264 Anke von Kügelgen
(d. 428/1037) is explicitly called a “devil of the human devils” and the
study of his work is prohibited.^36 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ prohibits logic for three
reasons: first, because “the means of access to something bad”^37 must
itself be bad; second, because
preoccupation with the study and teaching of logic has not been permit-
ted by the Lawgiver, nor has it been suggested by his Companions or
the generation that followed him, nor by the learned imams, the pious
ancestors, nor by the leaders or pillars of the Islamic community whose
example is followed;^38and third, because “God has made it dispensable for those who have
common sense (kull ṣaḥīḥ al-dhihn), and it is even more dispensible
for the specialists in the speculative branches of jurisprudence.”^39 Ibn
al-Ṣalāḥ ends his famous fatwa with the conclusion that people who
devote themselves to philosophy (and logic) shall be executed if they
(continue to) refuse Islam.^40
Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’s argumentation differs from the abovementioned by
referring to “the common sense”^41 and to the “clear arguments and
brilliant proofs”^42 of the sharia itself and, not least, by its explicit death
threat. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ is not known for having refuted logic and philoso-
phy other than by the cited arguments, and although his fatwa prob-
ably fueled the persecution of those in touch with these sciences and
was often referred to, even in introductions to logic, it failed to erase
logic from the education of the “later” kalām theologians.^43 Therefore,
Ibn Taymiyya might have felt obligated to deeply penetrate into their
methods and subjects, in order to refute them from within by demon-
strating their internal incoherences.
36 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Fatāwā, pp. 69–70. The fatwas are not dated and the mustaftī(s) are
not known.
37 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Fatāwā, p. 71; Goldziher, The Attitude of Orthodox Islam, p. 205.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Fatāwā, p. 71; Goldziher, The Attitude of Orthodox Islam, p. 206.
40 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Fatāwā, pp. 71–72; I follow Goldziher’s translation, The Attitude
of Orthodox Islam, p. 206. For a comparison of Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’s position with that
of al-Ghazālī, see Griffel, Apostasie, pp. 354–357.
41 Ibn al-Ṣalaḥ, Fatāwā, p. 71; Goldziher, The Attitude of Orthodox Islam, p. 206.
42 Ibn al-Ṣalaḥ, Fatāwā, p. 70; Goldziher, The Attitude of Orthodox Islam, p. 205.
43 Goldziher, Stellung der alten islamischen Orthodoxie, pp. 393–396; idem, The
Attitude of Orthodox Islam, pp. 206–209, al-Nashshār, Manāhij al-baḥth,
pp. 226–227; Endress, Die wissenschaftliche Literatur, vol. 3, pp. 56–57.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated