Laura Hassan, Associate Faculty Member, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford UK
Abstract:
In their works of rational theology (‘ilm al-kalām), the two classical Ash‘arī theologians Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013) and 'Abd al-Malik ibn Yūsuf al-Juwaynī (d. 478/1085) take various Christian groupings to task for their notion of the unity (ittiḥād) between the person of Jesus and the divinity. Most interesting in this pursuit is their uses of parts of the canonical gospels in defence of their own perspectives on the identity of Jesus. The gospels are used as a source among sources for the establishment of sound Muslim belief.
Al-Bāqillānī, in his Kitāb al-Tamhīd (whose discussions of trinitarianism are treated in, for instance, Beaumont, 2008) uses aspects of the gospels (‘al-Injīl’) to argue against Jesus’ divinity. He does not qualify his use of the gospels with any observation as to the identity of these texts. There is a contrast to be observed between al-Bāqillānī’s approach to the gospels, and that of al-Juwaynī, who caveats his use of the Bible with a comment on the high likelihood as he perceives it that the text in the hands of his Christian opponents (‘your Injīl’) is a distorted version of the original to which the Qur’ān refers. This paper presents a comparison between the approaches of these two intellectuals. I will show that despite the great similarity between the contents of the two thinkers’ discussions, their attitudes towards the canonical gospels are significantly unalike.
The questions you raise in the course of your analysis are very helpful, Laura. You have given us a historical mirror through which to reflect on many of the key issues facing us all in this conference. Thank you.
Thank you for this thoughtful and articulate paper, Laura. I agree with Ida that you raise some important questions (particularly on page 6) as it concerns who has the right to interpret scripture, and especially someone else's (or more, an opponent's) scripture. You are commenting here on the motivation for reading another scripture, which ought to be an important point to reflect on during this conference. Clearly, al-Baqillani and al-Juwayni (and other Ash'ari theologians) were reading the canonical Gospels for polemical and apologetic purposes, and though al-Juwayni takes a more self-reflective approach to the Gospels than does al-Baqillani, neither were reading for simple edification. I'd suggest that your paper makes an interesting contrast to Farhad Ghoddoussi's, which focuses on sayings of Jesus in the canonical Gospels (in part) that do not dwell on the great points of doctrinal disagreement between Christians and Muslims.
My questions:
Should the canonical gospels only be read by Muslims where Christianity is a) present and/or b) a threat? What other imperatives might there be for engagement with the Bible in Islamic contexts?
Must the authenticity of the canonical gospels be affirmed by Muslims prior to and as a premise for Muslim engagement with the Bible?
Which of the contents of the Bible are of interest for Muslims? Can Muslims go further than Ash'arī theologians who were interested predominantly with those parts of the gospels concerning Christ's divinity?
What is the starting point of Muslim engagement with the gospels (and indeed for Christian engagement with the Qur'ān)? Doctrines (as for the Ash'arīs)? The gospels themselves, directly and without Christian intermediary? People and their own interpretive history and experience?
Wish I had the answers but I am confident that some are unfolding as I type.