Abd al-Jabbar Critique of Christian Origins 2 4 ¢ he 3 gw) LEY. oS A parallel English-Arabic text edited, translated, and annotated by Gabriel Said Reynolds & Samir Khalil Samir Brigham Young University Press + Provo, UtahTranslator’s Introduction 1. Early Islamic Works on Christianity The text edited and translated here, the Critique of Christian Origins, demon- strates the great intellectual curiosity of a medieval, rationalist Muslim scholar, Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar (d. 415/1025). It also demonstrates the great interest that early Muslim scholars took in refuting Christianity.’ This interest should come as no surprise. For centuries Christians made up the great majority of the subject population in most areas of Islamic rule. Moreover, the Qur*An itself shows great concern with Jesus, Mary, and Christianity. In the present introduction, therefore, I will begin by out- lining the Qur’anic material on these matters. Thereafter I will turn to the tradition of early Islamic works on Christianity in order to establish the context out of which ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s Critique of Christian Origins emerges. It is no easy task, however, to describe the Qur°4n’s evaluation of Christianity, for the precise historical context of the Qur°4n’s origins is far from clear, despite the elaborate biographies of the Prophet Muham- mad written during the “Abbasid period (132/750-656/1258). Meanwhile, Qur*Anic language, essentially homiletic and referential, is often sparing with details. It can therefore be elusive to readers removed from its original context. The problem might best be presented in regard to terminology. The Qur*an repeatedly (eleven times in all) refers to Jesus as the Christ 1. On this topic see especially 1. Goldziher, “Ober muhammedanische Pole- mik gegen ahl al-kitab,” ZDMG 32 (1878), 341-87. A. Charfi counts 33 Muslim authors who wrote against Christianity in the early medieval period. See his “Polémiques islamo-chrétiennes & l’époque médiévale,” Scholarly Approaches to Religion, Interreligious Perceptions and Islam, ed. S. K. Samir and J. S. Nielsen (New York: Peter Lang, 1995), 263. = xxi —xxii Translator’s Introduction (al-masih). However, it seems to use the term simply as a proper name (much as Christians began to use the term in the patristic period). Yet the Qur’an also refers to Jesus as the Word of God (Q 3:45; 4:17]; cf. 3:59) and the Spirit of God (4:171), who was created from a divine breath (21:91; 66:12). These are typical formulae used by Christians to express the divinity of Christ, as is the Qur°anic reference to Christ creating a bird from clay and bringing it to life with his breath (3:49; 5:110; cf. God’s creation of Adam: 15:29; 32:9; 38:72) and the Qur’an’s close association of Jesus and the Holy Spirit (2:87, 253; 5:110). However, the Qur*an also repeatedly has Jesus announce that he was sent by God to confirm the law (Jawrat) to the Israelites (3:50; 5:46; 61:6), to insist on God’s transcendence (3:51; 5:72), to reject worship of him (and his mother) as gods (5:116-17), and, in one place, to announce a Messen- ger to come after him (61:6). Hence it seems that the Qur*An is rejecting Christian claims about Jesus, and indeed the Qur’An implies that the “People of the Book” (here presumably Christians are intended) belittle God with their statements about Christ (4:171). Elsewhere (9:30) Chris- tians are reprimanded for calling Christ the Son of God. And yet in the very next verse (9:31) the Qur°an seems to imply that Christians and Jews err in considering monks and rabbis as Lords instead of God and Christ.” Meanwhile, the Qur°an’s view on Christianity is further complicated by the term it uses for the followers of Christ: nasard, a term presumably related to the city of Nazareth (Ar. ndsira) and thus to Greek Na¢wpatot, a name used by Epiphanius (d. 403), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. ca. 458), and John of Damascus (d. 749) for a Jewish-Christian sect that existed in the early Christian centuries in Palestine and the Decapolis (cities east of the Jordan River)—that is, in areas with a largely Arab population. It could be that the Qur°an is somehow responding to a particular Chris- tian heresy. Nevertheless, the absence of any clear knowledge of the Qur’an’s context renders such a suggestion pure speculation. The Qur’an’s reference to the Crucifixion of Christ is perhaps the example par excellence of the difficulties in understanding the text out of its original context. In 4:157 the Qur°an famously relates that the Israelites claimed to have killed Jesus Christ, whereas in fact they neither killed him nor crucified him but rather shubbiha lahum, an Arabic phrase that could mean either “it was made to seem this way to them” or “the one who was crucified was made to resemble [Jesus] to them.” Muslim 2. Note, however, that the text is vocalized today with Christ in the accusative so that Christ is grouped with monks and rabbis in this verse.Translator’s Introduction xxiii scholars {including ‘Abd al-Jabbar) generally embraced this latter inter- pretation, concluding that God made another figure, be it Peter (out of devotion) or Judas (as a punishment) or someone else to resemble Jesus, who instead was brought up, body and soul, to heaven (cf. Q 4:158). Thence he will return to earth in the apocalypse and finish his life. Most western scholars, on the other hand, have found in this verse an echo of Gnostic Christian docetism.? Yet this verse never states that Jesus did not die, while a large number of other verses (esp. 5:117, but cf. also 2:134; 3:55; 5:75; 19:33) strongly suggest that he did. Much more might be said about this controversial passage. For our purposes, however, it is enough to conclude that the Qur*An’s statements on Christianity and Jesus, here as elsewhere, are elusive. For early Muslim scholars faced with the task of defending the new religion, however, there was no place for elusiveness. Therefore early Islamic works on Christianity tend towards a clarification and a conden- sation of the Qur°an’s views on Jesus. Jesus, who in the Qur°an seems to be singled out above all prophets (2:253), is now presented as one link in the chain of prophets from Adam to Muhammad. His birth without a father at the beginning of his life and his ascension into heaven at its end are extraordinary only inasmuch as they reflect God’s miraculous intervention, They do not redound to Jesus’ nature. Meanwhile, early Muslim scholars are as concerned to refute the Christian view of Jesus as they are to clarify the Muslim view of him. Indeed, the reason for this is not hard to imagine. Since Islam claimed Jesus as its own, Muslim apology could hardly be distinct from anti- Christian polemic. Christians might, and many do, simply ignore Islamic claims of Muhammad’s prophethood (as a Muslim might ignore the claims of Baha® Allah’s prophethood), but Muslims could not but- address the claims of Christians, claims that undermine the very basis of their salvation history. Yet there is another trend that is perhaps even more important for the rise of Muslim writing on Christianity: the appearance of speculative theology (Ar. salam) in the second Islamic century. Speculative theology 3. See, e.g., R. Bell, The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment (London: Macmillan, 1926), 154; H. Gregoire, “Mahomet et le monophysisme,” Mélanges Charles Diehl (Paris: Leroux, 1930), 1107-19; K. Ahrens, K. “Christliches im Qoran,” ZDMG 84, 1930 (15-68, 148-90), 153; J. Henninger, Spuren christlicher Glauben- swahrheiten im Koran (Schéneck: Administration der Neuen Zeitschrift fiir Mission- swissenschaft, 1951), 27-28; D. Masson, Le Coran et la révélation judéo-chrétienne (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1958), 330-31; G. Anawati, “Isa,” EP, 4.84.xxiv Translator’s Introduction was above all represented by a movement—to which ‘Abd al-Jabbar would later belong—known as the Mu‘tazila. While the works of the earliest members of the Mu‘tazila are not extant, the records of their titles (largely preserved by the Muslim bibliographer Ibn al-Nadim, d. 380/990) reveal that a basic raison d’tre of the movement was the rational defense of Islam. The validity of Islam, the Mu‘tazila held, is to be discovered in its agreement with universal logical principles (and not, say, in claims of miracles). With logic as the field of contest, the Mu‘tazila engaged not only Christianity but also all competing religious or philosophical systems, from Zoroastrianism and Manicheanism to Neo-Platonic philosophy and astrology, to competing Muslim schools or sects.* As G. Monnot puts it, the Mu‘tazila were fully devoted to “the passionate struggle against all systems of thought, Muslim or not, that could threaten their doctrine.”* This struggle is evident in the literary corpus of the early generations of the Mu‘tazila.° One of the supposed founders of the Mu‘tazila, Wasil b. *Ata’ (d. 131/748), is reported to have written several heresiographies.’ Dirar b. “Amr (d. 200/815), who according to some sources was WAsil’s student (although their age difference makes this improbable), is known for his works against various Muslim (especially extremist Shi‘i) groups.® Dirar’s student, Abii al-Hudhayl al-‘Allaf (d. ca. 226/841), wrote books against the Jews and the Zoroastrians, as well as a treatise against the East Syrian (“Nestorian”) Christian ‘Ammar al-Basri (d. early 3rd/9th century).? Meanwhile, in the Critique of Christian Origins (2.520-21) ‘Abd al- Jabbar preserves an accusation against Christians (that they believe God had intercourse with Mary) by Abii al-Hudhayl’s student Nazzam (d. 225/840), who also wrote against Jews, dualists, Shi’a, philosophers, 4. G. Monnot comments, “Les mu‘tazilites furent en Islam les pionniers de la littérature religieuse polémique.” Penseurs musulmans et religions iraniennes: ‘Abd al-Jabbar et ses devanciers (Paris: J. Vrin, 1974), 101. Charfi agrees: “Ce sont surtout les Mu‘tazilites qui sont les initiateurs du genre et qui lui ont imprimé ses prin- cipales caractéristiques.” “Polémiques islamo-chrétiennes,” 263. 5. “...Ja lutte acharnée contre toutes les pensées musulmanes ou non, qui menagaient leur doctrine.” Penseurs musulmans, 9. 6. For more details on the following, see MT, 19~40 and appendix | (p. 261, a chart of Mu‘tazili scholars through ‘Abd al-Jabbar). 7. See Jj. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra (Ber- lin: de Gruyter, 1991-97), 2.234. 8. See van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, 3.36. 9. Kitab “ala ‘Ammar al-nasrani fi al-radd “ald al-nasara. See Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist, ed. Rida Tajaddud (Tehran: Dar al-Masira, 1988), 203. Cf. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschafl, 3.220.Translator’s Introduction xxU and even other Mu‘tazila (including Abii al-Hudhay! no less!).!° Finally, Nazzim’s famous student Jahiz (d. 255/868—69) wrote a well-known letter against the Christians at the request of the caliph Mutawakkil (r. 232/847— 247/861), which can still be read today."! This scholarly chain of Mu‘tazili religious polemic continues down all the way from Nazzam to ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s teacher Abia ‘Abdallah al-Basri (d. 369/980), who, according to ‘Abd al-Jabbar in a passage of the Critique of Christian Origins (3.724-29), included a chapter against Christianity in his book al-/dah.!? In this same passage ‘Abd al-Jabbar refers to a number of other authors of anti-Christian polemics. Tellingly, all of them are Mu‘tazili. Among them are authors from his own Basran branch of the Mu‘tazila—Abii ‘Ali al-Jubba°i (d. 303/915-16), his son Abi Hashim al-Jubba’i (d. 321/933), and the latter’s student Ibn Khallad (d. 350/961)—and from the competing Baghdadi branch: al-Iskafi (d. 240/854) and Ibn al-Ikhshid (d. 326/938). ‘Abd al-Jabbar also includes here (3.727) the infamous Abii “Isa al-Warraq (d. ca. 247/861), who is usually associated with the Mu‘tazila but is also almost always cursed as a heretic or apostate.’ Nevertheless, Warraq’s writing on Christianity is largely extant (in fact it is all that survives of his corpus),'* and provides an excellent example of the standard Mu‘tazili approach to the refutation 10. On Nazzam, see van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, 3.296 ff. 11. “Risala fi al-radd ‘ala al-nasara,” in Three Essays of al-Jahiz, ed. J. Finkel (Cairo: Salafiyya Press, 1962). Partially translated in J. Finkel, “A Risala of Jahiz,” JAOS 47 (1927): 311-34; cf. the more recent edition in Ras@'il al-Jahiz, ed. ‘Ali Aba Malhim (Beirut: Dar wa-Maktabat al-Hilal, 1987; reprint of ed. “Ali Sulayman, Cairo, 1964-79), 2.253-89. 12. In light of the close relationship between the Zaydi Shi‘a and the Mu‘tazila one could include in this chain as well the “Radd ‘ala al-nasara” of the Zaydi al- Qasim b. Ibrahim al-Rassi (d. 246/860). See the edition thereof in I. di Matteo, “Confutazione contro i Cristiani dello Zaydita al-Qasim b. Ibrahim,” Rivista degli studi orientali 9 (1921-22): 301-64. 13. On Warraq see A. Charfi, al-Fikr al-islami ft al-radd “ala al-nasara (Tinis: Dar al-Tiinisiyya li-l-Nashr, 1986), 141; van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, 4.289- 94, and the excellent introductions to D, Thomas’s editions cited below (n. 14). 14, His treatise on the Trinity (as quoted by Yahya b. “Adi, d. 362/972) is edited and translated by D. Thomas in Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam: Abii ‘Tsd al-Warrag’s “Against the Trinity” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) as is his treatise on the Incarnation: Early Muslim Polemic Against Christianity: Abii ‘Is al-Warragq’s “Against the Incarnation” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). This latter treatise may be read along with Yahya b. ‘Adi’s response in Yahya b. ‘Adi, Jawab ‘an radd Abi ‘Isa al-Warrag ala al-nasard fi al-ittihad, CSCO 490 (text), CSCO 491 (French translation), ed. and trans. E. Platti (Louvain: Peeters, 1987).xxi Translator’s Introduction of Christianity. For this reason it may be helpful to mention its primary characteristics. Two basic features of Warraq’s refutation of Christianity are impor- tant to note, inasmuch as they reflect the larger trend of early Islamic writing on Christianity. First, he is concerned therein almost exclusively with theological matters. Warraq divides his analysis of Christianity into two parts: Trinity and Incarnation. Within each part he presents, and seeks to refute, the various Trinitarian and Christological views of the main Christian sects of the early Islamic world: Jacobite (i.e., “mono- physite”), Melkite, and “Nestorian” (more properly East Syrian). He shows meticulous concern for the precise terminology of these sects (e.g., whether they refer to the divine hypostases as aganim, khawdss, ashkhds, or sifat), while ignoring almost entirely Christian history, scripture, and practice. Second, Warraq writes in a dialectical style commonly referred to as “questions and answers” (mas@’il wa-ajwiba). That is, his text on Chris- tianity is composed almost entirely of introductions to Christian doctrines swiftly followed by demonstrations of how those doctrines can be decon- structed through a series of disjunctive questions. He shows the Muslim. reader how to set a logical trap by presenting a question that ultimately leads the Christian either to self-contradiction or ad absurdum. This is seen, for example, in the opening section of his refutation of the Nestorians: Say to the Nestorians: Do you not claim that the Messiah was divine and human? From their teaching they will reply: Yes. Say to them: Do you not claim that the Divinity is Creator and the human created? They must say: Yes, since this is what they teach. Say to them: Do you then claim that the Creator is Lord and the created is subordinate? If they reject this, they should be asked the difference between “sub- ordinate” and “created”. And if they allow it and make the two expres- sions equivalent, say to them: Do you then claim that the subordinate human is servant, and that the Lord is served? If they reject this, ask what is the difference between “servant” and “subordinate”, and also between “human” and “servant”. If they make them equivalent, we say: Then you are forced by this to accept that the Messiah was Creator and created, Lord and subordinate, servant and served. This is inescapable if they are not to contradict what they have received and what the question forces upon them.!% 15. Abii “Isa al-Warraq, trans. D. Thomas, Early Muslim Polemic Against Chris tianity: Abii ‘Isa al-Warrag’s “Against the Incarnation,” 181-83; cf. as quoted by Yahya b. ‘Adi, CSCO 490, 95, Il. 4~11; French translation: CSCO 491, 82, ll. 5-21.Translator’s Introduction xxvii This “questions and answers” method is prevalent not only in Warraq’s writing but also in the great majority of early Islamic works on Christianity. It reflects the degree to which those works were part of the larger enterprise of Iskamic theology, where disjunctive question- ing was a cardinal literary technique for all theological discussions. It is no surprise, then, that the authors of these works show remarkable knowl- edge about subtle Christological and Trinitarian doctrinal debates. These debates would be familiar to them in light of the cognate debates in Islamic theology over the attributes of God and createdness of the Qur*an. It may be a surprise, however, to find how little knowledge these authors demonstrate of Christian history, scripture, and practice, despite the presence of Christians throughout the Islamic world.’® Yet there is reason to think that this absence is not due to ignorance but to choice. The Muslim theologian, or mutakallim (literally “speaker”), was part ofa larger intellectual current of rational debate, a current that likely had its origins in Greek logic,!” but was also expressed in Judaism (where the authors of the Gemara were known in Aramaic as amord’im, “speakers”) and in Syriac Christianity (where a theologian was a memallel, “speaker”).'® Moses Maimonides (d. 600/1204) argued that Islamic theology was cre- ated to counter the rational system of the philosophers.'® This may not be fully correct, but it is true that Muslim theologians defended their reli- gion using the concepts and methods of philosophers. Put another way, 16. In regard to scripture, Goldziher comments: “Die Polemik gegen die Religions- schriften ist bis ungefahr zum X. Jh. u. Z. . . . ganz vage und unbestimmte.... Diese Vagheit und Unbestimmtheit hangt mit dem absoluten Mangel aller sich- ern Information betreffs der biblischen Schriften in den ersten Zeiten des Islam zusammen.” “Uber muhammedanische Polemik gegen afl al-kitdb,” 348. Goldzi- her was certainly not aware of the Critique when he suggested this periodization, which remarkably puts ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s work (written 385/995) at the very turn- ing point of the Islamic polemical tradition. 17, Van Ess argues that the very term kalém is a calque on Gk. 8tddekTos. See “The Logical Structure of Islamic Theology,” Logic in Classical Islamic Culture (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970), 22-24; idem, “Disputationspraxis der islamischen Theologie,” Revue des Etudes Islamiques 44 (1976): 23-60; S. Griffith, “Habib ibn Khidmah Abii Raitah, a Christian Mutakallim of the First “Abbasid Century,” OC 64 (1980): 168. 18. See M. Cook, “The Origins of Kalam,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 (1986): 32-43. 19. See Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. S. Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 177.xxviti Translator’s Introduction Islamic theology was from the beginning directed towards the rational demonstration of Islam’s truth. This meant that when most theologians sought to refute Christianity, they sought to refute the rationality of its theological system. And yet there were exceptions, when circumstances dictated. Jahiz, as mentioned above, did not write his book against the Christians simply as part of his theological repertoire but rather at the request of the caliph Mutawakkil, as part of the caliph’s larger anti-Christian campaign.”° Accordingly, Jahiz presents a remarkably detailed, if antagonistic, portrait of the Christianity of his day. He describes the arrogance of Christians who, being dominant in the respected fields of science and medicine, ceased paying their poll tax and removed the obligatory dress of non-Muslims. Meanwhile, instead of a logical refutation of Christian doctrine, Jahiz confines himself to rhetoric: “How can one succeed in grasping this doctrine, for if you were to question concerning it two Nestorians, individually, sons of the same father and mother, the answer of one brother would be the reverse of the other.”®! Two other Muslim authors wrote on Christianity under extraordinary circumstances and, accordingly, their works stand out from the larger trend of theological refutations. Both ‘Ali al-[abari (d. 240/855) and al-Hasan b. Ayyiib (d. late 4th/I0th century) wrote treatises on Christi- anity after leaving that religion and embracing Islam. ‘Ali al-Tabari, who wrote two works on Christianity, Kitab al-din wa-l-dawla and al-Radd “ala al-nasdra,” explains in the latter work that he finally converted at the age of 70, when he “sold worldly matters for religion.” * The former book, however, is in many ways the more remarkable, as he presents therein a detailed exegesis of the Bible, arguing that Christian claims about Jesus are contradicted by their own holy book, which actually contains prophecies of Muhammad. 20. On this, see O. Schumann, Der Christus der Muslime (Cologne: Béhlau, 1988), 49. 2). Al-Jahiz, “Risala fi al-radd “ala al-nasara,” Finkel’s translation, 333. 22. ‘Ali b. Rabban al-Tabari, Kitab al-din wa-l-dawla, ed. ‘Adil Nuwayhid (Bei- rut: Dar al-Afaq al-Jadida, 1982); English trans.: The Book of Religion and Empire, trans. A. Mingana (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1922); idem., al- Radd ‘ala asnafal-nasara, ed. Khalil Muhammad ‘Abduh (Cairo: Maktabat Nafidha, 2005); “al-Radd ‘ala al-nasara,” ed. I-A. Khalifé S.J. and W. Kutsch 8. J., Mélanges de Vuniversité Saint Joseph 36 (1959), 115-48; French trans.: Riposte aux chrétiens, trans. J.-M. Gaudeul (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica, 1995), 23. ‘Ali al-Tabari, al-Radd ‘ald al-nasara, 119.Translator’s Introduction xxix Al-Hasan b. Ayyiib’s work is in fact a letter in which he invites his brother ‘Ali to join him in his new faith. Yet Muslim interest in this letter must have been significant, as it is referred to by Ibn al-Nadim and quoted extensively by the famous polemical theologian Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/ 1328) in his own monumental refutation of Christianity.** Therein Ibn Ayyab offers details on Christian history (such as the early Roman per- secution) and practice (such as Christian prayers) nowhere to be found in the main tradition of early Islamic writing on Christianity. The Critique of Christian Origins, meanwhile, offers details on Chris- tianity that far exceed even the works of Jahiz, ‘Ali al-Tabari, and al- Hasan b. Ayyub. Indeed, if Ibn Taymiyya quotes al-Hasan b. Ayyiib in his refutation of Christianity, the fundamental premises of that refu- tation, from the role of Paul and Constantine in the falsification of Christianity, to the reliance of Christian intellectuals on philosophy, to the fascination of Christians with miracles and their blind obedience to religious leaders, have a clear precedent in the Critique of Christian Origins. The exceptional nature of the Critique of Christian Origins, to be discussed further below, is even more evident in light of its contrast with “Abd al-Jabbar’s early refutation of Christianity in his magnum opus, the Mughni fi abwab al-tawhid wa-l-‘adl (Summa on Monotheism and Divine Justice).> Here ‘Abd al-Jabbar is fully within the tradition of early Muslim theological writings on Christianity. “Abd al-Jabbar begins his chapters on Christianity in the Mughni with a summary of Christian doctrine on Trinity and Incarnation. There- after, he is primarily occupied with summarizing the arguments that his Muttazili predecessors (above all Abu ‘Ali and Abi Hashim al-Jubba’i) used against Christians. Thus against the Trinity he writes: In this way our shaykhs compelled them to state that each one of the hypostases is a god. For if the Son and Spirit are like the Father uncreated, then that which makes Him a god makes them gods. Moreover, the idea that they are all gods would invalidate the basis of their statement. For they conclude that the one who is the uncre- ated actor can neither be alive except through life nor knowing except through knowledge. Thus hypostases must be affirmed for the Word 24. Ibn Ayyab, “Risala ila ‘Ali b. Ayyiib,” in Ibn Taymiyya, al-Jawab al-sahih (Cairo: Matba‘at al-Nil, 1323/1905), 2.312-44; 2.352-3.3, 25. ‘Abd al-Jabbar, al-Mughni, ed. Taha Husayn et al. (Cairo: Dar al-Misriyya li-L-Ta°lif wa-l-Tarjama, 1965).ex Translator’s Introduction and the Spirit . .. and each of these must also have [hypostases] like- wise. This would mean one must affirm gods without end.?* As G. Monnot has pointed out, in his refutation of Christianity in the Mighni ‘Abd al-Jabbar constantly relies on his Mu‘tazili shaykhs, especially Abi ‘Ali al-Jubba°i.?” Meanwhile, in the Critique of Christian Origins, a text written only five years after the Mugkni was completed, ‘Abd al-Jabbar justly insists (3.723) that his approach is innovative. Thus one scholar wrote two very different types of works. The key to understanding why ‘Abd al-Jabbar would write a traditional Mu‘tazili work in one case, and a remarkably innovative work in another, might be found in his unusual life story. 2. ‘Abd al-Jabbar: Life and Works A. Life ‘Abd al-Jabbar was born sometime in the 320s/930s in Asadabad,?* a busy town in the mountains of western Iran, strategically located on a road that connected Baghdad with Rayy. His life, too, would connect those two cities. After passing his formative years in Baghdad, ‘Abd al-Jabbar spent most of the rest of his life in Rayy, where he died in Dhi al-Qa‘da 415, or January/February 1025.”° This long life was marked not only by ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s scholarly accomplishments but also by the political and sectarian intrigues of his day. ‘Abd al-Jabbar lived in a time when Iraq and Iran fell under the control of the Biiyids, a dynastic family with origins in Daylam, a region in northwestern Iran to the south of the Caspian Sea. At one time Zaydi Shi‘is, the Biyids were later converted to Imami/Twelver Shi‘ism, but they left the Sunni caliph in place and were not overly zealous in sectar- ian matters. By the mid-4th/l0th century three Biyid brothers had 26. ‘Abd al-Jabbar, al-Mughni, 5.87, i. 15-18. 27. “.,..duquel ‘Abd al-Jabbar défére sans cesse.” G. Monnot, “Les doctrines des chrétiens dans le ‘Moghni’ de ‘Abd al-Jabbar,” MIDEO 16 (1983): 16 (9-30). 28. MT, 45. 29. MT, 57. The most reliable source for this date is al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (4. 463/1071), who passed through Rayy soon after ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s death. See Ta’rikh Baghdad, ed. Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir “Ata (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-“Ilmiyya, 1995), 11:116.Translator’s Introduction xxi risen to power in different regions: ‘Ali (the eldest, d. 338/949), who was given the name “Imad al-Dawla, ruled Fars; al-Hasan (d. 366/976), who was given the name Rukn al-Dawla, ruled Jibal; and Ahmad (d. 356/967), who was given the name Mu‘izz al-Dawla, ruled Kirman, Khizistan, and, from 334/945, Baghdad itself. Ultimately, however, it was the sons of Rukn al-Dawla—‘Adud al-Dawla (d. 372/983), Mu’ayyid al-Dawla (d. 373/984), and Fakhr al-Dawla (d. 387/997)—who inherited Biyid rule. ‘Adud al-Dawla became the most powerful of the group, but his brothers are of greater interest to us, for Mu’ayyid al-Dawla had authority over Rayy, where ‘Abd al-Jabbar would serve as Chief Judge (gadi al-qudat). When Mu®ayyid al-Dawla died, his brother and bitter rival, Fakhr al-Dawla, took control there. In the Buyid period Rayy was a great city, renowned as much for its beauty as for the accomplishments of its inhabitants. The geographer Abii “Abdallah al-Maqdisi (d. after 380/990), a contemporary of “Abd al-Jabbar, comments: “Al-Rayy is an important town, delightful, distinguished. ... It is one of the glories of Islam, one of the chief cities of the lands. Here are elders, nobles, readers, Imams, ascetics, conquerors, high purpose.”*° Rayy was also important in “Abd al-Jabbar’s day because of its eccentric and brilliant vizier, Ibn ‘Abad (d. 385/995), who was closely associated with Mu’ayyid al-Dawla (for which reason he is known as al-Sahib, “The Companion”) but also served under Fakhr al-Dawla. Ibn ‘Abbad estab- lished a court at which both literary and scholarly culture flourished. The poet and satirist Abi Hayyan al-Tawhidi (d. 414/1023) joined the court for a time, as did philosophers, doctors, astronomers, and Sunni and Shi‘i theologians alike. In fact, during this time Rayy became the center of a revival of the Mu‘tazili school of theology, with which both Ibn “Abbad and “Abd al-Jabbar were associated. Rayy was also the home of a wide range of religious groups. Long before the days of Ibn ‘Abbad and still after his death (until the Sunni Ghaznavid ruler Mahmid b. Sebiiktigin’s [d. 421/1030] occupation of the city in 420/1029), Rayy was a city of remarkable religious diversity and the scene of inter-religious controversy. In his A‘ldm al-nubuwwa the Isma‘ili/Sevener Shi°i Abii Hatim al-Razi (d. 322/934) recalls the debate he had in Rayy with the free-thinking philosopher Abi Bakr al-Razi 30. See Muqaddasi, The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions, trans. B. A. Collins (Reading: Garnet, 1994), 341; Arabic text: Kitab ahsan al-tagasim, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1904), 390-91.xxxii Translator’s Introduction (d. 313/925 or 323/935).*! Later the philosopher Avicenna (d. 428/1037) would be in Rayy. According to Alnoor Dhanani he likely met “Abd al-Jabbar there and was subsequently influenced by the Jatter’s theo- logical challenges to his philosophy.*? “Abd al-Jabbar also seems to have met the great Imami/Twelver Shi°i theologian al-Shaykh al-Mufid (. 413/1022).*> Moreover, Rayy’s religious diversity was not limited to Mus- lim sects. From the early fifth century it had been a bishopric of the East Syrian/Nestorian Church (being called, in Syriac, Béth Razigayé). It was also a significant center for both Jews (n.b. the reference to Rayy in Tobit 4:1) and Zoroastrians, who considered Rayy one of twelve holy spots created by Ahura Mazda.*# Yet ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s career began in the humbler setting of Asadabad, where his father was a simple peasant. Thence “Abd al-Jabbar traveled to nearby Hamadhan to study hadith and law ( igh). Thereafter he pursued these studies in Qazwin, a city to the west of Rayy, and in Isfahan, in Fars. When he moved on to the southern Iraqi city of Basra, however, ‘Abd al-Jabbar turned his attention to theology (4alam), in part as a result of the influence of a Mu‘tazili named Ibrahim b. ‘Ayyash (d. 386/996). Ibn ‘Ayyash was himself a student of Aba Hashim al-Jubba°i, eponym of the Bahshamiyya movement of the Muttazila that ‘Abd al-Jabbar would later lead. ‘Abd al-Jabbar found theology to be the most exalted of the sciences. The Mu‘tazili biographer Jishumi (killed in 494/1101) records: “In figh [Abd al-Jabbar] reached great heights. He had choices, then, but he filled his days with theology. He said, “Those who study law seek the things of the world. But theology has no goal other than God most high. ”*° 31. “Abi Hatim al-Razi, Alam al-nubuwwa, ed. Salah al-Sawy (Tehran: Royal Iranian Philosophical Society, 1977). See also P. Kraus, “Extraits du kitab a°lam al-nubuwwa d’Abii Hatim al-Razi,” Orientalia 5 (1936): 35-56, 358-378. In the Tathbit, “Abd al-Jabbar adds the remarkable note that Abi Bakr was born a Chris- tian, and was originally named John (Yahanna). See Tathbit, 623; MT, 187-88. 32. See A. Dhanani, “Rocks in the Heavens?! The Encounter Between ‘Abd al-Gabbar and Ibn Sina,” Before and after Avicenna: Proceedings of the First Conference of the Avicenna Study Group, ed. D. Reisman (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 127-44. 33, See M. McDermott, The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufid (Beirut: Dar al- Machregq, 1978), 287. 34. See MT, 67ff. 35, Jishumi, Sharh ‘uyiin al-masa’il, published in ‘Abd al-Jabbar, Fadl al-i*tizay wa-tabagat al-mu‘tazila, ed. Fu°ad Sayyid (Tunis: Dar al-Tanisiyya li-l-Nashr, 1393/1974); see p. 367.Translator’s Introduction xxxiii “Abd al-Jabbar, it seems, had a powerful and attractive personality, for he soon became a respected figure among the Mu‘tazila himself. He continued his studies in Baghdad with Abi ‘Abdallah al-Basri, the teacher not only of Ibn ‘Ayyash but also of the Vizier Ibn ‘Abbad. Mean- while ‘Abd al-Jabbar began taking students of his own and composing works, including his Mughni (Summa), while spending time in the Iranian cities of Ramhurmuz and ‘Askar Mukram. His writings were extremely well received and his fame spread. Jishumi comments: He received authority among the Mu‘tazila until he became their shaykh and scholar without opposition. His books and treatises became relied upon to the point that they replaced the books of those shaykhs who preceded him. His fame has no need of an exaggerated description.°® “Abd al-Jabbar’s fame did not escape the attention of Ibn ‘Abbad, who, in 367/977, summoned him to work as a judge in Rayy. There “Abd al-Jabbar had a place of honor. He is said to have sat to Ibn ‘Abbad’s left in court (while the Zaydi Imam, al-Mu’ayyad bi-Llah [d. 411/1020], a student of “Abd al-Jabbar, sat to his right). According to the historian Safadi (d. 764/1363), Ibn ‘Abbad found his new judge “to have great knowledge and refined morals.”*” In fact, Ibn ‘Abbad would later widen ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s authority, commenting on this occasion: “Piety is his mount and path. Truth is his goal and sign.”** In time, however, the relationship between Ibn ‘Abbad and ‘Abd al-Jabbar grew contentious. On one occasion, ‘Abd al-Jabbar alone refused to stand for Ibn ‘Abbad when the Vizier entered his court.*° On another occasion, according to the aforementioned Tawhidi, Ibn ‘Abbad publicly mocked ‘Abd al-Jabbar.*° Safadi, meanwhile, reports that Ibn ‘Abbad, who had grown frustrated by the insolence of ‘Abd al-Jabbar, announced that his judge had forgotten that he was the ‘Abd (“servant”) of al-Jabbar (“The Almighty”) and had begun to think of himself sim- ply as al-Jabbar.*! According to Safadi, it was this insult, this accusation 36. Jishumi, Sharh ‘uyiin al-masd’il, 365. 37. Safadi, al-Wafi bi-L-wafayat, vol. 18, ed. Ayman Fu°ad Sayyid (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1988), 18.32. 38. Al-Sahib b. ‘Abbad, Rasa*il, ed. ‘Abd al-Wahhab ‘Azzam (Cairo: Dar al- Fikr al-‘Arabi, 1366/1947), 34. 39. See MT, 57. 40. Tawhidi, Mathalib al-wazirayn, ed. Ibrahim Kilani (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 1961), 68. 41. Safadi, al-Waft bi-l-wafayat, 18.33.xxKID Translator’s Introduction of blasphemy, that led “Abd al-Jabbar to refuse to pronounce the funeral blessing (“May God have mercy on him”) upon Ibn ‘Abbid’s death in 385/995 (the very year he composed the Tathbit),* That refusal, in turn, formed a pretext for Fakhr al-Dawla to strip “Abd al Jabbar (who was anyway too closely associated with his brother Mu’ayyid al-Dawla) of the judgeship and fine him exorbitantly, reportedly three million dirhams, which ‘Abd al-Jabbar raised by selling one thousand fine garments. Hence it is clear, even if these figures are exaggerated, that “Abd al-Jabbar had raised a fortune during his years of service as a judge. This does not escape the notice of Muslim historians, some of whom find “Abd al-Jabbar’s riches contemptible in light of his reputation for severity. Yaqut (d. 626/1229) exclaims: “[‘Abd al-Jabbar] claimed that a Muslim would go to eternal hellfire over a quarter dinar, but all of this money came from his corrupt judgeship. He is the true unbeliever.”** On the other hand, the sympathetic Mu‘tazili historian Jishumi insists that “Abd al-Jabbar was remarkable for his knowledge and his austerity.” In fact, even after his fall from power ‘Abd al-Jabbar continued to be a respected figure among the Mu‘tazila. He continued to teach in Rayy, Isfahan, and Qazwin. In 389/999 ‘Abd al-Jabbar performed the Hajj (for the third time; the first was in 339/950; the second in 379/989) and was well received in Mecca. Jishumi relates that when “Abd al- Jabbar grew older and began to suffer from gout (he also suffered from an eye ailment), sharifs (descendants of the Prophet) carried “Abd al- Jabbar from place to place. The philo-Mu‘tazili Zaydi author Ahmad b. Safd al-Din al-Miswari (d.. 1079/1668) reports that ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s funeral was a solemn and important event in Rayy, and that eight sharifs prayed over his body.*® The Shafi'i historian Subki (d. 771/1370) adds that when ‘Abd al-Jabbar died he was buried on his estate. Hence it 42. On the question of Ibn ‘Abbad’s death and ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s fall from power, sce G, S. Reynolds, “The Rise and Fall of Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar,” Inter- national Journal of Middle East Studies 37 (2005): 3~18. 43. See MT, 52-54. It is worth noting that Fakhr al-Dawla had paid a large tribute to buy off the menacing Ghaznavids the year before, and therefore was presumably in great need of funds. See Ibn al-Athir, Al-kamil fi al-ta’rikh, ed. ‘Abdallah al-Qadi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1995), 7.466-67. 44, Yaqiit, Kitab irshad al-arib ila ma‘rifat al-adib, ed. D. S. Margoliouth (Lon- don: Luzac, 1907-1926), 2.335, 45, Jishumi, Sharh ‘uytin al-masa’il, 367. 46. In his Kitab tuhfat al-abrér min akhbér al-‘itra al-athar, on the authority of the Shafici Mu‘tazili Aba Yaisuf al-Qazwini (d. 488/1095). See W. Madelung, Der Imam al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim und die Glaubenslehre der Zaiditen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965), 182.Translator’s Introduction XXXU seems that ‘Abd al-Jabbar died a reasonably wealthy man, despite the events of 385/995." As for “Abd al-Jabbar’s family, Safadi alone remarks that he was married and had a child.* B. Works If the Mu‘tazili historian Jishumi ignores ‘Abd al_Jabbar’s family, he pays great attention to “Abd al-Jabbar’s writings. Jishumi remarks that “Abd al-Jabbar “covered the land with his books and his disciples,” adding that he wrote on every reputable subject —a total of over 400,000 pages! Jishumi lists fifty-two of ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s works, insisting that these represent only a sample, since “it is impossible to mention all of his compositions.”*° Indeed in the Critigue of Christian Origins (1.248) “Abd al-Jabbar himself refers to a work (al-Misbah) that is missing from Jishumi’s list. From Jishumi’s list, however, it becomes clear that ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s literary corpus was shaped above all by the doctrine and method of the Mu‘tazila. That corpus, however, has largely been lost, in part because of the downfall of the Mu‘tazila. What was not lost remained largely unpub- lished, even up to the middle of the twentieth century. This began to change when an Egyptian expedition to Yemen in late 1951 located a number of Mu‘tazili works that had been preserved as a result of the survival of Mu‘tazili theology among the Zaydi Shia, who predominate in the northern part of that country. Among these works were large sections of “Abd al-Jabbar’s Mughni. With the publication of these excerpts in Egypt in the 1960s, most scholars began to see ‘Abd alJabbar as a compiler of, or commentator on, classical Mu‘tazili theology.*’ W. Madelung concludes that “in the his- tory of the Mu'tazilite school he appears to be less an innovator than an claborator of previous doctrine.” J. Peters describes ‘Abd al-Jabbar as a compiler, even while noting that ‘Abd al-Jabbar objects to this very 47. Tabagat al-shafi iyya al-kubra, ed. Mahmiid Muhammad al-Tanahi and ‘Abd al-Fattah Muhammad al-Hild (Cairo: Matba‘a ‘Isa al-Babi, 1964-76), 5.97. 48. Safadi, al-WGfi bi-L-wafayal, 18.33. 49. Jishumi, Sharh ‘uyin al-masa’il, 365. 50. Ibid., 369. In fact, some of “Abd al-Jabbar’s best known works, including the Tathbit, are absent from Jishumi’s list. Sec MT, 60, n. 206. 51. See, e.g., J. Peters, God’s Created Speech: A Study in the Speculative Theology of the Mu‘tazilt Qadi l-qudét (Leiden: Brill, 1976). 52. W. Madelung, “‘Abd al-Jabbar,” EIR, 1:117.sexu Translator’s Introduction charge at the end of the Mughni.** Several contemporary Muslim scholars come to the same conclusion.>4 However, other scholars discovered that ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s interest in theology led him to address the views of non-Islamic religions as well. G. Monnot wrote an entire book, entitled Penseurs musulmans et religions iraniennes: ‘Abd al-Jabbar et ses devanciers on “Abd al-Jabbar’s polemic in the Mughni against dualistic religions. Yet Monnot, too, concludes that ‘Abd al-Jabbar is less than original, and adds that he is too absorbed in polemic to be scientific.® If the description of ‘Abd al-Jabbar as “compiler” is not flattering, it is nevertheless better than the scholarly opinion of him, or rather the lack of scholarly opinion, in the first half of the twentieth century. Peters notes: “In the older European handbooks of Islamic theol- ogy his ideas are scarcely mentioned at all.”5° Nevertheless, this view of “Abd al-Jabbar does not match at all the evidence of the work edited and translated in the present volume, which is shockingly original. In fact, the response of the first scholars to study the Critique of Christian Origins was precisely that: shock. S. M. Stern con- cludes: “‘Abd al-Jabbar appears as a more remarkable man than one would have thought from his scholastic books.”*” S. Pines, on the other hand, was incredulous. He found the section on Christianity to be so extraordinary that he refused to accept that ‘Abd al-Jabbir was its author, arguing that the text actually originated from a secretive Judaeo-Christian. group.®* Pines’s argument is not convincing, but his fascination with the Tathbit is nevertheless understandable. The rest of “Abd al-Jabbar’s literary 53. See Peters, God's Created Speech, 14~15; ‘Abd al-Jabbar, Mughni, 20/2: 255-57. 54. On this see G. Monnot, Penseurs musulmans, 20, n. 2, who refers to an article by Sa‘id Zayid in Turdth al-insdniyya 1 (1963), 986 and Rahman Badawi, Madhahib al-islamiyyin (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li-l-Malayin, 1971), 1.3944. 55. “Cette hérésiographie générale reste agressivement polémique, elle ne se mue pas encore en hérésiographie générale encyclopédique par absorption du courant descriptif (ce mouvement commence au VIe siécle islamique). Mais déja nait le souci d’enregistrer avant de combattre. ‘Abd al-Jabbar est A ce moment d’équilibre. Hl n’a pas encore la pénétration d’Ibn Hazm et l’objectivité supérieure d’al-Birtini.” Monnot, Penseurs musulmans, 146. 56. Peters, God's Created Speech, 7. 57. “Quotations from Apocryphal Gospels in ‘Abd al-Jabbar,” Journal of Theo- logical Studies 18 (April 1967): 34. 58. On this controversy see MT, ch. 1. For Pines’s arguments to this effect see The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source (Jerusalem: Isracl Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1966); idem, “IsraelTranslator’s Introduction wow corpus gives the impression of a scholar fully dedicated to the standard theological expositions of the Mu‘tazila. At the center of that corpus is the Mughni, a work that ‘Abd al-Jabbar began in 360/970-71 in Ramhurmuz (Iran) and completed at Ibn ‘Abbad’s court in Rayy in 380/990. ‘Abd al-Jabbar does address Chris- tianity therein,®® but he does so according to the traditional theological concerns of the mutakallimiin. Meanwhile, he divides this massive work into twenty parts, following two basic theological principles of the Mu‘tazila: five parts on the topic of monotheism and fifteen on the topic of divine justice. These two topics are the first of five principles (al-usiil al-khamsa) that became the distinctive charter of the Mu‘tazila: one, monotheism (including the rejection of the eternality of the Qur°an and of the inde- pendence of divine attributes); two, divine justice (including the affirma- tion of free will, since God would only punish or reward those who have freely chosen evil or good); three, the promise of paradise and the threat of hell; four, an intermediate position on sinful Muslims (i.e., that they are neither to be accepted as believers nor rejected as unbelievers); and five, commanding right and forbidding wrong (i.e. requiring that Islamic law be enforced). The first two principles were inevitably the focus of the Mu‘tazila’s theological discourse. In fact, Mu‘tazili authors often refer to their own school as the “Party of Monotheism and Divine Justice.” “Abd al-Jabbar himself argues that every adult believer must understand and accept these two principles. Thus, as its full name implies, ‘Abd al-Jabbar intended his al-Mughni Si abwab al-tawhid wa-l-‘adl (Summa on Monotheism and Divine Justice) to be the comprehensive textbook of his school. This much is evident My Firstborn and the Sonship of Jesus, a Theme of Moslem Anti-Christian Polemics,” Studies in Mysticism and Religion (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 177-90; idem, “Judeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatise,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 35 (1967): 187-217; idem, “Notes on Islam and on Arabic Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity,” JSAI 4 (1984): 135-52; idem, “Studies in Christianity and in Judaeo-Christianity Based on Arabic Sources,” JSAI 6 (1985): 107-61; idem, “Gospel Quotations and Cognate Topics in ‘Abd al Jabbar’s Tathbit,” JSAT 9 (1987): 195-278. The above articles are reprinted in the section entitled “Judaco-Christianity” of The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, Volume IV: Studies in the History of Religion ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996). 59. ‘Abd al-Jabbar, al-Mughni, 5.80-151. 60. See Peters, God's Created Speech, 29.XXxviti Translator’s Introduction today, although the full work has not yet been recovered. Thirteen of the Mughni’s twenty parts were discovered during the 1951 expedition in Yemen. Manuscripts of an additional part (15) and sections of one more (17) were discovered soon thereafter and published together with the Yemen volumes.®! More recently additional sections have been discov- ered, some of which were preserved by Jewish authors writing in Judaeo- Arabic. Incidentally, ‘Abd al-Jabbar also wrote a condensed version of the Mughni, entitled al-Mukhtasar fi usiil al-din (Concise Work on the Principles of Religion), as an introduction to theology, reportedly at the suggestion of Ibn ‘Abbad.* Meanwhile, a second text discovered in Yemen, entitled Sharh al-usul al-khamsa (Commentary on the Five Principles), likewise reflects “Abd alJabbar’s dedication to the Mu‘tazili style of scholarship. He is not, however, the author of this work, and his relationship to it requires a brief explanation. A number of Mu‘tazili scholars, among them Abii ‘Ali al-Jubba’i, Ibn Khallad al-Basri, ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s teacher Abii “Abdallah al-Basri, and ‘Abd al-Jabbar himself, wrote treatises on the five principles of the school entitled accordingly Al-wsiil al-khamsa (The Five Principles).6* 61. See M. Khodeiri, “Deux nouvelles sections du Moghni du Qadi ‘Abd al- Jabbar,” MIDEO 5 (1958): 417-24. 62. See S. Schmidtke and O. Hamdan, “Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar al-Hamadhani (d. 415/1025) on the Promise and Threat: An Edition of a Fragment of his Kitab al-Mughni fi abwab al-tawhid wa |adl preserved in the Firkovitch-Collection, St. Petersburg (II Firk. Arab. 105, ff. 14-92),” MIDEO 27 (2008): 37-117. This article follows the initial research of H. Ben-Shammai, who much earlier had sug- gested that a Karaite Jewish ms. in the Leningrad library contained fragments of “Abd al-Jabbar’s Mughni. See his “A Note on Some Karaite Copies of Mu‘tazilite Writings,” BSOAS 37 (1974): 295-304. See also G. Schwarb, “Découverte d’un nouveau fragment du Kitab al-mughni fi abwab al-tawhid wa-l-adl du Qadi Abd al- Jabbar al-Hamadani dans une collection karaite de la British Library,” MIDEO 27 (2009), 119-29. 63. Published in Rasa’il al-‘adl wa-l-tawhid, ed. Muhammad ‘Imara (Cairo; Dar al-Hilal, 1971), 1.161-253. 64. At an earlier stage Mu‘tazili scholars wrote a number of treatises titled according to one or another of these principles, such as Abi al-Hudhayl (d. ca. 226/841) and Nazzam (d. 225/840) on the promise of paradise and threat of hell. See Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist, 204 and 206, respectively. Also, Ab: Masa al-Murdar (d, 226/840) on monotheism (Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist, 207) and the Baghdadi Mu‘tazilj Ja‘far b. al-Mubashshir (d. 234/848-49) on commanding right and forbidding wrong (Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist, 208).Translator’s Introduction xxix “Abd al-Jabbar’s brief work by this name is extant and has been published. Yet he also wrote a much longer commentary on this work (Sharh al-usiil al-khamsa) which is lost. The text discovered in Yemen, meanwhile, is a paraphrase of that commentary by his disciple Shashdiw Mankdim al-Qazwini (d. 425/1034), although in the printed edition it is attributed to “Abd al-Jabbar himself and entitled Sharh al-usiil al-khamsa.® It might be more properly called Ta‘tig sharh al-usil al-khamsa (Report on the Com- mentary on the Five Principles). A similar confusion took place in regard to another Yemeni manu- script attributed to ‘Abd al-Jabbar: al-Majmii‘ ft al-muhit bi-l-taklif (The Compilation on the Comprehensive Work on Obligation).°’ The primary issue of this work is God’s imposition of moral obligation (taklif) on humanity, a topic of fundamental importance to Mu‘tazili theological thought. As ‘Abd al-Jabbar describes it, the central task before humans is to evaluate and to engage moral objects, to choose what is good and to reject what is bad. God helps humans in this task with grace (/utf), most obviously through prophets and revelation, but also through the gifts of intelligence or health, or even through sickness or pain, which may act as a warning of the greater pains of hell. The work at hand, however, is a paraphrase of ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s original work—which was entitled simply al-Muhit bi-l-taklif—in this case by his disciple Abu Muhammad al-Hasan b. Mattawayh (d. 469/1076). In his other works as well ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s allegiance to the Mu‘tazila is evident. In his Fadi al-i‘tizal wa-tabagat al-mu‘tazila,® the only extant work that dates from the period after his fall from power in Rayy (it was composed at the request of the Khwarazm ruler Ma’miin II [r. 390/1000— 407/1017]), ‘Abd al-Jabbar opens with an apology for the Mu‘tazila and 65. D. Gimaret edited the text in his “Les usi! al-khamsa du Qadi ‘Abd al-Jabbar et leurs commentaires,” Annales Islamologiques 15 (1979): 79-96. An Eng- lish translation thereof can be found in R. C. Martin, Defenders of Reason in Islam, Mu‘tazilism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol (Oxford: Oneworld, 1997), 90-115. 66. Sharh al-usil al-khamsa, ed. “Abd al-Karim ‘Uthman (Cairo: Maktabat al- Wahba, 1965). 67. Ed. J.J. Houben (vol. 1, 1965), J.J. Houben and D. Gimaret (vol. 2, 1986), and J. Peters (vol. 3, 1999) (Beirut: Dar al-Mashriq). A separate edition of volume one was prepared by “Umar Sayyid ‘Azmi (Cairo: n.p., 1965), who also makes “Abd al-Jabbar its author. 68. Ed. Fu‘ad Sayyid (Tunis: Dar al-Tinisiyya li-l-Nashr, 1393/1974).xl Translator’s Introduction continues with a detailed biography of his school. This he divides into ten generations, the leader of the first being none other than ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. Fadl al-i‘tizal is the main source of the later Mu‘tazili biographical works of the aforementioned Jishumi and Ibn al-Murtada (d. 840/1437). ‘Abd al-Jabbar is likewise motivated by Mu‘tazili principles in his Qur’anic commentaries. His Mutashabih al-Qur’an (The Ambiguous in the Qur*an), apparently written on the model of Abii ‘Ali al-Jubba’i’s book by the same title,® offers a Mu‘tazili interpretation of those Qur°anic verses that seem to contradict the school’s positions on the createdness of the Qur°an and human free will.”° The Tanzih al-Qur’an “an al-mata‘in (Exaltation of the Qur*dn from Defamations), while broader in scope, is a thoroughly Mu‘tazili apology for the perfection and divine origin of the Qur*an. This is the picture of ‘Abd al-Jabbar that emerges from his edited works, but a number of unpublished works may prove additionally enlightening.” Among the latter is a brief work on Shi‘i doctrine entitled Mas°ala fi al-ghayba (On the Matter of the Occultation).” This treatise might be of particular importance since ‘Abd al-Jabbar, like his teacher Abii ‘Abdallah al-Basri and his sponsor Ibn ‘Abbad, was known to have a philo-Shi‘i attitude on the much-debated question of valid leadership (imama) of the Islamic community. Ibn Taymiyya, in fact, lists “Abd al- Jabbar among the “Shi‘i-inclined Mu‘tazila”. ‘Abd al-Jabbar accepted “Ali b. Abi Talib and his sons Hasan and Husayn as valid Imams, and he had a large number of Shi‘a among his students.” Yet in the Critique of Christian Origins (3.472-75) ‘Abd al-Jabbar argues against the Imami/ Twelver doctrine that God brought the twelfth Imam into a state of occultation (ghayba) to reveal himself in the eschaton. ‘Abd al-Jabbar presumably elaborates on this position in his Mas“ala fi al-ghayba. “Abd al-Jabbar also wrote a yet unpublished text on jurisprudence entitled al-Ikhtilaf fi usiil al-figh (Dispute in Jurisprudence),” partially quoted by Abii al-Husayn Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Basri (d. 436/1044), his 69. See Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist, 219. 70. Mutashabih al-Qur’an, ed. ‘Adnan Muhammad Zarzir (Cairo: Dar al- Turath, 1969). 71. See MT, 61, n. 213. 72. On this see GAS, 1.625. 73. See MT, 49. 74. See Madelung, Der Imam al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim, 182. 75. GAS, 1.625.Translator’s Introduction xli Hanafi student (‘Abd al-Jabbar was a Shafi'i).”*-This text is also of great importance, since “Abd al-Jabbar’s legal views have yet to be studied system- atically, a surprising omission in light of his service as Chief Judge in Rayy. Finally, it is worth noting a couple of ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s lost works whose titles alone are enlightening. Jishumi attributes to him a work entitled al- Khilaf bayn al-shaykhayn (The Contrast between the Two Masters), appar- ently a text comparing Abi Hashim al-Jubba’i’s theology with that of his father, Abi “Ali (“Abd al-Jabbar is often said to incline to the views of the former). Jishumi also credits ‘Abd al-Jabbar with a Qur°anic com- mentary entitled a/-Muhit (The Comprehensive Book), elsewhere named al-Kabir (The Great Book),” another indication that ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s interests were hardly limited to theology. The Critique of Christian Origins itself, as mentioned above, indicates precisely the same. But it should be noted that even the Critique of Christian Origins still shows the distinguishing marks of ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s Mu‘tazili allegiance. Two such marks are particularly evident. One, the Mu‘tazila had great confidence in the reliability of human reason. ‘Abd al-Jabbar in particular held that intellectual reflection is essentially reflection on God-given knowledge; it is not, therefore, unlike reflection on revelation. Accordingly, he insisted that religious claims must meet the standard of logic. It is this standard that ‘Abd al-Jabbar uses to deconstruct Chris- tian claims in the Critique of Christian Origins. Two, the Mu‘tazila, a group J. van Ess describes as the “watchdogs of heresy,”’® were devoted to anti-Christian polemic long before ‘Abd al-Jabbar. As described above (section 1), virtually all of his great Mu‘tazili predecessors—including Dirar b. ‘Amr, Abi al-Hudhayl, Nazzam, and Jahiz—wrote against the Christians. Thus, ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s Critique of Christian Origins is part of a particular Islamic tradition of anti- Christian literature. 76. See his Kitab al-mu‘tamad, edited along with the Ziyadat al-mu‘tamad by M. Hamidullah (Damascus: Institut frangais de Damas, 1964-65). 77. See “Abd al-Karim ‘Uthman, Qédi al-qudat (Beirut: Dar al-‘Arabiyya, 1967), 59. 78. “Wachhunde gegen die Ketzerei,” Theologie und Gesellschaft, 3.31.