Int. J. Middle East Stud. 24 (1992), 677-748.

Printed in the United States of America

BOOK REVIEWS

DANIEL GIMARET, La doctrine d'al-Ashcarl, Patrimonie Islam (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,
1990). Pp.601.

REVIEWED BY ANDREW RIPPIN, Department of Religious Studies, University of Calgary

Previous generations of scholars put a great deal of emphasis upon understanding the great
scholastic tradition of Islamic theology as expressed in its mature formulation by people
such as al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Scholarship of more recent decades, however, has put an in-
creased stress on earlier periods of theological discussion. This is the result not only of a
deeply felt impulse to get back to the "purity of origins" but also of an increasing aware-
ness and appreciation of the role of Abu '1-Hasan al-Ashcari (d. 935) in formulating and
enunciating the central aspects of Islamic dogma. Daniel Gimaret is responsible for a good
measure of this clarification regarding the place of al-Ashcari, with some notable earlier
scholarly contributions elucidating the scope of the latter's writings. The present book takes
that work one step further by presenting al-Ashcari's key theological ideas in an overall, co-
hesive form.
Gimaret has written his book based primarily upon four works of al-Ashcari himself, Ibn
Furak's (d. 1015) Mujarrad maqalat al-Ashcari which was edited and published recently by
Gimaret (Beirut, 1987), and several later Muslim theological summaries, including works
by cAbd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 1037), al-Juwayni (d. 1085), and al-Shahrastani (d. 1153)
among others. Gimaret gives a short but incisive defense of the use of these sources in his
introduction. He concludes that, of the works attributed to al-Ashcari, Maqalat al-
islamiyyin is of little use in the presentation because it provides so little information about
the views of its author; it does, however, provide valuable contextual material by which the
discussions that take place in other works of its author may be understood. This leaves four
other works of significance by al-Ashcari for the task. Kitab al-lumac is by far the most im-
portant, and the work is generally accepted by scholarship as being a genuine expression of
al-Ashcari's thought. Of Kitab al-ibana can usul al-diyana the case is not so clear, but Gi-
maret argues persuasively for its use. This work, in Gimaret's interpretation, emphasizes
certain elements in al-Ashcari's thought that are not present or are less clear in the Lumac
and was composed in this manner in order to placate the Hanbalite powers at the time; the
way in which the Ibana passes over certain doctrines present in the Lumac is seen as the
most important evidence for this point. However, Gimaret argues here (and all of his book
goes on to demonstrate the point) that both works present a single coherent theological vi-
sion. The other two sources from al-Ashcari that make a contribution to the reconstruction
of his theology are his short works Risala Ha ahl al-thaghr and Risala fi istihsan al-khawd
ft cilm al-kaldm, now established by R. M. Frank to be Risala fi'l-hathth cala'l-bahth, a
work listed by later authors as a part of al-Ashcari's oeuvre. Additionally, Ibn Furak's work
is extremely important to the overall reconstruction of al-Ashcari's theology for Gimaret; he
argues that the work provides an accurate picture of al-Ashcari's views and may thus be
used toward this end. On every major theological point, it is noted, the views of al-Ashcari
as reported by Ibn Furak are seen to coincide with those written in the former's books, even

© 1992 Cambridge University Press 0020-7438/92 $5.00 + .00

678 Reviews

to the point of major definitional issues. This point is not suggested naively; due recogni-
tion is given to the fact that Ibn Furak's own ideas certainly interfere with his presentation
of al-Ash cari's notions.
Gimaret has structured the main body of his text into four parts. First comes "the world,"
in which the theological notions of substances, atoms, accidents, and the human capacity
for action, among others, are dealt with. Second is "the conception of God" especially as
related to the issues of his attributes and names. Third comes "God in relationship to hu-
manity" with a focus on predestination and prophethood. Finally, juristic method and lead-
ership (imama) are discussed. This is all presented very precisely with reference made
throughout to all the various sources. The book is complemented by a detailed index.
The accomplishment of this book is to be seen in the way in which it provides, within
modern theological idiom and sense of reason, a synthesis of al-Ashcari's thought. Contrary
points of view are contrasted in order to shed light on the paths taken and not taken within
this theological formulation. The treatment of al-Ashcari's ideas concerning prophets and
prophethood is illustrative of Gimaret's work. Drawing on Ibn Furak for virtually all of the
information, Gimaret expands what appears in just a few lines of that text into full para-
graphs by providing the details behind the argumentation and taking into account other, op-
posing points of view. Throughout the treatment of this subject we see the perpetual
Muslim theological play between the ideas of God's power and His justice. According to al-
Ash c ari, prophets are sent by the grace (lutf) of God, a favor that God can choose whether
or not to give; the Muctazilites opposed this notion, arguing that God's justice demanded
that prophets be sent since God had to inform people of the existence of the law. On the
contrary, al-Ashcari suggests, God is not obliged to send prophets; rather he chooses to. In
fact, should he have so chosen, he could have communicated directly with humans individ-
ually. The prophets have been sent to all people, even to those whom God knows are des-
tined to hell, despite the opposing argument that this would suggest that God had embarked
upon a pointless activity. The prophets' task is to announce that God loves those whom He
loves and bestows His grace upon them, and that He condemns those whom He condemns
and withholds His grace from them. This is all that can be entertained within al-Ash cari's
concept of predestination. Further, al-Ashcari is observed to make an original distinction
between a rasul and a nabl. The former is sent by God with his message (risala) to which
people must submit; the latter is a person who is distinguished from all others by having
certain miracles associated with him/her. Thus, each rasul is a nabl but each nabi is not
necessarily a rasul. This is a distinction which became popular in later writings (especially
tafsir) but, among the theologians, the most frequent statement is that the two words are
simply synonyms and are employed indifferently. Al-Ashcari's proof for his position is
much as one would expect. Qur3an 12:109 ("We sent not forth before thee, but men We re-
vealed to of the people living in the cities") is cited to prove that a rasiil must be a man and
an isolated hadith report is cited to indicate that there have been four women who were
nabis. The only way these two items of knowledge can be reconciled is to affirm a differ-
ence between the two words. Gimaret (p. 456) traces this hadith report in one later work; it
is apparently only known in its transmission through al-Ash c ari. The four female nabls are
said to have been Eve, Moses' mother Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh), and Mary (the mother of
Jesus). Al-Ashcari continues the argument in more general terms. Only men can be messen-
gers since women are deficient in intelligence. Nor can a slave be a messenger since he is
owned by a master. Neither can a blind or deaf man be a messenger, since such an attribute
would interfere with being able to accomplish the mission.
And so Gimaret's book continues for over 500 pages, treating al-Ashcari's thought in fas-
cinating detail. The final result is complex, justly so since it is a book of careful theological
 Reviews 679
reasoning in itself. To say that there is still a need to distill all this material into a somewhat
more digested form is not to disparage the present work by any means, but rather to urge
Gimaret to continue his writing on this significant, indeed pivotal, theologian.

EHSAN YARSHATER, ED., Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 3 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1989). Pp. 896.

REVIEWED BY RICHARD W. BULLIET, Middle East Institute, Columbia University, New York

From its inception in the proposals of Ignaz Goldziher and others, the Encyclopaedia of Is-
lam has embodied the ethos of European Orientalism. A collectively conceived and edited
work in an era of harmonious cooperation among scholars embarked on a common enter-
prise, the Encyclopaedia of Islam undertook to encapsulate the Islamic world at the highest
level of scholarship and authority. The idea of grasping Islam whole that motivated Orien-
talist scholars of the late 19th century dictated a coverage that was encyclopedic in geo-
graphical sweep, but that paid minimal attention to the modern world and concentrated
upon philological analysis and religious high culture. In choosing to head virtually all ar-
ticles with words and names precisely transliterated from Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, the
compilers declared their intention of writing for themselves alone, and not for those unfor-
tunates who, however well educated, had neglected to learn Oriental languages.
With the Encyclopaedia of Islam still inching along on its revised edition, a generation
of scholars educated to consider it the ultimate reference work on Islamic subjects will in-
evitably judge a new reference work by comparison with it. Hence, the initial and hasty ap-
praisal many non-Iranists give to the Encyclopaedia Iranica is that it lacks the grand
Islamic sweep of its predecessor and must surely, therefore, be of interest only to Iranists.
Such a judgment is seriously in error, however.
Volume 3 of the Encyclopaedia Iranica, covering entries from "Atas" to "BayhaqI,
Zahlr-al-Din," corresponds to a 398-nase segment of volume 1 of the revised edition of the
EnvyviapaeSid oj Islam. Since each page of the latter contains 15 percent more words in its
smaller, denser typeface the proper fength cnfhoafison oetween the two wnrK« is 896 paefc^
for the Encyclopaedia Iranica and 457 pages for the Encyclopaedia of Islam. In other
woras, tne cncycioyaeaiu irunica is twice the size of the Encyclopaedia of Islam-. Faeed
with thrs comparison indicating that the newcomer might actually be superior to its venera-
ble predecessor, the non-Iranist might maintain, nevertheless, that the Encyclopaedia Iran-
ica is so full of pre-Islamic lore and divagations on Zoroastrian and other topics of minimal
interest to Islamicists that no one who doesn't work on Iran need consult it. In fact, how-
ever, though an exact number is difficult to arrive at, it seems that the pre- and non-Islamic
portion of the Encyclopaedia Iranica amounts to no more than one-quarter to one-third of
its bulk. In other words, the coverage the Encyclopaedia Iranica gives to the Islamic period
is substantially greater than the coverage given in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Nor is the
coverage exclusively of Iran since India, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the thousands of
Arabic writers of Iranian ethnic origin are all included.
Testing the hypothesis that the Encyclopaedia Iranica, for many purposes extending well
beyond Iranian studies, is a superior reference work to the Encyclopaedia of'Uin«* one can
proceed to corrtDare SDecitic entries. The bncyclopaea\uL.rranica eives no less than 44 Dages
to "Avicenna," compared with 6'/2 pages in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Similarly, "Bah-
rain" is granTeo (en columns in the Encyclopaedia Iranica and "al-bahrayn" oniy hve in the
Encyclopaedia ef-httmi -Moreeve*, where~the- latter entry has only one paragraph dealing