Table Of ContentTHEODICY IN ISLAMIC THOUGHT
Theodicy in Islamic Thought
THE DISPUTE OVER AL-GHAZALVS
"BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS"
Eric L. Ormsby
&
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
Copyright O 1984 by Princeton University Press
Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press,
Guildford, Surrey
AU Rights Reserved
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data will
be found on the last printed page of this book
ISBN 0-691-07278-7
Publication of this book has been aided by the Paul Mellon
Fund of Princeton University Press
This book has been composed in Linotron Caledonia type
Clothbound editions of Princeton University Press books
are printed on acid-free paper, and binding materials are
chosen for strength and durability. Paperbacks, although
satisfactory for personal collections, are not usually suitable
for library rebinding
Printed in the United States of America by Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
In Memoriam
RUDOLF MACH
Preface
In this work, I describe and analyze the major themes and
arguments in a long-lived but little-known debate among Mus
lim theologians. My first concern has been to present these themes
and arguments as clearly and as accurately as I could, and to do
so, as often as possible, in the words of the disputants them
selves. This seemed especially important to me, since much of
the material which I have used exists only in manuscript and so
is not always easily accessible.
I have arranged the study topically and have grouped the
principal arguments around three central problems: divine power
and possibility; divine will and necessity; and divine justice and
obligation. In adopting this course, I have followed a procedure
often used by the disputants themselves in their treatises. I had
at first considered analyzing the debate from a historical view
point, but it quickly became clear to me that such an approach
would be impracticable. The arguments in the debate were cu
mulative; each disputant built upon, and recapitulated, the ar
guments of his predecessors. A chronological approach would
have involved either continual repetition and restatement or a
narrow concentration on one or two stages of the debate. In my
opinion, either course would have misrepresented the signifi
cance and potential interest of the debate.
In discussing the arguments in the debate, I have occasionally
included references to parallel arguments and themes in West
ern discussions of theodicy. I did this because the subject may
be of interest to students of theology and philosophy beyond the
specialized area of Near Eastern studies. However, I would not
want to obscure the fact that such references are often problem
atic.
They are especially so in the instances where reference is made
to possible ancient sources—and specifically, Stoic sources—for
viii PREFACE
later Islamic notions and concepts. While it seems undeniable
that Muslim authors, from an early date, had access to Stoic
thought (or certain portions thereof), it is still unclear by what
means, or in what form, Stoic ideas came to them. The trans
mission of certain Stoic notions to Muslim philosophers and the
ologians is still a vexed question. Nevertheless, I felt that to
omit such references to possible sources would have been, in its
own way, equally misleading. In any case, these references, as
well as others to medieval Scholastic and modern Western phi
losophers, are offered here more in the interest of comparison,
and as instances of parallel formulations, than out of any desire
to suggest, or offer as proved, any direct transmission of ideas
or complex of influences.
The three central problems of the dispute, which I treat in
Chapters Three through Five below, represent quite complex
and significant constellations of problems within the context of
Islamic theology. Each might warrant a separate and detailed
treatment in its own right. My interest has been to clarify the
(often tacit) issues in a rather intricate and protracted dispute,
and so I make no claim to offer here definitive discussions of
these three problems; rather, I have tried to approach them only
as they had bearing on the dispute itself.
I would like to thank several individuals who have helped me
during the long time it has taken me to complete this study. My
teacher, mentor, and friend, the late Professor Rudolf Mach,
first suggested this topic to me and made available the relevant
Arabic manuscripts from the Princeton University Library's Gar
rett and Yahuda Collections. He was always unfailingly generous
with his time and with suggestions for the improvement of the
work. In addition, he allowed me to use, and cite from, his
extensive lexical files of Arabic technical terminology; without
these, certain sections of the work, and especially Chapter Three,
would have been difficult indeed to write. Furthermore, as my
footnotes attest, he was most generous in suggesting further
sources that have enriched the work. I have also profited from
his precise and nuanced sense of language, which has improved
the style of the work in many places. My indebtedness to Rudolf
Mach can now never be repaid, but I offer this work, imperfect
PREFACE IX
as it is, to the memory of an incomparable scholar and teacher
and a magnanimous friend.
I should also like to thank Professors Manfred Ullmann and
Josef van Ess of the University of Tubingen, with whom I was
privileged to study and who were helpful to me in the early
stages of this work. I thank the Deutscher Akademischer Aus-
tauschdienst (DAAD) for making this year of study possible. I
am also grateful to Dr. Kennerly L. Woody, my friend and for
mer colleague at the Princeton University Library, and to Pro
fessor Calvin Normore, formerly of Princeton's Philosophy De
partment, for several helpful references to Scholastic sources.
Dr. Rafael Danziger kindly suggested references pertaining to
19th-century Algeria. I am also grateful to Mr. Larry Miller for
several suggestions and for his encouragement.
I am indebted to Dr. Orest L. Pelech, my friend and former
colleague at the Princeton University Library, for generously
volunteering to read the entire manuscript in an earlier form.
His meticulous attention to detail and his sense of style have
improved the work greatly, and I have incorporated many of his
suggestions.
I thank Dr. Dieter George of the Staatsbibliothek, West Ber
lin, for furnishing me with microfilm copies of al-Ghazali's al-
ImIa and al-Samhudi's Idah al-bayan. I am also grateful to the
Princeton University Library for allowing me to use the Arabic
manuscripts in its incomparable collections.
This work is a revision of my doctoral dissertation which I
submitted in May 1981 to the Department of Near Eastern Studies
of Princeton University. I have revised and corrected the work
throughout and have rewritten several sections completely. I
should like to thank the faculty of that department for their pa
tience and encouragement. I am especially grateful to Professors
Jerome Clinton, John Marks, and Roy P. Mottahedeh for their
advice and support.
I also wish to thank Professors George F. Hourani and Mi
chael E. Marmura for making available to me their readers' re
ports for Princeton University Press. Their comments have saved
me from several errors and guided me to further sources which
have improved the work; I have incorporated their suggestions
