Why the Collapse of Philosophical Studies in the Islamic World?

Leo Strauss sketches an answer in his "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. T. L. Pangle, University of Chicago Press, 1989, pp. 221-222, bolding added:

For the Jew and the Moslem, religion is primarily not, as it is for the Christian, a faith formulated in dogmas, but a law, a code of divine origin. Accordingly, the religious science, the sacra doctrina, is not dogmatic theology, theologia revelata, but the science of the law, halaka or fiqh. The science of the law, thus understood has much less in common with philosophy than has dogmatic theology. Hence the status of philosophy is, as a matter of principle, much more precarious in the Islamic-Jewish world than it is in the Christian world. No one could become a competent Christian theologian without having studied at least a substantial part of philosophy; philosophy was an integral part of the officially authorized and even required training. On the other hand, one could become an absolutely competent halakist or faqih without having the slightest knowledge of  philosophy. This fundamental difference doubtless explains the possibility of the later complete collapse of philosophical studies in the Islamic world, a collapse which has no parallel in the West in spite of Luther.

I like the "in spite of Luther."  What is Strauss getting at? I turn to Heiko A. Oberman' s magisterial Luther: Man between God and the Devil (Yale UP, 1989, tr. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart). On p. 160, Oberman speaks of the new Wittenberg theology that Luther formulated "against the whole of scholasticism": "The whole of Aristotle is to theology as shadow is to light."

Why do I like the "in spite of Luther?" Because I am averse to Protestantism for three solid reasons: it is anti-monastic, anti-mystical, and anti-philosophical (anti-rational).  No doubt the RCC is even more corrupt now under Bergoglio the Termite than it was in Luther's day; so if this maverick decides he needs a church, he will have to make the journey to the (near) East.  Go east old man! (I plan to report later on Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.)  But here's a bit more Oberman to nail down my point about Protestantism (or at least Lutheranism's ) being anti-philosophical:

The knowledge that there was an infinite, qualitative distance between Heaven and earth became an established principle for Luther as early as 1509: all human thought, as noble, effective, and indispensable as it might be to solve problems in the world, does not suffice to fathom salvation because it cannot cannot reach Heaven.  Questions of faith must be resolved through the Word of God or not at all. The temptation -- or compulsion -- to sanctify the words of an and believe in them is satanic. When God is silent, man should not speak; and what God has put asunder, namely Heaven and earth, man should not join together.

Thus not even Augustine, especially Augustine the neo-Platonist, could become the new, infallible authority, because that would merely have been replacing one philosophy with another, substituting Plato for Aristotle. [. . .]

The alternative is clear: whatever transcends the perception of empirical reality is either based on God's Word or is pure fantasy. As a nominalist Luther began making a conscious distinction between knbowledge of tge world and faith in God . . . . (pp. 160-161, emphasis added)

A quick question: given sola scriptura, where in the Scriptures does God deliver his verdict on the  problem of universals and come down on the side of nominalism? And if Holy Writ is silent on the famous problem, then it is "pure fantasy" and Luther has no justification for his nominalism. 

And what about sola scriptura itself? Where in the Bible is the doctrine enunciated?

Romanists 1; Lutherans 0. And this despite the undeniable corruption of the RCC in those days that triggered Luther's protest.

Comments

[Hector]

The Eastern Churches are certainly mystical and monastic but are they particularly pro-philosophy or pro-rational? It seems to me that historically they encouraged philosophical inquiry far less than the RCC. And many if not most of them are even more corrupt than the RCC.

A friend recommended to me David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom which I haven't read yet but you might find interesting.

[james soriano]

Leo Strauss answers the question, “why was there a complete collapse of philosophical studies in the Islamic world?” Jacques Maritain gives a different answer in *A Preface to Metaphysics* (the fifth lecture).

The Christian and the Muslim both understand the formula “God is God,” but they understand it in different ways.

To the Muslim, the formula means that “God is so rigorously one and incommunicable as to necessarily render impossible the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.” The understanding of the Divine Being is “exclusive” of any of the divine attributes beyond oneness. God is walled in, “immured in a transcendence of death.”

To the Christian, the concept that “God is God” entails the superabundance of being. If I follow Maritain correctly, he’s saying that the principle of identity — being is being — when applied to God affirms the the overflow of being. Not only oneness, the Divine Essence is understood as identical with the good and with truth and other Divine attributes. Philosophical moves like these are denied in Islam.

Five times a day the Muslim recites the *shahada*, or the profession of faith, “There is no god but God, and Mohamed is his prophet.” Both parts of the formula are found in the Koran, but they are not joined together there. On the side of the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem there is the inscription, “There is no deity but God alone; He has no partner with him; Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”

Thus in Islam, the repetition of “there is no god but God” arrives at the idea that God is one, but never gets beyond it.

The philosophical error made here, Maritain says, is that Islam applies the principle of identity to God as it is applied to a creature. It delimits and confines “Him within Himself” as though to be Himself is “to be limited and confined”.

But when the Christian applies the principle of identity to the Godhead, he ought to step back in awe because he understands it as a superabounding fount of being.

Leo Strauss is saying that philosophical thought in Islam “collapsed” because Islam reduced religion to law. That is true, but Jacques Maritain is saying something different. He’s saying that Islam arrested philosophical speculation because of its truncated understanding of “God is God.” In a way, Maritain is giving us a reason *why* Islam elevates the law above philosophical inquiry.

At least that’s my reading of him.

[BV]

That's a very good comment, James. I hope to respond more fully later in the day. But for now, I say: please give page references when you quote someone.

I have A Preface to Metaphysics in my library. So I pulled it from the shelf, and was surprised to find the sole bookmark at p. 95 where I found the quotations you cite!

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

With regard to sola scriptura, you ask “Where in the Bible is the doctrine enunciated?” to which the answer is nowhere. Various biblical passages are often cited as implicit evidence for it, such as 2 Timothy 3:15 or 2 Thessalonians 2:15, but none of these actually teaches that scripture alone is the only authority that must be followed in matters of the faith. Second, the New Testament contains several passages that demonstrate the willingness of Jesus and the Apostles to affirm the authority of verbal and extra-biblical texts, as, for instance, in Matt. 23: 2 (Jesus: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do” [an oral teaching, later found in Mishnah) and Matt. 2:23 (“"He shall be called a Nazarene" [a verbal tradition]). Moreover, at the Council of Jerusalem (48-49 A.D.), the Church, in the persons of the Apostles Peter and James, interpreting scripture, issued the epic teachings regarding the status of the Gentiles in the Church (Acts 15:6-30); thus, from earliest times, the authority the Church to develop doctrine through scriptural elucidation is evident.

As to philosophy itself, we find in the Epistles of Paul instances where an appeal to natural philosophy forms part of the teaching of this disciple. For example, in the Epistle to the Romans (1:17-20), Paul presents a simple version of the argument from design: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men…; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Similarly, Paul speaks of the existence and authority of the natural law, which can be known by all men, independent of scripture: “[W] hen Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Epistle to the Romans, 2: 12-15). So, within the New Testament itself, the appeal of philosophic argument, however inadequately presented, is already recognized.

Thus, we are already on the road to Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian….

Vito

[BV]

Hector,

Do you have any references for the corruption of the Eastern churches? My impression is that they are more mystical than the RCC. I have Bradshaw's book but I haven't read it.

[Hector]

Bill,

I can’t reply in much depth as I am on holiday and only have my phone to hand. I think the characterisation of the Eastern churches as more mystical than the RCC is correct, but then the mystical elements of the RCC seem to me to have been extensively downplayed since Vatican II in favour of some vague notion of ‘community action’.

As for corruption, for starters you can look at the Serbian Orthodox church’s support for Serbian war crimes and war criminals in Bosnia during the Yugoslav wars, some of whom are lauded as saviours of the church, including the paramilitary leader Arkan and Radovan Karadzic (the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches also praised Karadzic - the former awarded him its highest honour. The Patriarch of Constantinople also praised the Serbian war effort). Orthodox monasteries helped Karadzic hide after the war ended and are alleged to have helped other war criminals including Mladic, perpetrator of the Srebrenica massacre.

And the Russian Orthodox Church’s connections to the Russian state are notorious. Patriarch Kirill’s has vast personal wealth (estimated at $4-8 billion, some of it allegedly accrued using a handy law allowing for the church to import foreign cigarettes duty-free), publicly wore a wristwatch worth $30,000 then lied about it, and is a former KGB agent. Kirill calls Putin a ‘miracle from God’, strongly supports the ‘Holy War’ against Ukraine and Russia’s pro-Assad intervention in the Syrian Civil War. He has been condemned as a heretic by some Ukrainian Orthodox clergy.

https://www.forbes.com/consent/ketch/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/20/putin-solzhenitsyn-kirill-russia-opinions-contributors_orthodox_church.html">https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/20/putin-solzhenitsyn-kirill-russia-opinions-contributors_orthodox_church.html">https://www.forbes.com/consent/ketch/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/20/putin-solzhenitsyn-kirill-russia-opinions-contributors_orthodox_church.html
https://www.instituteforgenocide.ca/serbian-orthodox-church-endorses-war-criminals/
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/02/karadzic-holy-war-bosnia
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/15226/expel-russian-orthodox-from-wcc-says-rowan-williams
https://orthodoxtimes.com/pressure-on-kirill-intensifies-400-priests-call-for-condemnation-by-world-orthodoxy/
https://archive.org/details/religiousseparat0000veli/page/265/mode/1up
(Go to page 265-266 for info on Serbian church and Bosnian Serb war criminals)
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2011/10-june/news/uk/serbian-orthodox-under-scrutiny-over-mladic

[BV]

Thanks, Hector, for the linkage much of which I have read. I come away reinforced in the rightness of my masthead motto: "Study everything; join nothing."

The main thing I was saying above, and here we seem to agree, is that the mystical element in Xianity is more in evidence in the doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy than in Western Xianity. Xianity without that element is of no interest to me as a way to the ultimate saving truth.

That human institutions are corrupt is 'par for the course.'

[BV]

By the way, Hector, The Quest for Corvo arrived yesterday. Wow! Thanks again for the recommendation.

[Hector]

Bill,

>>Xianity without that element is of no interest to me as a way to the ultimate saving truth.<<

Same for me. Like you I have little attraction to Protestantism in most of its forms for this reason among others. A church should accomodate both those whose approach to Christ is primarily outward through social action and those whose approach is primarily inward through contemplation. I believe that Eastern Orthodox mystical theology is very useful to draw on as a supplement and corrective to the current lopsidedness of Western Christianity, despite my criticisms of the EO churches as institutions. I think the RCC is still capable of the best synthesis of all these elements, if it can get its act together.

>>Wow! Thanks again for the recommendation.<<
Great! You're welcome. Do let me know what you think of it. I just ordered Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil.

[EG]

Bill,

I am awaiting that response to what I now understand to be a very insightful comment by James S. (Thank you James.) It certainly seems to have relevance to some real world issues, and better understanding their foundations.

And in line with this, are there any reading lists you and your commentating corps can recommend to orient a newer student curious about getting a coherent foundation to better appreciate these issues?