Sufis and Kalam

In this article I shall try to explain what I have understood regarding the relationship between Sufism and Kalam (Religious Rational Approach).

Note:
This article is related to points presented in the following articles on this site:
Elements of Faith - Al-Ghazali
Elements of Faith - Ibn Arabi
Ibn Arabi on Logical Arguments

Introduction

Watching Religious Islamic opinions, it is possible to find people who depend only on Quran and Sunnah and some of them criticize Kalam as well as Sufism, because these approaches do not take religious texts without elaboration. Some Kalam scholars criticize Sufism for presenting concepts that cannot be rationally accepted, as they see it. Sufis sometimes express dissatisfaction with Kalam or strictly rational approaches in general. Yet, there are many Sufis who call themselves Ash'aris (followers of the major Islamic Rational school).

I think that the main points regarding how Sufis view Kalam are the following:

* The role of Kalam and its importance are not ignored. Rather Kalam is recognized as vital for rational explanation of religious beliefs, and to some Sufis even in strengthening faith of believers who have yet to reach the level of mystical insight.

* However, Kalam is definitely not the last word regarding knowledge of elements of faith.

* Sufis focus on (a) elements of faith, and (b) the level of awareness of those elements. Kalam does not determine elements of faith, and it is not the only way to express oneself regarding those elements. That probably explains why some Sufis do not show interest in it, while others appear to be comfortable using Kalam expressions in Sufi writings.

Sufis and Kalam

Believers and Elements of Faith

There are basically three groups of believers according to Al-Subki (as quoted by Al-Zabeedi, V. 2, P. 9):

"Ahl Al-Sunnah Wa Al-Jama'a" [Sunni Muslims] have agreed on one conviction, even if they differed in approaches to consider that [conviction]. There are three groups:

First, the people of Hadith, they depend solely on Quran and Sunnah and the opinion of the majority of scholars (Ijma' إجماع).

Second, the people of rational thinking, and they are the Ash'aris and the Matureedi's [the two Sunni Kalam schools, the first is most popular. As I understand, it is not a pure rational approach since they depend on information from Quran and Sunnah as postulates, and as criteria for what is acceptable and what is not. By the way, as I understand the contemporary scientific view, the idea of an absolutely pure rational approach is not one seen as realistic anymore].

Third, are the people of mystical insight and realization, they are the Sufis. They start with the methods of people of Hadith and rational thinking, and at the end [higher levels] they depend on mystical insight.

It appears that Al-Subki's opinion (which Al-Zabeedi seems to agree with) is that the same beliefs are shared by the three groups, yet each has its own way in which its adherents express themselves regarding the beliefs. The first group believes only in what has been relayed to us through the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet (Al-Subki appears to mean people of Tafweed here). They take such information as it was relayed without any attempt to elaborate on them. The second, uses basic beliefs as well as rational thinking to explain religious beliefs (the Taa-weel school is meant here to which Al-Subki belongs). The third, uses the previous methods at beginning stages then reaches levels of mystical awareness, to realize and 'see' truths about the same beliefs.

Before writers like Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari initiated the rational movement of Ahl Al-Sunnah, the Mu'tazilah were the dominant rational school. They promoted several points contradicting basic Islamic beliefs. It was clear to religious leaders that the Mu'tazilah were wrong on many issues. But those religious leaders did not have the rational tools by which to talk to the Mu'tazilah and other thinkers influenced by Greek Metaphysics.

It is often said by critics of Ahs'aris that earlier generations of scholars adopted Tanzih and Tafweed and did not elaborate on (Ta'weel) points like Allah's Speech. Regarding this particular point, Scholars of earlier generations just used to say that the Quran is Allah's Speech, it is His Quality, and Allah's Quality is Ancient, period. Unlike the Ash'aris, they did not get into analyzing speech into meanings (that is considered the Speech of Allah) and expression of meanings (the 'created' written text in a 'created' language, like the Quran, the Torah, and the Bible). Many scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah until this day iterate, that the approach of the earlier generations (Tanzih+Tafweed: Negating any resemblance between Allah and creatures and not to get involved in details of Allah's Qualities) is safer, but the approach of later generations was unavoidable (Al-Bouti, Kubra Al-Yaqenyat, P. 138-141). Al-Bouti noted that earlier generations of scholars expressed themselves in a brief and general manner, because they understood the Arabic language and what sentences imply and what they do not. Later generations of scholars found themselves facing the detailed logical and grammatical analysis of religious concepts that demanded specifying matters rather than stopping at a general level, so Scholars of Ahl-Sunnah had to respond in a suitable manner, but in essence they were not different from earlier generations.

Getting into such detailed discussions did not mean inventing new concepts. It is the same original elements of faith of Ahl Al-Sunnah that the Ash'aris and the Matureedis found themselves forced to come forward to defend, using the unconventional method of logical formulation. As Al-Zabeedi said ( V. 2, P. 9), Al-Ash'ari did not invent something new, his views were basically what Ahl Al-Sunnah believed, but expressed in a formal and a logical structure.

However, it seems that later on (at least for some people) the Ash'ari view became synonymous with Ahl-Sunnah beliefs. And that might have led some believers to suspect the intention of anyone criticizing Ash'aris as criticizing Sunni beliefs. And this might not always be true.

For instance, Al-Tahawi's popular list of Elements of Faith contains many basic points in the lists of both Al-Gazali and Ibn Arabi. But Al-Tahawi was neither an Ash'ari or known as a Sufi (at least I am not aware of that). He seemed to have been in the category that Al-Subki described as People of Hadith.

Another example is Ibn Arabi's elements of faith. Even though the wording of his list seems similar to what the Ash'aris affirm, Ibn Arabi raised many points of disagreement with them centering on Ash-aris' heavy dependence on Logic and figurative interpretation (Taa-weel).

So, while Elements of Faith may look similar, each group of scholars might express itself in its own particular way.

Do types of Expression reflect Stages of Awareness?

While the original beliefs are the same, moving from one method to another might not seem to be smooth. Rather, it seems more like 'changing tracks', even if all the tracks are heading towards the same destination.

However, at least to some scholars, it seems that the different methods reflect different stages of awareness of the beliefs. In this regard I recall notes by Al-Nabulsi and Ibn Ata-Ellah.

Al-Nabulsi's "Sharh Al-Muqaddimah Al-Sanosiah" is a presentation of the Ash'ari theology with deep Sufi comments that included openly indicating the limits of the Kalam approach. Yet, in another presentation of the Ash'ari view, "Sharh Ida-at Ad-Dujunnah", he strictly followed the Kalam scholars' manner of presenting the subject, with very few hints about the Sufi perspective. From this, it appears to me, that a Sufi like Al-Nabulsi recognized two different stages of considering elements of faith, and dedicated an appropriate book to each.

As for Ibn Ata-Ellah, when talking about awareness of 'bearing witness that there is no god but Allah' (Muftah Al-Falah, P. 55-56), he said that there are 5 levels of awareness of that Shahada:

1) Just saying it. Ibn Ata-Ellah says even such a person benefits
   from saying it here and in the hereafter.
2) Believing in it, but not knowing exactly what it entails.
3) Strongly believing in it and knowing what it entails and being
   aware of some Kalam arguments.
4) Having solid rational arguments coupled with solid faith. But
   a person is yet to 'see' what elements of faith are about.
5) Mystical insight, and 'seeing' what elements of faith are about.

In other words, it seems that Ibn Ata-Ellah considered Kalam to be a natural step in advancement of one's awareness toward mystical insight.

After listing the 5 levels, he noted that the relative difference between stage 5 and 4 is similar to the relative difference between 4 and 1. I think it is an important observation, coming from Ibn Ata-Ellah who has experienced the movement from being a religious scholar with Kalam background (who was critical of Sufism), to becoming a Sufi master.

Can Kalam alone be sufficient regarding knowledge of elements of faith? And can Kalam lead to Mystical Insight?

For both questions, the answer is clearly negative according to Al-Gazali, Ibn Arabi, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Shazli, Ibn Ata-Ellah, Ibn Ajeeba, and Al-Nabulsi among many other Sufis.

Taking Al-Gazali as an example: He recognized the stages of common belief and Kalam, but found satisfaction in Sufism. As for Kalam alone, it does not lead to the certainty he found in mystical realization, as he says (Al-Ihia, P. 99):

It might be thought that its [Kalam] benefit is in revealing truths and knowing [things] as they are, but it is not so...
Listen to someone [himself] who has known Kalam and examined it thoroughly as far as Kalam can take one, then [probably after seeing limits of Kalam] considered similar/related [rational] fields of knowledge [most likely Greek philosophy], and became certain that the road to truths of knowledge, from that direction [rational thinking] is blocked.

Later on Page 101, he says:

To reveal truths and know things as they are, and to realize the secrets behind the outer meanings of the words of this Aqeedah [his list of elements of faith], there is no other key [to open the door] than working hard, curbing cravings, and totally directing one's attention towards Allah, Most High, and keeping one's mind pure from stains of arguments [logical discourse].

The Role of Kalam according to Sufis

Even after recognizing the limits of Kalam and rational thinking in general, many Sufis did not abandon Kalam altogether. There seems to be a few reasons why Kalam is considered by Sufis.

Using Kalam to defend Faith
Both Al-Gazali and Ibn Arabi appear to have believed that the main use of Kalam is to face ideas contradicting concepts of faith. And only few persons are needed to take that responsibility. Al-Gazali puts the following conditions for anyone who wants to consider learning Kalam (Al-Ihia, P. 100): (a) Dedicating one's full time and freeing oneself from any other responsibilities (while studying it). (b) Intelligence and eloquence. (c) To be a pious person, not affected by cravings.

Kalam writings as a source of formalized lists of 'elements of faith'
As noted above, elements of faith are originally the same. Knowing and understanding the basics is needed regardless of how a scholar would select to interpret them further. And it seems that the continued efforts of Kalam scholars to present elements of faith was not ignored by Sufi masters. Hence adopting a list of elements of faith for Sufi students to study carefully, became a tradition. 

Kalam as a method to strengthen faith for non-mystics
Kalam scholars seem to be encouraging an educated person to learn Kalam to "strengthen one's belief" (common in introductions to Kalam books). Some Sufis seem to agree with that.
What I understood about Al-Gazali's approach, as a teacher of religion, is that he sees three types of people who need to know about faith and religious guidelines. The first are children and people with limited literacy. The second are people who are well educated including Sufi students. The third are Sufis at advanced levels.

For the first type, he advises teaching basics of faith and religious guidelines and not to confuse them with logical arguments or mystical issues. For the second type, Kalam is introduced for whomever finds it interesting. Persons at this stage might not be ready yet for the deeper mystical consideration of elements of faith, and the ordinary logical consideration of the elements might be more appropriate. The final goal, in both cases, is keeping faith strong in the hearts of believers. If logical arguments confuse some people then it is important not to busy them with such issues because it may weaken faith. However, Sufis at advanced levels, like Al-Gazali, eventually outgrow logical arguments and start feeling their limits. As he said in Al-Munkiz, it is the nature of Sufi knowledge that he found to be superior to different forms of logical argumentation. At that level, the fruits of a strong and healthy faith is realized.

The general impression I get from how Sufis like Al-Gazali, Ibn Ata-Ellah, and Al-Nabulsi talk about Kalam and specifically regarding the Ash'ari/Matureedi approach, is in short: it is acceptable to adopt unless one reaches Sufi realization. Or expressed differently: it is the publicly available expression of Aqeedah that is closest to what they would want to say, but not all they would say about elements of faith.

In other words, the least thing a believer should do is to take elements of faith without argument. If one has enough background to consider philosophical discourse, then the Ash'ari/Matureedi approach is the preferred one. Mastering Kalam is ok for whomever is qualified, but it should not be considered the last word on knowing what elements of faith are about. As intricate and comprehensive the field of Kalam became, according to Sufis, it is not comparable to Sufi (mystical) insight.

Understanding how Sufis see the role of Kalam and its relation to Sufism probably explains why Al-Subki noted that Sufis at beginning levels start with Kalam and then later move into Sufi insight, and explains why many Sufis call themselves Ash'aris or Matureedis.

Why did some Kalam scholars disagree with Sufis?

It appears that an important reason for some Kalam scholars' criticism of Sufi views are concepts like Oneness of Being. As I understand, there were two types of Kalam scholars. The first appeared to have been 'lenient' towards Sufi concepts. They either tried to formally explain Oneness of Being in light of Oneness of Sight or they just left Sufis alone without criticizing them or considering their deeper writings. (Further information on Oneness of Being vs. Oneness of Sight available in comment No. 7 in Oneness of Being.) The second group of Kalam scholars, saw concepts like Oneness of Being as totally unacceptable. Some of them noted that such concepts just do not fit with the rational approach of Kalam. Criticism was strong by some prominent Kalam scholars like Sa'd-Addin AT-Taftazani, 'Alaa-Addin Al-Bukhari, and more recently by Mustafa Sabri (who dedicated 230 pages to this issue in volume 3 of his book "Maw-qif Al-'Aql wa Al-'Ilm wa Al-'Alam").

Another reason to criticize Sufi views appears to have been the Sufi stance with regards to logical approaches. Some Kalam scholars did not accept any notes on limits of 'decisive logical criteria' or that 'categorical proofs' can be flawed. Some of them hinted that, 'to begin with, Sufi views are incorrect'. And they described the Sufi criticism of the logical approach as an 'expected defensive attitude, since logical means can reveal the truth or falsehood of Sufi views'. Some also criticized Sufis' claim that mystical insights are not easy to express or unambiguously defined.

As for Sufis, it is probably worth noting that Ibn Arabi described Kalam scholars who defended Islamic beliefs as: 'May Allah be pleased with them', which is a description usually reserved for distinguished believers like the Companions of the Prophet and scholars with major contributions. And that when he listed his version of Elements of Faith, there were many and unmistakable similarities to what Ash'ari lists affirm. Respect for Kalam scholars is noted also in opinions of Al-Gazali (who was a Kalam scholar himself) and Ibn Ata-Ellah who called them the 'Guards of Faith'.
Acknowledging the role of Kalam, yet noting its limits is what I think the three Sufis clearly agreed on. The impression I have is that some Kalam scholars seem to have primarily focused on Sufis' "unacceptable concepts" and notes on Kalam, and did not give much value to Sufis' acknowledgment.

Moving from Kalam to Sufi Insight

As I understand, when trying to explain the mystical level of awareness, it becomes necessary to specifically and openly talk about the limits of Logic. But, it seems that some people, who have been accustomed to logical arguments for a long time (and are yet to sense the limits Sufis talk about) might strongly object to this switch and often wonder about what probably appears to them as a 'change of heart'. (A related discussion).

It is my feeling that because some people might find themselves in such a situation regarding Kalam, that Al-Gazali emphasized that one should be qualified to learn Kalam. It appears to me that qualification as he saw it (based on what I think I have understood about his personal experience regarding Kalam), would probably mean: (a) not being intimidated by such an intricate field of knowledge (Al-Munkiz), (b) able to master the language of Kalam (or any logical framework for that matter) and speak it fluently, (c) able to use it where it is appropriate, (d) able to recognize its limits and not to be 'veiled' by it from seeing what is beyond.

It seems that different religious people would naturally find themselves preferring one of the three methods (that Al-Subki mentioned) over the others. As I understand, in some traditional Sufi Triqahs, Sufi teachers teach the basics of religious guidelines first. And that is available for the general public. Then they introduce Kalam and deeper issues in Jurisprudence, for people who are interested to learn more. And only when one has shown competence in these subjects that deeper concepts in Sufism start to be taught.

It appears to me that when the three methods are taught by a Sufi master then moving through the three stages of awareness could be smooth and without any confusions.

Related topic

A Note on Using Greek Philosophical terms in Kalam

Debating and trying to dismiss non-Islamic ideas was there since the beginning of Islam. There are plenty of arguments in the Quran and Sunnah. The companions of the Prophet debated too.

What happened after Greek philosophical writings were translated, was that (1) Greek terms started to appear in discussions, and (2) they were used to express ideas contradicting basic Islamic beliefs. So, scholars debated proponents of such ideas using their terms (since terms alone do not mean adopting any specific ideas) to dismiss the ideas. But they clearly distinguished between the terms and the ideas. The modifications they introduced in definitions of some terms are probably indicative of their clear understanding of the original terms. But the terms remained in use in theological writings afterwards, since scholars were against certain ideas and not against any particular terminology.

Al-Gazali used the terminology extensively. However, what I noticed is his care to explain what a term means, and his frequent notes that it is understanding the meanings behind the terms that is important. Also his care to understand what a person is saying and not what terms he is using. Since noting terms alone may not be enough to understand a person. What is important is how a term is being used, whether it is understood in the same way as the person hearing it or not, is it being used in a conventional manner or a misleading manner. As I understand, his concern was to know what a person means, and not how he selects to express himself. That is why I think Greek terms were not consequential to Islamic Kalam scholars, and especially Al-Gazali.

Islamic scholars held the same beliefs before the entry of Greek terms, and as they confronted the non-Islamic ideas, and afterwards. Using Greek terms did not change anything.

I do not see why those classic terms cannot be dispensed with, in favor of a different terminology that is easier to approach for people of a different age. However, I believe it is best to trust the judgment of contemporary Ash'ari and Matureedi scholars on this point.

References

Please see the references mentioned in the article on Al-Gazali's list of elements of faith.