibn Asakir also said (345): The intent of al-Shafi‘i, Allah knows best, by his statement, “Whoever is tested with kalam will never succeed,” is the kalam of innovators who left the Book and Sunnah and relied only on their minds, making the Book fit their thinking. When the Sunnah came to clarify their mistakes, they accused its narrators and rejected it. As for Ahl al-Sunnah, their method in foundational beliefs is based on the Book and Sunnah. Those who did use reason did so only to refute those who claimed that revelation did not agree with reason.
So, the strictness of the Salaf in warning against kalam is explained by this, as shown in the previous statements of al-Shafi‘i after he debated Hafs al-Fard. Some narrations make it clear, as Ibn Asakir narrated with a connected chain (337): “For a servant to meet Allah with every sin except shirk is better for him than meeting Him with any of these desires.”
Al-Shafi‘i said this after seeing people debating predestination in front of him. He called their debate “desires.”
Al-Bayhaqi narrated that Hafs al-Fard came to al-Shafi‘i, and after he left, al-Shafi‘i said, “For a servant to meet Allah with sins like the mountains of Tihamah is better than meeting Him believing anything that this man and his companions believe.” Hafs used to say the Quran was created, as Ibn Asakir mentioned in Tabyeen (341).
Second: The prohibition is based on delving into kalam for the sake of debate with opponents and learning all their objections and complex arguments, which was not known in the earliest generations. They strongly condemned anyone who opened the door to argument and contest.
This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Those who go to extremes are doomed,” meaning those who go too deep in research and questioning. This kind of kalam, as al-Ghazali said, contains much confusion and misguidance, and does not achieve its intended aim of clarifying the truth and filling the heart with certainty. Instead, it leads to doubt in belief and weakness in commitment.
Third: Delving deeply into kalam is dangerous, because the one who looks into it may make a mistake, and the mistake here can lead to innovation or even disbelief. Al-Shafi‘i pointed to this, as narrated by Ibn Asakir (343): “Al-Shafi‘i preferred to leave off discussion in it, even though he knew it. He said: ‘We were debating in kalam at the door of al-Shafi‘i, and he came out and heard what we were saying.
He then stayed away from us for seven days. When he returned he said, ‘I was not kept from you by illness, but because of what I heard from your discussion. Do you think I do not know it? I have learned it until I reached a high level, but kalam has no end. Debate in something where, if you are wrong, people just say you were wrong, not in something where, if you are wrong, people say you have disbelieved.’”
Fourth: Kalam often involves quoting the beliefs of innovators and mentioning the doubts they have about the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah. This spreads those views, although we are commanded to suppress them, and these doubts often stick in the hearts of people. Sometimes the doubt is clear, but the answer is subtle.
This then leads to further speculation and argument about the religion of Allah, and you already know the Salaf condemned this. This is what Ahmad meant when he criticised al-Harith al-Muhasibi for writing a book refuting the innovators, saying, “Do you first mention their innovation and then refute it? Are you not leading people by your book to look into innovation and consider those doubts?”
Fifth: the prohibition may be explained by confining oneself only to kalam, since this shakes the belief and removes the awe of the Lord from the heart.
Ibn Asakir said in Tabyeen (334): “They may have meant by their prohibition of kalam to restrict people to it, leaving out the study of fiqh which brings knowledge of halal and haram, and abandoning the practice of the obligations of Islam.” It is reported from Hatim al-Asam, who was a leading ascetic, that he said, “Kalam is the root of the religion, fiqh is its branch, and practice is its fruit.
Whoever is content with kalam without fiqh and practice becomes a heretic. Whoever is content with practice without kalam and fiqh becomes an innovator. Whoever is content with fiqh without kalam and practice becomes a sinner. Whoever is engaged in all these is truly saved.”
The reason for what Hatim al-Asam said, that the one content with only kalam becomes a heretic, is that the person who goes into Ilm al-Kalam and only that, his belief is shaken and the awe of the Lord leaves his heart.
This is because the work of the mutakallim is to speak about the Essence of Allah and His attributes, to bring rational proofs, then mention objections and refute them, and then discuss further replies, and so on.
This brings weakness in belief and removes awe of Allah from the heart, which is why many of the mutakallimeen who only studied kalam were weak in religion, and it is even reported from some of them that they became lax in performing prayer.
Sixth: the prohibition applies to going into kalam and discussing it when there is no need, because the arguments of the mutakallimeen are like medicine, which benefits a few and harms most. So they should be used only as much as needed and only when needed.
Al-Ghazali said in “Iljam al-‘Awam an Ilm al-Kalam”: “Arguments are of two types: those which need deep thought and investigation, which the common person cannot understand, and those which are clear and obvious, easily understood by everyone. The Quran’s proofs are like food, which everyone benefits from, but the mutakallimeen’s proofs are like medicine, which helps only a few, while most are harmed. The Quran’s proofs are like water, which benefits the young and old, while other proofs are like foods, sometimes benefiting the strong but making them sick at other times, and not benefiting the child at all.”
As for using kalam that does not contradict the Book and Sunnah, and using it when needed, it is not blameworthy. Many scholars in the early generations were skilled in kalam. Ibn Asakir said this (352), aswell as Imam Ash-Shafi‘i.
Ibn Asakir (339) said: The blameworthy kalam is that of the people of desires and innovators, but as for kalam that agrees with the Book and Sunnah and clarifies foundational truths at times of fitnah, it is praiseworthy among scholars and those who know it. Imam Ash-Shafi‘i mastered it and used it to refute the innovators until they were silenced.
Ibn Asakir brought several debates of al-Shafi‘i with innovators as proof of his mastery. Then he said (351): “Kalam that matches the Book and Sunnah and explains by reason and reflection is praiseworthy and desirable when needed. Al-Shafi‘i and others among our imams used it when needed, as already mentioned.”
As-Subki said in his critique of Ibn al-Qayyim’s Nuniyyah, “Do not busy yourself except with what benefits, which is the Quran, Sunnah, fiqh, usul al-fiqh, and grammar, learned from a reliable teacher with sound belief, and keep away from Ilm al-Kalam, Greek philosophy, and people with corrupt beliefs or even reading their words. There is nothing more harmful to belief than two things: Ilm al-Kalam and Greek philosophy.
They are in fact one subject, ‘Ilm al-Ilahi’ (theology).
The Greeks sought it by reason alone, and the mutakallimeen used both reason and revelation. They split into three groups: one gave priority to reason, like the Mu‘tazilah, one to revelation, like the Hashwiyyah, and one balanced both, like the Ash‘aris.
All three groups have dangers in their kalam, whether errors or a loss of awe. The safe way is what the Sahabah, Tabi‘in, and most people upon the sound natural way were on. That is why Imam Ash-Shafi‘i forbade people from Ilm al-Kalam and told them to focus on fiqh, which is the safe path.
If people had remained as they were in the time of the Sahabah, it would have been better for scholars to avoid Ilm al-Kalam completely, but when innovations arose, scholars had to look into it to counter the innovators and repel their doubts from the hearts of those who might go astray.”
The result is that the mutakallimeen made the path to correct belief more difficult, and tried to prove it and refute doubts with obscure, complex arguments based on philosophical premises that are unclear and need proof, using weak and hard-to-understand evidence, open to doubt and criticism. After laying out these arguments, they spend their time refuting objections, and often those refutations are themselves open to criticism, and so on.
Their kalam, which they practised and expanded, is of little benefit, with much harm, leaving doubts in the mind and weakness in belief, instead of bringing peace and assurance. It is like the flesh of a skinny camel on top of a steep mountain, neither easy to climb nor good to eat. The best that they have is already stated more clearly and effectively in the Quran.
They think they are dispelling doubts, but the intelligent person knows those doubts have only increased.
From All This, It Is Clear That There Are Two Kinds Of Kalam: Praiseworthy And Blameworthy
The blameworthy type is kalam in the style of the philosophers, and in the way of innovators who put reason above the Book and Sunnah, and make revelation fit their minds, and those who go deep into divisions and details that only a few people understand, making endless questions and answers.
This is what the mutakallimeen invented of explanation, questioning, and raising subtle points, and then answering them, and mentioning far-fetched implications, and bringing many doubts against the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah.
None of this was known in the first generations, who strongly criticised those who opened the door to argument, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Those who go to extremes are doomed,” because this type of kalam.
This is the kalam that the Salaf condemned and forbade, and Ilm al-Kalam was, in their time, associated with this type, which is why they condemned it without qualification. Even now, when people hear the word Ilm al-Kalam, they only think of this type, even though the formal definitions made for it include both praiseworthy and blameworthy types, as will be explained.
The praiseworthy type is where Islamic beliefs are presented and proven with arguments like those in the Quran, which affect the heart and mind and bring peace and assurance, using clear and obvious evidence.
The Quran’s proofs, as Al-Ghazali said, are like food that benefits everyone. The arguments of the mutakallimeen are like medicine, helping a few and harming most. The Quran’s evidence is like water that benefits everyone, while the arguments of the mutakallimeen are like food that sometimes helps the strong but not the weak.
This kind of praiseworthy kalam is what the prophets brought, from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them). Allah commanded us to learn it in many verses that encourage the use of reason in understanding the Quran and accepting it, and in arguing with the disbelievers, and has made it obligatory, saying, “Argue with them in the best way.” The Quran, as al-Ghazali said, from beginning to end is full of arguments with the disbelievers and full of proofs for tawheed and other beliefs, as already mentioned.
This is the praiseworthy type, and the first is the blameworthy.
Some scholars said that in their times, doubts appeared from the influence of philosophy and were put forward by their supporters against the beliefs and principles of Islam, and innovations and desires appeared among the people of innovation.
Some scholars saw it as necessary, for the sake of protecting the principles of Islam and the beliefs of the Muslims from doubts and innovation, to respond to those doubts and refute those innovations using the methods that originated them, so their response would be stronger.
This is what Al-Ghazali meant when he said, “Considering its benefit at the time when it is needed, it is permissible, recommended, or obligatory as the situation requires,” and what al-Subki meant when he said, “If people had remained as they were in the time of the Sahabah, it would have been better for scholars to avoid Ilm al-Kalam completely, but when innovations arose, scholars had to look into it to counter the innovators and repel their doubts.”
After those doubts disappeared, Ilm al-Kalam continued among later scholars, who kept arguing against an enemy that was already gone and refuting doubts and innovations that no longer existed except in books.
However, once this science was written down and established as one of the sciences of Islam, the encyclopaedic scholar became in great need of knowing it or being familiar with it because of its strong connection to other Islamic sciences and the interrelation of its terminology and issues with many of those sciences.
Today, Muslims may use Ilm al-Kalam that proves Islamic beliefs with arguments that match the minds and culture of people today and that answers the doubts produced by the minds of the enemies of Islam, like atheists and orientalists.
Some have focused on explaining the proofs in the Quran that Allah used to prove Islamic beliefs, interpreting and clarifying them and giving examples. This approach is the best, the clearest, and the most effective, because these proofs are clear and convincing to all people, both the ordinary and the learned, the unlettered and the philosophers.
Others have argued for Islamic beliefs and truths by using what has been discovered by the minds of modern scholars and their scientific experiments based on advanced modern technology in various fields.
Others have focused on what is called the scientific interpretation of the Quran, interpreting many of its cosmic verses in line with scientific discoveries, which strengthens the faith of believers, boosts their confidence in their religion and book, and attracts many scientists, learners, and cultured people from among the non-believers. This is a praiseworthy and useful approach as long as it avoids over-exaggeration and forced interpretations.
All these approaches share one aim: to prove Islamic beliefs, show their truth, and defend them in a way that matches the modern age.
