Talk:Kalam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article titles and disambiguation[edit]

With merely two subjects on this disambiguation page I believe it would be better to just link Abdul Kalam at the top of the page instead of forcing the Kalam article onto a page with the tedious title of Kalam (Islamic term). There really is no reason to do that. gren 04:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone should add a redirect from the following search terms: Islamic theology, Islam theology, and Theology of Islam. freestylefrappe 06:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

My Arabic is very rudimentary, but doesn't the Arabic text says something like "`alam al-kalam"? In any case, I'm quite certain that it doesn't say just "kalam".

This is very unfortunate. I doubt the Kalam people of Papua New Guinea would appreciate their one and only ethnonym being redirected to an article on Islamic theology. There's not an article for them yet, but there should be, and one day will be - in fact I may create one soon. I propose retitling it "Islamic theology" - a much fairer solution than forcing Kalam to be called Kalam (tribe).Timothy Usher 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not redirected — but in any case I very much doubt that the people of the Kalam tribe would care (nor do I see why they should). The simple fact is that the this usage of "kalam" is vastly more common and important, and Wikipedia style is to place the most common and important usage in the main article namespace, using a disambiguation page for the rest. Note also that "Islamic theology" would be an inaccurate title for the article, as kalam is more specific than that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right about them not caring (for now), but...I'd never heard the term Kalam before, while I'd been hearing of the Kalam people and language for many years. Nor would the Arabic term seem "vastly more" common and important, were one to judge by the size of this article and comments on talk page. I am confident that the vast majority of English speakers have heard of neither.
If "Islamic theology"/"Theology of Islam" is an inaccurate title, it shouldn't be redirecting here.Timothy Usher 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Timothy: the full name of Islamic theology is `ilm al-kalaam. Pecher Talk 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. With regard to relative importance: try Googling; try the index of any library. believe me, "kalam" is a common term in theology, philosophy of religion, islamic studies, etc.
  2. Redirects generally point to the closeest article in terms of relevance; most redirects don't point to synonyms. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal line[edit]

Mel, will you please explain why you're insisting on putting a horizontal line after the disambiguation notice? Pecher Talk 13:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because, first, it serves to separate the article from material that isn't relevant. Secondly, when I raised this issue at three different Talk pages at the MoS, the majority of editors taking part in the discussions agreed that it looks better.
Now, perhaps you would explain why you're insisting on removing it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather uncommon to have this sort of line on top of the page. How many pages that have it can you name? Pecher Talk 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen in on very many pages, though I don't keep notes (you could search for it). In any case, "it's uncommon" is not a good reason for deleting something. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Theology?[edit]

From the introduction I wasn't exactly sure what Kalam is, is it simply Islamic theology or is it a branch of Islamic theology or is it a school of Islamic theology. The introduction just says it is one of the Islamic religious sciences, but that is a very broad term. Could someone educated in the matter clarify it in the introduction itself?

It is actually a philosophical practice, so I suppose you could say it is a branch of wider theology. Unfortunately, most of this article contains general information about Islamic theology in general, some of which isn't directly related to Kalam. It's no wonder the article isn't clear, as it stands most of it is unsourced and sort of ambiguous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalam is essentially Sufi interpretation of various aspects of Islamic teachings and so many sunni followers reject it. This article should give more detail on actually what teachings are different from the mainstream ideology that causes rejection of this theology? Merely quoting the critics is not enough on wikipedia. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

The criticism of the four imams and other traditional imams was not blanket in nature. "What has been forgotten today however by critics who would use the words of earlier Imams to condemn all kalam, is that these criticisms were directed against its having become "speculative theology" at the hands of latter-day authors. Whoever believes they were directed against the `aqida or "personal theology" of basic tenets of faith, or the "discursive theology" of rational kalam arguments against heresy is someone who either does not understand the critics or else is quoting them disingenuously." Nuh Keller Jaw101ie (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh Keller is neither a reliable nor neutral source, though. He's a religious cleric and polemicist; if you can find similar comments from a recognized historian then that's fine, but the opinions of controversial religious figures isn't appropriate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love how, unlike every other serious topic, Islamic Theology - that is rational and peaceful discourse of the Quran - jumps straight to criticism. This is the aspect of Islam that genuinely inspired Maimonides, the greatest jewish philosopher who ever lived, and made him reflect critically on his own tradition. It is this strain of thought that was incorporated in his Guide for the Perplexed that spurred the Enlightenment via Spinoza, Newton, Leibniz, and Hegel among others. Really this is a shameful section though I am not surprised considering the repulsive arrogance within Islam today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.156.232 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus after 28 days; no discussion in last 20 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ilm al-Kalam → Kalām – Although the current title is valid (see, for instance, Islam and Modernity, Edinburgh University Press, 2009), the common name of this topic in reliable, English-language sources appears to be 'Kalām'.

See, for instance:

Some sources, such as the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998) and the Encyclopedia of Islam (2010), use the lowercase letter 'a' instead of the grapheme 'ā', but the latter is more accurate and reflects common English-language usage; in any case, Kalam already is a redirect.--Relisted Cúchullain t/c 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure i - MOS As I read it Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) states that the strict transliteration is not to be used in titles. cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) is marked historical and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic appears to be a proposed guideline only. Why should they trump WP:COMMONNAME? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that, but that is often the case for diacrictics/MOS/orthography issues on en.wp. The energy spent in this RM would be better spent sorting out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) (which should be revived, not left as marked historical) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic. It's good for WP:RM to handle test cases, but it's also incredibly time consuming and disruptive. I could give as an example ongoing painful Talk:Ana Ivanović where acres of bytes could be spared by editors just following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Serbian), rather than a wasteful WP:COMMONNAME discussion which works against WP:MOS "consistent with related articles". Is this proposal "consistent with related articles"? If it is then edit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) to reflect reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean: it's better to have one, long, centralized discussion to adopt a clear standard rather than multiple disparate ones that might be shorter individually but consume more time overall and might lead to inconsistent outcomes. I am probably not the most suited to start that discussion, since I cannot read Arabic and know little of its grammar and orthography. Nonethless, this weekend I will read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic and relevant discussions that I can find, and perhaps that will provide a starting point for me to participate in a broader discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure ii - removal of "study of" ilm علم The ar.wp and fa.wp of course are no guide, but علم, "study of", is useful as an embedded disambiguator. Of course "study of speech" and "speech" can be slightly different, even if kalam is used with ilm to mean the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per wikilaw. 190.175.207.60 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify, please? Who is "wikilaw"? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Falcon, this is a one-edit IP, I wouldn't bother asking. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you're right. Thank you. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is English language Wikipedia and there's no diacritics in the English alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise Black Falcon GoodDay has the dozens of Zoës and Chloës pointed out every time he pastes this. Best to concentrate on updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) if it is need of updating. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Several article on the SEP use "kalam", but I can't find one that uses "ilm al-kalam", despite many instances of various "ilm" terms. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aristotle[edit]

Is it relevant and are there other sources than Maimonides for the issue that by his time, Mutakallim writers had proposed their own version of the atomic doctrine and that a vacuum could exist? The Leo Strauss edition of Guide for the Perplexed discusses this issue because a fairly long discourse about it appears between the two main portions of GftP -- and Maimonides, as an Aristotelian, argues against Mutakallim viewpoints. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science?[edit]

Forgive me any failings in this post, this is my first.

I arrived here after looking for some information on the Kalam cosmological argument and was immediately struck by two things in the opening sentence:

"...kalām, is an Islamic science born out of the need to establish and defend the tenets of Islamic faith..."

Firstly, there is no such thing as Islamic science, any more than there is a Christian particle physics or Hindu gravity. All science has to be universal or it isn't science.

Secondly, I have issue with it being born out of the need to reach presupposed conclusions. This is a greyer area admittedly, as many scientists have set out to prove what they thought was happening and proved themselves wrong, but it is a challenge to think these Islamic scholars are truly adhering to the scientific method, publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals etc. Evidence of this lack is suggested here:

" the widest controversy in this discipline has been about whether the Word of God, as revealed in the Qur'an, can be considered part of God's essence and therefore not created, or whether it was made into words in the normal sense of speech, and is therefore created."

however it has definitely not been presented (with evidence) in a peer-reviewed journal (their peers being the global scientific community) that the Qur'an is the Word of God in the first place.

Pre-supposing unsupported premises is not part of the scientific method.

Also:

"studying of 'Ilm al-Kalam is considered by Muslim scholars to fall under the category of necessity and is only permitted to qualified scholars, but not for the masses or common people.[4]"

makes me wonder how you become a "qualified scholar", but I suspect the answer is entirely unscientific.Mytheroo (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kalam is recognized by vast majority of Islamic scholars of today as well as before, to be a pseudo-sholarship. The naming of it as "ilm" or science is indeed a rejected act. The article itself is heavily biased and showcasing a great deal of "false balance" by bringing what is otherwise considered a "fringe discipline" and presenting it as mainstream. All four heads of Islamic jurisprudence have strongly rejected it. The quotes in the article about al-shafee and others supporting it are unsubstantiated and contradictory to their established written view, el-shafee in particular reportedly writing "For me to meet God with the gravest of sins on my conscience, is better for me than to dabble with al-Kalam".

Al-Kalam is mostly seen as a discipline of argumentation, and later on started creating "byzantian debates" on unresolvable matters of faith attempting to use mental reflection to make determinations that cannot possibly be made, such as that one you mentioned "Quran created or eternal word of God". So all argumentation is philosophical which is why most Islamic scholars rejected al-Kalam, including Al-Ghazali, Abu Haneefa, Ibn Hanbal, Malik, el-Shafee, Ibn Taymeyya, Ibn el-Qayeem, and those are the pillars of Islamic scholarship across history. Sampharo (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I.e this is where Islam stopped being open minded and feel into rote repetition and orthodoxy. The fact that you think that is an argument that "cannot be made" is a sign of the sort of thinking that modern Islam encourages. There is no argument that can't be made. Greatest tragedy in Islamic history was the triumph over the rationalist and the closing of the Islamic mind.2601:140:8900:61D0:C80B:9269:1F4D:D81B (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalam as speech[edit]

A Tunisian friend of mine used to quote an Arabic saying, but some 20 years ago he became Canadian by marriage, and now neither he nor me can remember the second half. AFAICR, it began: "Kāna kalām el-foḍḍa, ikūna s-sakāta ðahab" كان كلام الفضة، إكون ٱلسكات ذحب… (I'm not sure of the spelling) which means something like "talk is silver but silence is golden". There were two more verses, on the rhythm (IIRC): tataTĀ ta TĀ ta TĀ tata, TĀ ta ta TĀ. Can anyone refresh my memory? — Tonymec (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this comment is terribly old but why not, you're thinking of " اذا كان الكلام من فضة فان السكوت من ذهب " which translates to "If talk is of silver, silence is golden", an advice given by Luqman Al-Hakeem to his son, narrated by Al-Awza'ee that it was originally said by King Sulaiman Bin Dawood Sampharo (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, but there was a second half to it, approximately as long, and (IIRC) rhyming with it; and it is that second half that I can't remember. — Tonymec (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, is the question related in some way to improving the article? If not, I would recommend asking it in a more appropriate WP:FORUM. Eperoton (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalam[edit]

Kalam i s a speech or saying of good 138.75.15.126 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can see that there is nothing[edit]

Mashallh 2600:6C46:6A00:10FF:2D91:277:5C8D:8A59 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maimonedes opinions on Kalam[edit]

In common Islamic argumentation it has become stereotypical to attribute the flaw in Kalam to it being "Greek philosophy". For instance, from the article:

Because the source of Ilmul Kalam is human intellect, which is based on Hindu and Greek philosophy. On the other hand, the main source of Tawheed is revelation. Moreover, Ilmul Kalam includes restlessness, imbalance, ignorance and doubt. That is why the Salaf Saleheen condemned Ilmul Kalam. And Tawheed is based on knowledge, conviction and faith,….. Another reason can be said that the foundation of philosophy is based on assumptions, false beliefs, imaginary thoughts and superstitious ideas

Ie, Kalam and philosophy are just thrown in the same basket and blamed. The narrative is constructed such as to not implicate faith in the affair - the actions of the Mutakallimūn are speculated to be entirely because they used reason/philosophy, reason/philosophy here being equated simply with "...assumptions, false beliefs, imaginary thoughts..." It is of course true that many of the "demonstrated" arguments of the Mutakallimūn were in fact in practice simply "...assumptions, false beliefs, imaginary thoughts...", and it is also true that they described to others their thought process as having been source in "reason" and "philosophy". And frequently they would (mis)use terms from philosophy in their arguments, for instance the term "demonstrated". However, having read the Guide of the Perplexed, by the important medieval Jewish Rabbi and philosopher Maimonedes, who was somewhat close to the tale end of this affair and knowledgeable of several of those involved, and included an extensive history and criticism of them in this philosophical work of his, I was able to find different, and more comprehensive, accounting on the history of the Islamic Kalam.

The Mutakallimūn were *not* of course philosophers, they were theologians that encountered certain propositions from Aristotelian philosophy they disliked.

The first along this line were actually Christian apologists in late antiquity, before being taken over almost entirely by Muslim Mutakallimūn. In any case, most importantly for them, they objected to Aristotle's claim of the eternality of the universe, and, speculated that such a claim would, if true, disprove the existence of God. As such they developed counterarguments using the little they had decided to pick up of philosophy in pursuing this goal, and eventually devised one that they found satisfactorily disproved this notion. Once they had this argument that all seemed to them to be good enough, they declared this argument to have been "demonstrated". Importantly at this point, they began to perceive themselves as having philosophically proven the existence of God. One should note that what I have described in the previous paragraph, *is not* philosophy. It is pseudophilosophy. The initial premise that prompted this investigation - that the eternality of the universe would disprove God - does not necessarily follow. Meanwhile, once they had "solved" the problem and "proved" the temporal creation of the world, it also does not clearly follow that God would necessarily exist (even if the initial premise is assumed valid). Their use of the term "demonstrated" is also noxious, because all it clearly meant here was that it became commonly held opinion that the argument was true (to be fair, among Islamist jurists such commonality of opinion *does* in many cases constitute sufficient "clear proofs" for endorsing religious rulings - as they were theologians, I guess it would make sense to them from their context that this is what a "demonstrated" argument consists of; unfortunately for them, in philosophy, things are such that common opinion does not at all serve for the purpose of "demonstration", but they did not understand this. Obviously had they "demonstrated" the existence of God they would be by far the greatest philosophers in history. However in reality they were that level of philosopher who does not even understand what a demonstration is.

Once they had convinced themselves and many others in the Caliphate of this momentous discovery of course, things changed - at this point this becomes a critical basis of faith for many people, that God had been demonstrated to exist. So inevitably the state began to enforce this as dogma, and to suppress beliefs harmful to the faith, including of course disbelief in the temporal creation of the world. And at this point it is of course not possible to even point out their mistake, if you point out that their proof is not demonstrated in a philosophical sense, such an action is disbelief in its truth, and so impermissible because that would threaten faith.

Now of course their brilliant argument largely revolved around assuming that only a single entity could "logically" before the creation of the universe. At this point it would not take someone long to work out that, had the Koran been uncreated, it would also violate their brilliant argument which had so clearly demonstrated the existence of Allah. So this is where the period of happiness comes to a close, now we are torturing scholars for having an opinion that contradicted a speculative and bad philosophical argument that had somehow found itself in the position of being a key proof of faith. That would not indeed go well for them, and for some reason 99% of Islamic jurists cease talking about them here because there is no need anymore for a bad guy to pit against the valiant defenders of faith who would be on the other side of this conflict. But in fact Kalam would continue on for hundreds of years after this, and proceed in a similar fashion.

Building iteratively over time one layer over another, where they would perceive a need for something to be true to support the faith, or ever increasingly just the system itself, hastily cobble together an argument for it's being true, and upon finding one that seemed more or less good enough to all of them, declare it to be demonstrated, and so on and so on. They would of course readily write over and disagree with whatever preceding philosophical premises they felt they had to to get to where they wished to go. Many of the premises were largely based on purely imaginary scenarios; once again, they were not good enough at philosophy to understand the difference between imagination and the intellect. Eventually, the system had developed its own bizarre pseudo-physics as well, which was based around atoms, denied entirely the concept of necessity, and considered the universe to be just arbitrary arrangements of atoms spontaneously particularized by Allah into whatever configuration for no other reason than that He willed it. This also eventually degraded to them discounting the senses as valid sources, as the senses were clearly flawed and if the senses disagreed with the "demonstrated", clearly the senses had to go. Essentially, to protect their pseudophilosophical system and "demonstrated" arguments, they ripped out the entire basis of philosophy and rationality.

Now that we reached this point, I'd like to point out that we consider the Mutakallimūn to be a thing of the past, as the quote above indicates. However, I imagine some among you have probably heard very similar arguments used elsewhere. Denial of any necessity, conception of the universe as nothing more than ephemeral configurations of matter that Allah for whatever reason decided to particularize in that perceived form and shape at that time, as well as completely discounting the senses (ie, suspiciously castigating anyone who disagrees of "...merely believing their senses...), to the point of stubbornly refusing to believe them when doing so would necessarily contradict that which has been demonstrated by 'itja. One does not see any of these in modern philosophy, but I do not think it can be said that there is not *some* major and important discipline out there in modern society which readily does all of the above. They may even consider such to be part of their authentic doctrine from time immemorial, but this is understandable I suppose since custom so often seem that way. Many are also still seemingly impressed by the Kalam cosmological argument, despite supposedly being against Kalam. One can understand how in such an environment such a noxious and stifling movement was able to gain such purchase and spread so quickly and with so little opposition, as there is seemingly little care in those who are unvirtuous and iniquitous, besides achieving certain results. So how would they notice?

In any case, as for their association with the Islamic Philosophers, this is completely laughable. The Islamic Philosophers wrote extensive rebuttals of the above and were forethright in their criticism and opposition to kalam pseuophilosophy from the beginning. Some were religious judges, but they, understanding the inherent incompatibility of the two disciplines, did not use philosophy in their jurisdiction, or for that matter attempt to import customs from the practices of Islamic jurists into philosophy. The kalam was objectionable to them because of it's clear intellectual bankruptcy, as it had never from the start been practiced for the sake of philosophy itself, but only as an avenue by which they thought they could accomplish other goals. And in doing so they grossly mutilated and did great offense to theology. Moreover they were persecuted for it - it is obvious that several of Al-Farabi's texts which contained extensive criticism of Kalam were completely suppressed such that no extant copy of them exists today. This hundreds of years after the inquisition where supposedly in the common narrative Kalam disappeared. Al-Ghazali of course, was also hugely opposed to the philosophers, but surely for entirely different reasons because, as we know, his views were certainly so different than those of the wretched Mu'tazilites who did all of this for, well I guess because they disbelieved so hard or something, and as we know Al-Ghazali was truly among the righteous.

In any case I think a summary of Momainedes exposition would do much to benefit the article, since it is much more extensive than that usually given by Islamic scholars, who seem significantly more focused on highlighting the unrelated, and in fact, opposed, school of Islamic philosophers, than anything that was actually a tenet of the kalam. If anyone could find a scholarly summary to reference and link the highlights, that would be good. I only have the primary source myself which would be unsuitable to attempt to adapt into a wikipedia article.2601:140:8D01:C90:B92F:AEB2:2986:85FB (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kalam&oldid=1224310889"