Name : Abdullah Zaim Fauzan

NIM : 432022224002

Faculty : Ushuluddin / AFI 2 / Campus 4

The Summary Of

“The Oxford Handbook Of Islamic Theology”

 My Perspective after reading this handbook

The western have different perspective about islamic theology, there is big difference
between theirs and ours. In their perspective there is some theological thought of jews and
christians intertwined with us and how muslim theological thinking was influenced by
Christian methodologies of speculative reasoning and doctrinal concepts. And how this book
was made in purpose of serving as an encouragement and a guide for scholars who wish to
engage with this field of study. Moreover, this book also acknowledges the significance of
inter-communal exchanges between Muslim and Christian as well as Jewish thinkers over the
course of the centuries.

 The Summary of “Introduction by Sabine Schmidtke”

1. Theology has (In the eye of muslim theologians) two principal concerns : first, God, His
existence, and nature, and, secondly, God’s actions vis-à-vis Hiscreation, specifically
humankind.
2. Muslim theologians championed two different, contradictory approaches—while
rationally minded theologians employed the methods and techniques of speculative
theology, ‘kalām’ or‘ʿilm al-kalām’, as it is typically called, traditionists categorically
rejected the use ofreason and instead restricted themselves to collecting the relevant
doctrinal statementsthey found in the Qurʾān and the prophetic tradition (sunna).
3. The amalgam of the Qurʾānic data, doctrinal concepts, and concerns originating in
thewider cultural environment of early Islam, as well as the political controversies and
 schisms of the early Islamic community, gave rise to a highly variegated spectrum of
Muslim theological thought, with respect to both doctrinal positions and methodological
approaches.

 The Summary of “Origins of Kalam by Alexander Treigner”

1. Islamic theology emerged in a multi-religious environment in which a Muslim ruling

minority was struggling to assert itself, politically as well as religiously, amidst the
indigenous populations of the Middle East
2. . The present account of the origins of Islamic theology must begin with its foremost
researcher Josef van Ess, who stated his view, back in the 1970s, succinctly as follows:
“Theology in Islam did not start as polemics against unbelievers. Even the kalām style
was not developed or taken over in order to refute non-Muslims, especiallythe
Manicheans, as one tended to believe when one saw the origin of kalām in the missionary
activities of the Muʿtazila. Theology started as an inner-Islamic discussion when, mainly
through political development, the self-confident naïvité of the early days was gradually
eroded.
3. Term Kalam has two distinct meanings which ought to be clearly differentiated. First, it
is a particular style of theological argumentation which, to quote van Ess once again,
‘talks (kallama) with the opponent by asking questions and reducing his position to
meaningless alternatives’. Second, , it is the kind of Islamic theology—in Arabic: ʿilm
alKalām—that habitually employs this style of argumentation, or at least is within the
tradition that does so.
4. Michael cook pointed out that characteristic features of kalām argumentation are present
in seventh-century Syriac Christological disputations, notably in a Monothelete
(‘Maronite’)document (MS British Library, Add. 7192), containing two sets of
Christological queries,addressed to Dyothelete (‘Melkite’) opponents and dating to the
second half of the seventh century, thus excluding the possibility that these Syriac texts
were themselves influenced by Muslim Kalām.
 The Summary Of “ The Early Qadariyya “

1. The Qadariyya were one of the earliest identifiable theological movements in Islam.
Themovement was short-lived and most of those identified with it lived during the
Marwānid period (64/684–132/750).
2. Sources for reconstructing both the theological views of the Qadariyya and the political
and scholarly activities of principal Qadarī leaders are sparse and at times problematic.
3. The Kitāb al-Qadar by al-Firyābī (d. 301/913) describes Qadarī view sextensively in
order to refute them. In addition, many of the standard ḥadīth collection shave sections on
qadar, which mostly contain ḥadīth undermining Qadarī views.
4. The impetus for the Qadarī position that humans have free will was their determination
that evil could not come from God. Consequently, humans’ evil deeds must derive
fromsome other source, namely their own volition.
5. Practically nothing is preserved about Qadarī views on issues such as the divine
attributes, the nature of the afterlife, or evenabout how God will judge humans for the
sins for which the Qadarīs declare them responsible. The Qadariyya category itself does
not appear as a major heading in the heresiographical sources.
6. One of the difficulties in assessing the Qadariyya stems from the lack of clear leadership
or coherent organization in the movement. As the discussion herein will illustrate,
anumber of Qadarī leaders were later subsumed by other movements, especially the
Muʿtazilites.
7. Modern scholars, to some extent following medieval Arabic sources, have emphasized
the influence Christian theological debates, particularly within the Syrian church, wielded
over early Islamic thought.
8. The biographical sources offer considerably more detail about the alleged origin ofQadarī
doctrine. A number of sources emphasize that, while Maʿbad was the first tospeak of
qadar in Baṣra, he did not invent the doctrine. Instead, he learned it from aChristian,
sometimes named as Sūsan or possibly Susnoya.
9. Reports about the origins of the Qadariyya are especially important for understanding
their treatment in historiographical sources. The fact that these reports are more prevalent
 than descriptions of Maʿbad’s actual beliefs reflects the focus of later scholarson the
question of origins.
10. The Qadariyya were a short-lived theological phenomenon. They endured only a few
decades, from the initial preaching of Maʿbad in the late 70s/690s to the failure of the
Qadarī caliph Yazīd b. al-Walīd in the 120s/740s. During this fifty-year history, the
Qadariyya produced little to explain their doctrines and do not appear to have been major
theological actors.

 The Summary of “Jahm b. Ṣafwān (d. 128/745–6) and the ‘Jahmiyya’ andḌirār b.
ʿAmr (d. 200/815) by Cornelia Schöck”

1. Jahm b. Ṣafwān and Ḍirār b. ʿAmr rank among the first Muslim scholars to deal with
issuespertaining to philosophy of nature, ontology, and epistemology. Jahm lived and
taught in North-Eastern Iran, and it may well be that he never left the territory of
Khurāsān (IbnḤanbal, Radd, 19.6; Qāḍī 1426/2005: i. 70–5; van Ess 1991–7: ii. 494).
Ḍirār b. ʿAmr wasof Kūfan origin. In his youth he belonged to the circle of the second
generation of the Muʿtazilites of Baṣra, at the age of about 50 to those of Baghdād.
2. The present chapter argues that these claims are untenable. The arguments of Jahm
andthe Jahmites are at odds with the Church Fathers and there are clear indications
thatthey have their origin in Christian Trinitarian debates in which the Arian party argued
ona logical basis against the godhead of the Son.
3. According to jahm it is possible that Godknows all (particular) things (ashyāʾ) prior to
their existence by a knowledge which he brings into existence prior to them.
4. The doxographical accounts on Ḍirār’s doctrine mainly focus on two issues, a
bundletheory of body together with the denial of latent intrinsic powers and potencies of
bodiescausing change in corporeal substances.
5. Dirar doctrine is in line with Gregory of Nyssa’stheory of the origination of the corporeal,
material from the incorporeal, immaterial by anact of the divine will.
6. The reason for Ḍirār’s refusal of material elements and of forms and essences is
thatḌirār’s analysis of the material world draws on Aristotle’s methodology of natural
sciencein which Aristotle gave up the definition of the form-eidos by genus and
 differentiaspecifica in favour of the definition of classes of animals by a manifoldness of
coordinate,not subordinate.
7. The most systematic and comprehensive account on Ḍirār’s doctrine of the physical
worldis extant in al-Ashʿarī, Maqālāt, Jahm and Ḍirār did not follow the Aristotelian
division of things into essences and accidents and into essential and non-essential parts,
but applied a division into thematerial, mutable, passive on one hand and the immaterial,
imutable, active on the otherhand, assigning composition and materiality to created things
and incomposition and immateriality to God. 305.5–306.11 (cf. van Ess 1991–7: v. 231–
3). What followswill comment on this account section by section and use further sources
to elucidate its meaning and philosophical background. The difficulties in understanding
the text result from its extreme brevity and terseness. But it becomes comprehensible in
light of the framework of the ancient and late-ancient philosophical and Patristic
tradition.
8. Jahm’s and Ḍirār’s basic distinction between the composite, generate and theincomposite,
ingenerate is a common place in later Muslim theology. It ultimately goes back to the
issue of being and becoming in pre-Socratic philosophy which had been associated with
the problem of the One in Plato’s Parmenides and which attained particular importance in
the Christian Trinitarian debates.
9. The common element of their thesesis the understanding of the corporeal as the substrate
of non-persistent affections andactivities, and the interpretation that generation and
corruption and the alteration of thestates of natural bodies is due to those non-persistent
properties generate dex nihilo by God’s act of volition.

 The Summary of “Theology in the Ottoman Lands by M. Sait Ozervarli”

1. Ottoman Islamic theology was not a new phenomenon in the main Ottoman lands but
rather a continuation of an existing religious culture established by the Anatolian
Saljūqs(Salājiqa-i Rūm) since the sixth/twelfth century.
2. the Ottomans engaged in a lively intellectual activity,especially during the fifteenth
century during the reigns of Mehmed II (reigned 1444–6,1451–81) and Bayezid II
(reigned 1481–1512).
3. As was the case during most periods of Islamic history, a conservative minority among
Ottoman scholars opposed any engagement in kalām, as well as the personalities and
movements engaged in it. At the same time, mutakallimūn and their opponents tended to
respect each other, partly because the rational sciences did play a prominent role in the
Ottoman madrasa education.
4. Although officially being adherents of the Māturīdiyya, one of the two main Sunnī
schools of rational theology, Ottoman theologians were significantly attracted and
influenced by the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century representatives of the other major
Sunnī school of theology, the Ashʿariyya.
5. Having Fenārī and the intellectual environment of his time as their model, a group of
well-trained Ottoman scholars and judges emerged during the reign of Mehmed II, most
of whom were based in Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul, the three most highly regarded
centres of learning.
6. The majority of Ottoman scholars were occupied with commenting upon the works of
alTaftazānī and al-Jurjānī, a trend that continued over many generations. During the time
of Bayezid II, interest in classical learning and theological debates continued unabated,
with Ottoman scholars enjoying the privilege to freely criticize earlier Muslim thinkers
as wellas contemporary ones.
7. The interest of Ottoman scholars in philosophy and philosophical theology ledthem to
revive the long forgotten tradition of the debate on the relation between theologyand
philosophy, which al-Ghazālī had initiated with his Tahāfut al-falāsifa.
8. The focus of Ottoman theologians who engaged in this kind of comparision was
onphilosophical questions rather than purely theological issues, as is indicated by
theirtopical choices in short treatises devoted to specific subjects or partial commentaries
onearlier works.
9. The renewal of theology as an attempt to reconcile religion with modernity began in
thelate Ottoman Empire as well as in other parts of the Muslim world. In the nineteenth
century the classical theological curriculum lost its appeal and dynamism, since the new
books were less sophisticated than those written in earlier centuries, and they failed to
address the changed conditions of modernity.
10. Ottoman defenders of modernizing theological texts, such as Abdüllatif Harputi (ʿAbd
alLaṭīf al-Kharpūtī) (1842–1914) and Şeyhülislam Musa Kazım (Shaykh al-Islām
MūsāKāzim) (1858–1920), argued that the use of modern scientific and philosophical
methodologies was necessary in order to strengthen faith in Islam and to bring its
disciplines up to date.
11 Islamic theology and its integration to philosophy in the late medieval period was vibrant
in the Ottoman lands as was the caseamong Iranian and Imami thinkers of the time.
Ottoman theology was observed as anactive and productive follower of its Muslim
Anatolian background in combining rationaland mystical schools.

 The Summary Of “ Theology In Central Asia by Nathan Spannaus “

1. The historical development of theology in Central Asia is marked—as it is virtually
everywhere in the Islamic world—by the ‘philosophizing’ of Sunni kalām, where in
methods and concepts from Hellenized Arabic falsafa came to exert a tremendous
influence on the subsequent theological tradition.
2. The philosophizing of kalām that took place in this period resulted in a shift in
theprimary concerns of mutakallimūn, a shift which is evident in the differences between
alNasafī’s ʿAqāʾid and Taftāzānī’s Sharḥ.
3. Al-Taftāzānī’s works, in particular the Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-nasafiyya, came to
dominateCentral Asian theological discourse up to the twentieth century. His Sharḥis
often considered the epitome of kalām, and a number of histories of theology in Central
Asia stop at this point, believing the ostensible apotheosis of kalām’s development in
theregion to be the end of kalām’s development in the region.
4. Our most reliable knowledge relevant to theology falls within the realm ofbibliography.
The vast majority of theological texts from this era remain unpublished, andtheir contents
unstudied.
5. This perspective is reflective of a long-standing and important trend in Central Asia’s
unique scholarly tradition—the role of Sufism. Sufism was an essential aspect of Central
Asian society and was intimately linked with not only the religious, but also the social
and political life of the region.
6. The importance of wujūdī metaphysics, as well as the emphasis on orthodoxy,
onlyincreased with the establishment of the Mujaddidi order in the mid-seventeenth
century.
7. Sirhindī’s metaphysics fit well into the existing theological debates in Central Asia.
Asnoted, ontological questions came to dominate theological discourse after the
AvicennianTurn, and Mujaddidi ideas were incorporated into Central Asiankalāmin ways
similar toIbn ʿArabī’s ideas before them.
8. This very subtle theological reasoning is apparent particularly in the debates going on in
Central Asia regarding ontology. These debates focused primarily on the relationship
between God’s existence and the existence of everything else, reflected in the notion that
God is the only necessary existent (wājib) while all other entities are in themselves only
possible of existence (mumkin al-wujūd) or impossible (mumtaniʿ).
9. Scholars put forward a number of different answers to these questions, and debates onthe
divine attributes played an important role in theological reasoning in Central Asia inthe
post-classical period.