In
the early kalÉm discourses there had been different denotation of the
term jawhar, but the most common denotation of the term jawhar, which
means atom signifies al-juz’ alladhÊ lÉ yatajazza’ (the indivisible
particle). It is the underlying substratum of accidents, and the
constituent of the world that has no independent existence. It rests only on
the power of God, who continually creates and recreates his atomic world.[1]
In
fact, the term jawhar is an equivocal term that can be used in different
ways, yet the mutakallimËn had taken their position so consciously that their
use of the term became diametrically distinct from the Greek, the Christian and
the falÉsifah uses. The Christians believed that jawhar is the
self-subsistent (al-qÉ’im bi dhÉtihÊ). Everything, which is
self-subsistent, is therefore a jawhar. In this case, God is a single jawhar
having three hypostases.[2] In Greek philosophy atoms are regarded as
corporeal being having primary qualities.
The
position of the mutakallimËn, can be traced from among the Basrian
school, especially Abu
Ali al-JubbÉ’Ê (d.303/915)
and his followers.
He believed that jawhar, is a bearer (ÍÉmil) of
accidents. He claimed that jawÉhir (plural of jawhar) are jawÉhir
in themselves (bi anfusihÉ) and that jawÉhir may be known
before they come into existence.[3]
Another position is to be found in Al-ØÉlihÊ who, in a similar tone to al-JubbÉ’Ê,
believed that jawhar is that which contains (iÍtamala) accidents.
In his view, jawhar may exist even though God may not have created an
accident in it. It is not a substrate (maÍall) of accidents but it is
container (muÍtamil) for them.[4]
The
point of disparity between the mutakllimËn and Christians is that for
Christians atom is applied to the Creator God and hence He is a single jawhar,
whereas for
the mutakallimËn atoms are designated only to the created beings. The
unique feature of the mutakllimËn’s
theory of atom was also conceded by MËsa ibn MaimËn, when he asserts
that the
idea of atomism in the Ash’arite school is not found “among our
co-relgionists”, meaning his companion among the Jew. [5]
In
contrast with the Greek notion of atoms as corporeal being having primary
qualities, the mutakallimËn were involved in the controversies as to
whether jawhar is a body or not a body. There were three theories
on this issue. AbË al-Hudhail (d.
226/841), Mu‘ammar (d.215/830)
and HishÉm al-FuwÉtÊ (d.1st
half of 3rd cent) maintained that atoms (jawÉhir)
are not bodies, for the dimension of bodies are not correspondence with atom.[6]
This position was then adopted by AbË ‘AlÊ al-JubbÉ‘Ê (d. 321/933).
Another position attributed to al-ØÉliÍÊ hold that all atoms (jawÉhir)
are bodies. Later mutakallimËn like Al-BÉqillÉni (d.403/1013) stressed
the contrast between jawÉhir
(atoms) and ajsÉm (bodies), [7]
but Ibn Hazm (d.456/1064) Later period reaffirmed al-ØÉliÍÊ’s position, that jawhar
has the same sense as jism.[8] The falÉsifah maintained that there
are two kinds of substances (jawÉhir): compound and simple, the former do
not constitute body whereas the latter do.[9]
It
is clear that most of the mutakallimËn, except al-ØÉliÍÊ and Ibn Hazm,
maintained that jawhar, and has no dimension like body. It is in
contrast with Democritus’ idea of atoms, which possess certain fundamental
qualities or “primary qualities”. Jawhar of the mutakallimËn are
stripped of all primary qualities or properties. Moreover, in this case jawhar
is not substance, for substance is used to describe every entity or existent
in kalÉm terminology, such as shay’, dhÉt, nafs, ‘ayn, and not a single
kind of primary entity.[10]
Therefore, we may deduce that jawhar is not body. Bodies or the
corporeal being that we perceive are composite entities, constituted of ‘atoms’
(jawÉhir) and accidents.
Even
though the mutakallimËn had many different theories of atom, the
crux of the issue in relation to the problem of causality is the theory of ‘araÌ,
accidents. Al-Ash‘arÊ wrote more sections (about 20 sections) on the
difference of opinion about ‘araÌ, (accidents) than on the dispute about
the existence of atoms. This could be taken as evidence that in the discussion
of the mutakallimËn, the existence of atoms is not so much disputed
compared to accidents.
[1] Encyclopaedia of Islam, new
edition, vol. II: “Djawhar” 4439-494,; “Djuz”, 607-608.
[2] According to ‘Abd al-JabbÉr the three Christians
sects, namely Jacobites, the Nestorian and the Melkites, agreed that the
Creator, God is a single jawhar having three hypostases (aqÉnÊm)
- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is the World, the Spirit is
Life, while the Father is the Eternal and the Living. These three hypostases
are identical with regard to the jawhar, but differ with regard to their
hypostases. See
‘Abd al-JabbÉr al-×amdÉnÊ, al-MughnÊ fÊ AbwÉb al-TawhÊd wa al-‘adl,
Various editors, 16 vols. vol. V, (Cairo: n.p.1960-1965), 81.
[3] This group
seems to be referring to Basrian
Mu‘tazilÊ doctrine that holds the idea that objects whose existence
are possible can be objects of knowledge before they are existent objects. See
Alnor Dhanani, Physical Theory, 27, 34, and 56.
[4] al-Ash‘arÊ, MaqÉlÉt 8.
[5]
See Moses Maimonides, The Guide of The Perplexed, transl. with an Introduction and Notes by
Shlomo Pines, vol. I, (Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1963), 177; Cf. Encyclopedia of
Islam, see “djawhar”, 494.
[6] Al-Ash’arÊ, MaqÉlat, II, 5
[7] Al-BÉqillÉnÊ, KitÉb al-TamhÊd,
ed. R.J.McCarthy, (Beirut: al-Maktabah al-Sharqiyyah, 1957): paragraph 27-28.
[8] Ibn ×azm, KitÉb al-FiÎal, vol.V, 210
[9] Al-Asy‘arÊ, MaqÉlat, II, 8.
[10] For detailed explanation see
Alnoor Dhanani,, Physical Theory, 59; also Richard Frank “Bodies and
Atoms: The Asha’arite Analysis” in Michael Marmura, (ed), Islamic Thought
and Philosophy: Studies in Honor of George F.Hourani, (Albany, State
University of New York Press, 1984): 290-291, note 19.
