^{page 59 note 1} The nucleus of the present article was a paper delivered at the sixth annual conference of the Middle East Studies Association, in the plenary session held in honor of Gustave E. von Grunebaum on 4 November 1972. Von Grunebaum published two articles of characteristic breadth and richness on topics related to our problem: ‘The Concept and Function of Reason in Islamic Ethics’, Oriens, xv (1962), pp. 1–17, and ‘The Sources of Islamic Civilization’, Der Islam, vol. LVI (1970), pp. 1–54, also in The Cambridge History of Islam (Cambridge, 1970), vol. II, pp. 469–510.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} Dalâlât al-Hâirîn, ed. Munk, S. and Joel, I. (Jerusalem, 1930/1), book i, ch. 71, p. 122;Google Scholar as transl. by Pines, S., Moses Maimonides: The Guide of the Perplexed (Chicago, 1963), pp. 177–8.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} ‘John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 89 (1969), 357–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} Le problème des attributs divins dons la doctrine d'al-Aŝ'arî et de ses premiers grands disciples (Beirut, 1965), pp. 156 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 3} Ibid. p. 161.

^{page 61 note 1} For the present purpose we can leave aside the Mu'tazilite definitions of value terms, e.g. of ‘evil’ as blameworthy, etc. These were probably constructed later. For the developed theory see Hourani, G. F., Islamic Rationalism: The Ethics of 'Abd al-Jabbâr (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} This argument was used by Becker, C. H., ‘Christliche Polemik und Islamische Dogmenbildung’, first published in 1911 and reprinted in his Islamstudien (Leipzig, 1924), I, 432–49.Google Scholar Supporting a Christian origin for the Mu'tazilite view of human qadar, he wrote: ‘Certainly the opponents on both sides could later prove their opinions with Qur'ân quotations, but the contest over the whole question is yet in the first place imported into Islam; for John of Damascus [who has been shown to be well informed about early Islam] indicates determinism as absolutely the Islamic doctrine, with which he contrasts free will [to autoexousion] as the specifically Christian doctrine’ (p. 439, my translation.) Allard (op. cit. pp. 160–1) notes the weakness of this argument. But Becker gives other evidence; see below, section VIII, on Christian theology.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 1} Distinguished thus from the Zurvân heresy, with its more ultimate source of the two gods, Zurvân or Infinite Time. See Zaehner, R. C., The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (London, 1961), ch. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Spuler, B., Die Chalifenzeit (Leiden, 1952), English trans.Google ScholarBagley, F. C., The Muslim World: A Historical Survey, vol. 1, The Age of the Caliphs (Leiden, 1960), p. 28,Google Scholar and Iran in Früh-Islamischer Zeit (Wiesbaden, 1952), pp. 134–6.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Spuler, The Age of the Caliphs, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} Ibid. pp. 54–5; Arnold, T. W., The Preaching of Islam, 2nd ed. (London, 1913; reprinted Lahore, 1965), pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} Farrukh, Mardân, Škand-Gumânîk Vičâr: La solution décisive des doutes, ed. and trans. de Menasce, P. J. (Freiburg, Switzerland, 1945), p. 130;Google ScholarArnold, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 3} For bibliography of Arabic and Persian writings on the Iranian religions under Islam see Monnot, G., ‘Les écrits musulmans sur les religions non-bibliques’, Mélanges de l'Institut Dominicain d'Études Orientales, 11 (1972), 5–48. From de Menasce and Monnot we may expect fresh light on the relations of these religions with Islam. The former has completed a French translation of the surviving portions of the Dénkart, the latter is preparing a book, ‘La réfutation des dualistes et des mages par 'Abd al-Jabbâr et ses prédécesseurs musulmans’. al-thanawiyya, ‘dualists’, in medieval Arabic texts usually refers to the Manichaeans not the Zoroastrians.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 4} Qur'ân, XXII, 17, mentions the Magians (al-Majûs), without clarifying the attitude to be taken by Muslims toward them.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 5} Individual origins of the Mu'tazila in Nader, A., Le système phibosophique des Mu'tazila (Beirut, 1956), pp. 16–46,Google Scholar and in biographies in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition (= El²) (Leiden, 1960–). A historical problem that deserves attention is why the former Byzantine provinces of Syria and Egypt ceased to be active centers of intellectual life after the Islamic conquest and were so soon overtaken by 'Iraq and Iran, both of which under the Sassanids had been undistinguished on the world scene of the sciences. Did the Islamic caliphate do something to deaden eastern Mediterranean culture and to bring 'Iraq and Iran to new life? Whatever the explanations, the fact is undeniable and applies to law, literature, historiography, theology, and even the secular sciences and philosophy with their strongly Hellenistic bases and traditions.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} al-Murtadâ, Ibn, Tabaqât al-Mu'tazila: Die Klassen der Mu'taziliten ed. DiwaldWilzer, S. (Wiesbaden, 1961), pp. 44–9.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} Ibid. p. 60. The second language might have been Aramaic or Persian. If the latter, then we are witnessing here an aspect of the rise of modern Persian, since a Muslim theologian must have injected an extensive Arabic religious vocabulary into his Middle Persian lectures. A short argument between 'Amr ibn 'Ubayd (699–761) and a Zoroastrian is also recorded in a late source, Taftazâni, , Sharh 'alâ al-'Aqâ'id al-Nasafiyya (Cairo, 1939), p. 99,Google Scholar Eng. trans. Elder, E. E., A Commentary on the Creed of Islam (New York, 1950), pp. 83–4.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} Drawn from the Dênkart and other Pahlavî works, Eng. trans. West, E. W., in Sacred Books of the East, ed. Muller, M. (Oxford, 1880 sqq.), vols. 5, XVIII, XXIV, XXXVII, = Pahlavi Texts (Delhi, 1965), parts 1–4;Google Scholar and Farrukh, Mardân, op. cit., Fr. trans. de Menasce.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} See ‘Kadarîya’, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden, 1954).Google Scholar Quoted by al-Ash'arî, al-Ibâna 'an Usûl al-Diyâna (Cairo, 1348/1930), pp. 7–8, Eng. trans. Klein, W. C. (New Haven, 1940), pp. 47–8, 113. But al-Ash'arî interprets cautiously in terms of resemblance, not influence.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} Mentioned by Bausani, A. in the Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge, 1970), V, 286, with reference to an anonymous Ba'd Fadâ'ih al-Rawâfid.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} See below, section VIII, p. 70, n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 2} See, for example, al-Murtadâ, Ibn, op. cit. pp. 44, 49, 50–9, 60.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} Ed. and French trans. P. J. de Menasce, ch. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 4} Abû al-Hasan ‘Abd al-Jabbâr al-Asadâbâdî, al-Mughnî fî Abwâb al-Tawhîd wa al-'Adl, vol. v, al-Firaq ghayr al-Islâmiyya wa al-Kalâm fî al-Asmâ’ wa al-Sifât, ed. Khudayri, M. M. (Cairo, 1958), pp. 71–9.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} For an account of the leading figures, real or supposed, see Vajda, G., ‘Les zindîqs en pays d'Islam au début de la période abbaside’, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 17 (1937), 173–229. For a bibliography of Arabic and Persian writings on the Manichaeans see Monnot, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 2} The name was applied in Sassanid Iran and early Islam to apostates from Zoroastrianism, principally Manichaeans and Mazdakites, but later more widely to followers of nonbiblical religions. See Massignon, L., ‘Zindîk’, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden, 1954).Google ScholarBîrûnî, , Tahqîq mâ li al-Hind, trans. Sachau, E. C., Alberuni's India (London, 1888, reprinted Delhi, 1964), I, 264. The Manichaeans at this period won converts by presenting Mânî in an attractive way.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 1} al-Radd 'alâ al-Zindîq al-La'în Ibn al-Muqaffa': La lotta tra I'Islam e il Manicheismo, ed. and trans. Guidi, M. (Rome, 1927).Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} Mughni, v, al-Firaq, 9–15, 22–70.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 3} See Allard, Le problème des attributs, p. 163,Google Scholar referring to Pretzl, O., Die Frühislamische Attributenslehre (Munich, 1940), p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} See Nau, F., ‘Lettre de Mar Jean, patriarche, au sujet d'un colloque qu'il eut avec l'émir des Agaréniens’, Journal Asiatique, 11th series, 5 (1915), 225–67;Google Scholar with corrections by Lammens, H., ‘Un colloque entre le patriarche jacobite Jean I et ‘Amrou Ibn al-'Asî?’, Journal Asiatique (1919), pp. 97 ff.,Google Scholar reprinted in his Études sur le siècle des Omayyades (Beirut, 1930), pp. 13–25.Google ScholarJohn of Damascus, ‘Dialogue between a Christian and a Saracen’, Patrologia Graeca (= PG), ed. Migne, J. G. (Paris, 1857 sqq.), vol. 94, cols. 1585–1596, and vol. XCVI, cols. 1336–1348;Google Scholar Eng. trans Sahas, D. J. in John of Damascus on Islam: The Heresy of the Ishmaelites’ (Leiden, 1972).Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} Quoted by Becker, ‘Christliche Polemik’, p. 441,Google Scholar referring to ‘Ala’ al-Dîn al-Muttaqî al-Hindî, Kanz al-‘Ummâl (Hyderabad?, 1894), I, 35, no. 652, and cf. p. 36, no. 668.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 2} Some references in Allard, Problème, pp. 153–6 (not limited to Mu'tazila and Christians). Other examples: Ah'arî, Ibna, pp. 22 (Klein, p. 68), 37 (p. 188), on Jahmiyya and Christians.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 3} Kulturgeschichtliche Streifzüge auf dein Gebiete des Islams (Leipzig, 1873), pp. 2 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 4} References to predecessors on p.432.Google Scholar Also Arnold, , Preaching of Islam (Lahore, 1965), pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 5} Above, section us and p. 60, n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} Although they do not refer to Becker on this point, it will be instructive to quote the two passages side by side in translation:

Becker, ‘Christliche Polemik’, p. 445:Google Scholar ‘It is known that the whole method of the kalâm springs from Christianity. Whoever reads Islamic dogmatic writers and Christian patristics in turn is so convinced of the connection that he has no further need of detailed proof. They form a single world of thought.’

Gardet, L. and Anawati, G., Introduction à Ia théologie musulmane: Essai de théologie comparée (Paris, 1948), p. 206: ‘Again we reserve our opinion on the question of possible sources, and we in no way believe that a very general correspondence in plans must necessarily lead to a conclusion of direct influence. In any case, the only common points are related to the order: (1) God in Himself (and His attributes); (2) God and His acts ad extra; (3) the economy of salvation (in one case Christology, in the other prophetology); and the outline thus traced is so normal for monotheistic theologies which have reached a certain level of elaboration, that it is no doubt as hard to prove a direct influence of [St John] the Damascene on the problematics of Abû al-Huffiayl as it seems to us idle, in spite of Asin, to see in the plan of the Iqtisâd [of al-Ghazâlî] the prime origin of the plan of the later Summas.’Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} E.g. Becker, , ‘Christliche Polemik’; Gardet and Anawati, Introduction, pp. 200–7;Google ScholarAbel, A., ‘La polémique damascénienne et son influence sur les origines de la théologie musulmanc’, L'Élaboration de l'Islam (Paris, 1961), pp. 61–85.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} De Haeresibus, ch. jot, in Migne, PC, vol. XCIV, cols. 764–73; trans. Chase, F. H., St John of Damascus: Writings, in Fathers of the Church, 37 (New York, 1958), 153–60.Google Scholar The authenticity of this chapter has been attacked by Abel, A., ‘La polémique’, p. 65,Google Scholar and ‘Le chapitre ci du livre des Hérésies de Jean Damascène: son inauthenticité’, Studia Islamica, 19 (1963), 5–25,Google Scholar but Abel's thesis has not found general support. See replies by Khoury, A.-T., Les théologiens byzantine et I'Islam: Textes et auteurs (VIII^e–XIII^e s.) (Louvain andParis, 1969), pp.49–55;Google Scholar and Sahas, D. J., John of Damascus on Islam, pp. 60–6.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Dirâr has not usually been counted a Mu'tazilî, but he is mentioned here because of a recent reconsideration of his place in the history of kalâm by Van Ess, J., ‘Dirâr b. ‘Amr und die “Cahmiya”’, Der Islam, 43 (1967), 241–79, and XLIV (1968), 1–70, esp. 7–14. Van Ess regards Dirâr as a link between Wâil and Abû al-Hudhayl, who was not excluded from being regarded as a Mu'tazilî in his time merely because of his divergence from the rest of them on the question of qadar.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Peters, F., Aristotle and the Arabs: The Aristotelian Tradition in Islam (New York and London, 1968), p. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} See ibid, pp. 20–1; Gardet and Anawati, Introduction, pp. 202–3;Google Scholar and generally on Greek Christian Platonism before John, I. P. Sheldon in Armstrong, A. H., ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, 1967), chs. 28–32.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} Origen: Baumstark, A., Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922, reprinted Berlin, 1968), p. 164 (hereafter cited as Baumstark);Google ScholarGardet and Anawati, Introduction, pp. 196, 213. Basil: Baumstark, pp. 78–9. Gregory of Nyssa: Baumstark, pp. 79–80;Google ScholarWaizer, R., Greek into Arabic: Essays on Islamic Philosophy (Oxford, 1962), p. 81,Google Scholar with a reference to Langerbeck, H. in Gnomon, XXII (1950), 377. Gregory of Nazianzen: Baum- stark, pp. 77–8, 260. Pseudo-Dionysius: Baumstark, pp. 168, 260.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} See Khoury, Théologiens byzantins, pp. 83–92;Google ScholarGraf, G., Geschichte der christlichen arabischen literatur, 2 (Vatican, 1947), 15–25 (hereafter cited as Graf).Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} For the same reason, and more strongly, later Christian Arabic works and translations from Greek are of little relevance. Translations from the ninth century include Nemesius of Emesa, On the Nature of Man (not Gregory of Nyssa's Peri kataskeuēs anthrōpou), Gregory of Nyssa, al-Abwâb ‘alâ Ra'y al-Hukamâ’ wa al-Falâsifa (a doxographical collection), and John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa. See Peters, Aristotle and the Arabs, pp. 19, 122–3;Google ScholarBrockelmann, C., Geschichte den arabischen Literatur (Leiden, 1937–1949), Suppl. vol. I, p. 369.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} Becker, ‘Christliche Polemik’, p.445; Gardet and Anawati, Introduction, p. 213; Van Ess, ‘Dirâr’, p. 268.Google Scholar A judgment of R. M. Frank is also pertinent, from ‘The Divine Attributes according to the Teaching of Abû al-Hudhayl al-'Allaf’, Le Muséon, 82 (1969), 455–506. After drawing attention to ‘strikingly near’ parallels between Abû al-Hudhayl and Origen, he writes (pp. 458–9): ‘Very little is known concerning Abū al-Hudhayl's theological background and to seek sources by grasping at the straws of too easily paralleled formulae is fruitless’.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 3} Gardet and Anawati, Introduction, passim, esp. p. 207, last paragraph; Allard, Problème, pp. 165–9.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 1} Text in Works, ed. Jaeger, W. et al. (Leiden, 1952–), vol. IX. German trans.Google ScholarBarbel, J., Gregor von Nyssa: Die Grosse Katechetische Rede (Stuttgart, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} See above, p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 1} See p. 73, n. 2 above.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 2} See p. 74, n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 3} Ch. 4 in Migne, PG, vol. III, cols. 693–736; Fr. trans. de Gandillac, M., Oeuvres complètes dupseudo-Denys l'Aréopagite (Paris, 1943), pp. 94–127.Google ScholarGandillac (Introduction, pp. 17, 37–8) says it is all taken from Proclus, De malorum subsistentia, referring to studies of H. Koch.Google Scholar See also Dodds, E. R., ed. of Proclus, The Elements of Theology, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1963), pp. xxvii–xxviii.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 4} Baumstark, pp. 168, 260.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 5} Graf, I, 370–1, giving no dates of translations.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 6} Nadîm, , Fihrist, ch. 7, sect. I (Cairo, 1930), p. 357; trans.Google ScholarDodge, B., The Fihrist of al-Nadîm (New York, 1970), 11, 614. (lbn) al Qiftî, Ta'rîkh al-Hukamâ’, ed. J. Lippert (Leipzig, 1903), p. 321, following al-Nadîm. No mention of Syriac translations in Baumstark. Later Arabic translations, Graf, 1, 372.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 7} De Fide Orthodoxa, in Migne, PG, vol. xciv; trans. Chase, St John of Damascus:Writings, pp. 165–406.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} Shahrastânî, , al-Milal wa al-Nihal, ed. Badran, M. F. (Cairo, 1954), I, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} Ibid. I, 55.

^{page 79 note 3} al-Murtadâ, Ibn, Tabaqât al-Mu'tazila, p.19.Google Scholar Cf. a similar statement associated with Ghaylân al-Dimashqî (d. before 743), Ash'arî, , Maqâlât al-Islâmiyyîn, ed. Ritter, H. (Istanbul, 1929), p. 513;Google Scholar quoted by Watt, W. M., Freewill and Predestination in Early Islam (London, 1948), p. 45 and note 36.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 4} Shahrastânî, , Milal, 1, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 5} Ibid. I, 55.

^{page 79 note 6} Wensinck, A. J., The Muslim Creed (Leiden, 1932), p. 53, quoting the opening sentence of al-Muslim's Sahîh.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 7} Wensinck, loc. cit., quoting al-'Asqalânî, Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhîb (Hyderabad, A.H. 1325–1327), 10, 225 ff.Google ScholarIbn ‘Asâkir, Ta'rîkh Madīnat Dimashq, makes the connection more definite: ‘The first to discuss al-qadar was an ‘Irâqi called Sūsan, a Christian who became Muslim, then returned to Christianity; Ma'bad al-Juhanî derived from him, and Ghaylân from Ma'bad’: Watt, Freewill, pp. 59–60,Google Scholar quoting from Ritter, H., ‘Hasan al-Basrî’, Der Islam, 21 (1933), 58 f.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 8} Shahrastânî, , Milal, 1, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} Ibid. 1, 51 and 55.

^{page 81 note 1} Frank, R. M., ‘The Neoplatonism of Ĝahm ibn Safwân’, Le Muséon, 68 (1965), 395–424.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 2} Ibn al-Murtadât, p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 3} Ibid. p. 50.

^{page 81 note 4} Waizer, ‘New Studies on al-Kindî’, Greek into Arabic, pp. 175–205.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 5} Meyerhof, M., ‘Von Alexandrien nach Baghdad’, Situngsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 23 (1930), 389–429.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Mughîn, vol. vi, part i, p. 80; Hourani, Islamic Rationalism, pp. 65–6.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 2} Nadîm, Fihrist, p. 339; trans. Dodge, 11, 583.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} Freewill, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} Dispute of a Saracen and a Christian, PG, vol. XCVI, cols. 1335–48.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} Contra Celsum, v, 23.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} Dispute, PG, vol. XCVI, col. 1337.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} Chap. 8, sect. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} Opuscula, in PG, vol. XCVII, col. 1551; quoted by Becker, ‘Christliche Polemik’, p. 445. Cf. also Khoury, Théologiens byzantins, p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 2} Risâlat ‘Abdallâh… al-Hâshimî ilâ… al-Kindî (London, 1885),Google Scholar as translated by Arnold, , Preaching of Islam (Lahore, 1965), pp. 433–40.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 3} Acts of the Apostles, XVII,15–34; see Jaeger, W., Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 4} Ibid. pp. 26–7.

^{page 87 note 1} I, ii, sect. 3, as trans. Pegis, A. C., On the Truth of the Catholic Faith (New York, 1955), 1, 62.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 2} von Grunebaum, G. E., ‘The sources of Islamic Civilization,’ Der Islam, 46 (1970), 54–5,Google Scholar and Cambridge History of Islam, 11, 479–80.Google Scholar