Theodicy in Islamic Thought: The Dispute over al-Ghazali's 'Best of All Possible Worlds' by Eric L.

Ormsby Review by: W. Montgomery Watt Religious Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 153-154 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20006264 . Accessed: 17/08/2013 12:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Religious Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:49:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

153

influence of Kaufmann on his work is both a strength and a weakness: his book helps to disseminate Kaufmann's work, though it is a great pity that he refers only to the original modern Hebrew volumes and makes no mention of what is available in English of that formidable work (e.g. The Religion of Israel an abridgment of the four volume work by Moshe Greenberg and published by the University of Chicago Press, I960 or what there is of the four-volume History of theReligion of Israel published by Ktav Publishing House, I977). Kaufmann was a stimulating polemicist and thus Zeitlin's book inevitably stimulates a vigorous response. In that sense it possesses some virtue, but the footnotes are slipshod (it is disconcerting to read references to scholars called Rad and Vaux) and lines appear to be missing on page I23. I suppose it is refreshing to read a book which contains material on Israel's origins without reference to Gottwald or Mendenhall (the latter is dismissed in a footnote on page I 46), but Zeitlin's reading inmodern biblical selective and therefore grosslsy defective. is scholarship curiously
ROBERT CARROLL

Eric L. Ormsby. Theodicy in Islamic Thought: the Dispute overal-Ghazali's 'Best of all Possible Worlds'. Pp. xv + 3I0. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, I984.) C27.90. This is a remarkable book in several ways. For one thing it deals with the field of Islamic theological thought between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries; and this is a period about which Western scholars have little knowledge, not even an adequate overview of the course of development during these centuries, despite - or perhaps because of - the vast masses of material available. For another thing this book pioneers a new method of exploring this territory; it follows theworking out of a single theme according to a logical rather than a historical perspective. And for an author who is a newcomer to this field the book shows great maturity, possibly helped in this respect by his obvious familiarity with medieval Christian thought. The selected theme is the debate arising out of a sentence ascribed to the
theologian al-GhazMri (d. I I Ii) 'there is not in possibility anything more

wonderful than what is' - which is roughly equivalent to the Leibnizian assertion that 'this is the best of all possible worlds', and like the latter found opponents and defenders. The first chapter of the book looks at the sentence in its context in al-GhazMll's thought. The chief passage where it occurs (with a slightly different wording) is in his Ihjy&' ('The Revival of the Religious Sciences') in the treatise on 'trust in God' (tawakkul).He insists that for complete trust in God the believer must be assured that the actual world is in accordance with the divine wisdom and that nothing more wonderful is possible.

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:49:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

154

RELIGIOUS

STUDIES

A second chapter gives a list, century by century, of about forty theologians who took part in the debate, and, for nearly half of these, works on the topic are extant. Of this latter group descriptions are given. The author sees them as falling into twomain classes - thosewith a traditional Islamic juristic and theological training, and those who belonged rather to a sufistic tradition. The remaining three chapters outline the course of the debate according to three main aspects: divine power and possibility; creation as 'natural necessity'; the problem of optimism. The arguments are sometimes subtle and abstruse - for example, distinguishing three or four different senses of 'possibility' - but they are presented in clear and readable fashion, and illustrated by short translated passages from the writers discussed. The translations are specially useful, since the works quoted are often not easily accessible. Finally there is a brief conclusion inwhich the author restates the Ghazalian position in the light of the refinements which have been introduced in the course of the debate. His sympathies are clearly with al-Ghazall, although he admits that the arguments of the critics are weighty. Some readers will wonder what light this study throws on the general development of Islamic theology during the period in question. With a little further work on themen concerned the light thrown might be considerable. Even without such work, however, one begins to discern dimly certain trends. On the one hand are the sufis like Muhyi-d-din ibn-al-'Arab! and those who approve of him, and all these accept al-Ghazall's view and argue for it. Within the group of traditionally educated ulema, however, it is interesting to find that many have leanings towards sufism or may be practising sufis; and these are all supporters of al-Ghazall's view. This is not surprising, since the basic assertion was closely linked with themystical experience of 'trust inGod' in themidst of suffering and disaster. There is something very similar at the deeper levels of Christian experience. The opposition to the view comes from traditionally educated ulema whose primary concern seems to be to maintain a somewhat abstract conception of the absolute omnipotence of God. A small quibble: is it not a rule of English typography that all sentences
start with a capital? In this book (and in a few others) this rule is not followed

where a sentence opens with theArabic article 'al-' in transliteration; and in this book there are many such sentences. This practice is irrational, for there isno system of transliteration which prescribes it, and in any caseArabic transliteration cannot prescribe to English typography. Finally, in thanking the author for this book, may one express the hope
that he will continue and extend his studies in a field W. in which he is clearly

at home.
MONTGOMERY WATT

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:49:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions