THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 37
losopher who displayed a complex, ambivalent attitude to the kalam.
He had arrived to study with Maimonides in Fustat in 1182, and stayed
there for about two years.^43 Previously, he had studied philosophy and
the sciences but was also attracted to kalam. In his “Epistle Dedica-
tory” to the Guide Maimonides lists the questions that troubled his
student:
[You] asked me to make clear to you certain things pertaining to
divine matters, to inform you of the intentions of the mutakallimun
in this respect, and to let you know whether their methods were de-
monstrative and, if not, to what art they belonged. As I also saw,
you had already acquired some smattering of this subject from peo-
ple other than myself; you were perplexed, as stupefaction had come
over you.^44The quest for a correct appreciation of the “the intentions of the mu-
takallimun” was at the heart of Ibn Shimon’s perplexity, and it is thus
also at the heart of The Guide of the Perplexed. To the extent that Mai-
monides oversimplifi es the description of the kalam and its development,
he does so also in order to make sure that his student falls on the right
side of the divide between kalam and philosophy.^45
Judging from Maimonides’ unbending opposition to the kalam, one
would have expected him to keep at arm’s length from them and to shun
their meetings. We know, however, that he attended debates of mutakal-
limun in Egypt.^46 Indeed, in modern scholarship, the place of kalam in
Maimonides’ intellectual profi le remains debated. Leo Strauss had dubbed
him “an enlightened mutakallim”, whereas Zev Harvey regards Maimo-
nides’ approach as fundamentally distinct from that of the kalam.^47 A nu-
anced understanding of Maimonides’ self- image can explain his ambiva-
lent place as regards Islamic theology. In his own self- perception, there is
no doubt that Maimonides was a phi losopher, a proud heir to the Aristo-
telian tradition as it was cultivated in al- Andalus. He was, however, also
acutely aware of his role as a leader of the Jewish community, and of the
(^43) On Ibn Shimon and his relations with Maimonides, see Stroumsa, “Introduction,” The
Beginnings of the Maimonidean Controversy in the East.
(^44) Dalala 1; Pines, 3– 4.
(^45) Maimonides’ bitterness in the Epistle on Resurrection is largely the result of his disap-
pointment with the fact that Ibn Shimon remained, in the end, a mutakallim; see chap. 6,
below.
(^46) See Rosenthal, “Maimonides and a Discussion of Muslim Speculative Theology.”
(^47) L. Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing (Glencoe, Il., 1952), 40– 41; W. Z. Harvey,
“Why Maimonides Was not a Mutakallim,” in Kraemer, Perspectives on Maimonides,
105–14; see also L. E. Goodman, Jewish and Islamic Philosophy: Crosspollinations in the
Classic Age (Edinburgh, 1999), 89.