CHAPTER 3. WHAT IS “NEGATIVE THEOLOGY:” A CONCEPTUAL GUIDE
A. A Guide to “Sufism,” “Theology,” “Sufi Theology”
69
70
to another perspective, with its alternative methodological commitments and set of problems, ‘ilm al-uṣūl [“the science of theological principles,” or
“traditionalist theology”] should be added to Kalām in order to present a more comprehensive picture of Islamic theology.252 The differences between their respective methods and major themes help us distinguish kalām and ‘ilm al-uṣūl yet keeping their joint reference to “theology.”
In addition to the problem of mapping “theology” somewhere between kalām, ilāhiyyāt, and ‘ilm al-uṣūl, another territorial difficulty awaits the scholar of Islamic theology. The very contents of kalām, ilāhiyyāt, and ‘ilm al-uṣūl have not been fixed, but are contested to date. For example, in his monumental Revival of Religious Sciences, Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d.1111) argued that kalām’s aim was limited “to grasp the unity of God, and study the essence of God and His attributes.”253 The narrow sense of “theology,” i.e., the study of oneness of God and His attributes seems shared with, at least some works of, Ibn Taymīyyah (d.1328).254 Also for the Shī‘ite Sufi scholar Lāhījī (d.1662) theology is limited to the knowledge of God, and it does not encompass God-world relationship.255 On the other hand, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d.1209)’s Prolegomena to Kalām adds other topics such as prophecy, and leadership [imāmah].256 Al-Jurjānī (d.1413)’s Book of Definitions goes even further, and superadds theodicy and eschatology into the field of kalām as well.257 A move in the opposite direction was also possible—the field of theology could rather shrink depending on the context.
Free-will and predestination were among the key theological questions in the early centuries of Islam. Yet, when the ‘Irāqī jurist Najm al-Dīn al-Ṭūfī (d.1316) encountered the polemical attack of a non-Muslim scholar on the question of predestination, he argued that this problem is actually not among the primary problems of Islamic theology.258 In other words, even if we agree that “Islamic theology” is composed of kalām and ‘ilm al-uṣūl, or kalām and ilāhiyyāt, the
252 E.g. Shihadeh 2007, p.4; Holtzman 2010, p.56.
253 Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī in Holtzman 2010, p.57.
254 E.g. see Michot 2007, p.124.
255 Rizvi 2007, p.91.
256 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī 1978, p.247.
257 See Holtzman 2010, p.57.
258 See Shihadeh 2006, p.8.
71
thematic field is still not quite clear—it is constantly negotiated today as it was in the past.259
It is no surprise that what constitutes “theology” in relation to “Sufism” gets even more complicated. There is no consensus whatsoever on either the thematic or methodological scope of “Islamic mystical theology” or “Sufi theology” in contemporary scholarship. Various scholars define Islamic mystical theology as the “esoteric dimensions of theological dogmas.”260 Thus Sufi theology according to this approach receives the external questions and standard problems of kalām, ‘ilm al-uṣūl, or ilāhiyyāt, and delves into deeper meanings and provides esoteric answers. Yet, Sufism has its distinct theology for some others. According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, Sufi theology is a form of love mysticism which was already mature when it was systematized by al-Junayd (d.910).261 Chittick defines “mystical theology as a designation for the Sufi approach to the Qur’ān, which entails focus on the issue of transforming the soul with the aim of bringing it into conformity with its divine prototype.”262 Paradoxes also seem to play an important role in defining a mystical theology.263 Huda has a parallel but unique approach in ascribing a special theology to Sufism.
He does not want to employ “mystical theology” with reference to Sufism.
Instead he introduces what he calls an “adab theology,” i.e., a theology of perfect human conduct and ethics in conformity with the prophetic guidance and Qur’ānic revelation.264 In contrast, Pereira understands “Islamic mystical theology,” or “Muslim mystical theology,” as diverse Muslim Neoplatonic approaches specifically to God’s relationship with the world. Muslim mystical (i.e., Neoplatonic) theology, accordingly, was born in the ninth-to-twelfth centuries, and had its peak in the following two centuries in the “monism” of the
259 One pragmatic solution is to go with the practical, institutional and legal definitions of “Islamic theology.” In Western universities and other educational institutions, “Islamic theology” is defined de facto more broadly than kalām. But the problem of the thematic field of theology exacerbates in adopting such practical definitions. “Islamic theology” courses, very much like throughout the history, are organized in the light of contemporary challenges, diverse student bodies, educational needs, and local or international political contexts. “Islamic theology”
courses in the European schools, for example, cover a thematic field equivalent to that of
“Christian theology.” (See Johansen 2006.)
260 Keeler 2007, p.15.
261 See Dupre 1987, p.6351.
262 Chittick 2014, p.156.
263 Lewisohn and Shackle 2006, p.xx.
264 Huda 2004.
72
Akbarī School and the Iranian poeticization “under a pantheistic camouflage.”265 From the beginning of the sixteenth century up until today, “Islamic mystical theology” resulted in a synthesis, “combining all anteriorly realized forms of Muslim mystical speculation in one all-encompassing system.”266 The history of Muslim mystical theology is that of the varieties of Neoplatonism in Pereira’s approach.267
This brief overview of the scholarly terms scholars of religion employ with reference to Sufism and theology serves to justify the choices made at the outset of this study on negativity in Islamic theology, particularly in Sufism. As T. Asad argued, each definition is “itself the historical product of discursive processes.”268 Instead of looking for a transhistorical, or the authentic definition of “Islamic theology,” “mystical theology,” or “Sufi theology,” I will simply focus on the main, conventional, and probably broadest question of theo-logy:
discourses on the divine ipseity [dhāt]. I am neither claiming that this is the proper question of theology in general, nor in Islam, nor in Sufism. Rather, I am using this definition as a springboard to explore the possibilities and limitations of it, specifically that of “negative theology.” If Sufism has peculiar apophatic contributions in fields of theology other than the divine nature—and it obviously does— they will remain unexplored in this study. Similarly, questions of religious leadership, anthropomorphism, predestination and free will, eschatology, the status of prophecy, the nature of the Qur’ān, theodicy, the origin and return, divine attributes, etc. will be beyond our scope unless they address human access to or discourse on God’s essence. Once focusing on the discourse on God’s nature, which is accepted as “theological” at least from the majority of different perspectives, it will be easier to define the role and contribution of Sufism in apophatic theologies in the thirteenth century context. In this broad sense, I define “theology” as “talking about God,”269 or “God-talk in all its
265 Pereira 2000, p.361.
266 Pereira 2000, p.361.
267 However, Neoplatonism as a source of Islamic mysticism is a problematic generalization. Even Ibn Sīnā (d.1037), whom Pereira defines as a founder of Muslim Neoplatonic mysticism, consciously diverted from Plotinus in mysticism as we will see below. Briefly, “if Avicenna was a mystic, he did not get his mysticism from reading Neoplatonists.” (Adamson 2004, p.111.) Hence the supposed overlap between “Neoplatonism” and “mysticism” should be questioned. Also see Sells 1994, pp.220-221.
268 Asad 1993, p.29. For reflections on the category of mysticism along the same lines, see King 1999, p.10.
269 Walker 1996, p.84.
73
forms,”270 and this part of the dissertation explores the Sufi varieties of discourse on God’s nature. Thus apophatic theologies are all forms of negating speech formations on the divine ipseity by employing the tools and discursive methods of theology. It is these paths that I will explore in what follows with a focus on thirteenth century Sufism.