The MuÀtazilites met opposition from the faction of Islamic scriptural literalists
crystallizing at the same time, and were goaded into a more uncompromising
stand (Hodgson, 1974: 1:386–389). The hadith scholars were fighting for their
own brand of scripturalism, attempting to formulate alongside the QurÁan a
canon of the recollections of Muhammad’s companions; their stance exalted
the status of scriptures over everything else. They attacked the application of
personal judgment in legal cases; the doctrine of free will, as limiting the
powers of God; and the unity of God because it contradicts the personal and
even physical attributes of God, which are mentioned in scripture. The rational
theologians, who had been arguing for the metaphorical nature of these pas-
sages, were driven onto more extreme grounds. Adopting Aristotelean lan-
guage, they held that God is a substance of absolute unity and simplicity, and
that there are no attributes apart from his essence.
Defenders of kalam now took the offensive against the hadith scholars.
Marshaling their arguments for the unity of God, they held that the QurÁan is
a created object, not an eternal truth; to elevate scripture to a holy object,
co-eternal with God, is to fall into dualism, even idolatry. This stance undercut
the status claims of the hadith scholars as keepers of the primary cult object
of Islam. Charges and counter-charges of either anthropomorphism or blas-
phemy eventually led to a political showdown between the two camps.
A clearly identified MuÀtazilite school emerged out of the disputes among
kalamite factions in the two generations from Dirar and his contemporary
MuÀammar ibn ÀAbbad in the late 700s, to Abu-Àl-Hudhayl, Bishr ibn al-
MuÀtamir, and al-Nazzam shortly after 800. They are connected in a network
of masters, pupils, and rivals, and split into the schools of Basra and Baghdad.
Abu-Àl-Hudhayl became the great systematizer, laying out the main points of
MuÀtazilite orthodoxy, stressing the unity and justice of God, and as its corol-
lary free will. To this other MuÀtazilites added the createdness of the QurÁan,
and the doctrine that everything exists only as attributes of atoms in time, and
must be continually re-created.
Why did the Arab theologians develop time-atomism? The influence of
Greek philosophical texts at this moment is hardly a sufficient explanation.^6
Why should the Arab thinkers have adopted a doctrine which was opposed by
all the Greek authorities then being introduced? Moreover, time-atomism was
by no means an ontological support for their major theological doctrine, the
defense of free will, since perishing atoms require God’s continuous interven-
tion. Neither of these external influences, Greek imports or theological politics,
explains the line of intellectual development. What seems to have happened is
this. The attempt to support free will led to refinements in the theory of
causality, ways in which God could be kept clear of direct responsibility for
what happens in the world. The other theological question, the unity of God
398 •^ Intellectual Communities: Western Paths