Nothing was known of Al Mukammas until recently when fragments of his philosophical work were found in Judah ben
Barzilai's commentary on the Sefer Yezirah. [35] The latter tells us that David Al Mukammas is said to have associated
with Saadia, who learned a good deal from him, but the matter is not certain. If this account be true we have a second
Jewish philosopher who preceded Saadia. His chief work is known by the title of "Twenty Chapters," fifteen of which
were discovered in the original Arabic in 1898 by Abraham Harkavy of St. Petersburg. [36] Unfortunately they have not yet
been published, and hence our account will have to be incomplete, based as it is on the Hebrew fragments in the Yezirah
commentary above mentioned.
These fragments are sufficient to show us that unlike Israeli, who shows little knowledge of the Muʿtazilite discussions, Al
Mukammas is a real Muʿtazilite and moves in the path laid out by these Mohammedan rationalists. Whether this
difference is due to their places of residence (Israeli having lived in Egypt and Kairuan, while Al Mukammas was in
Babylon), or to their personal predilections for Neo-Platonism and the Kalam respectively, is not certain. Saadia knows
the Kalam; but though coming originally from Egypt, he spent his most fruitful years in Babylonia, in the city of Sura,
where he was gaon. The centres of Arabian rationalism were, as we know, the cities of Bagdad and Basra, nearer to
Babylon and Mesopotamia than to Egypt or Kairuan.
The first quotation in Judah ben Barzilai has reference to science and philosophy, their definition and classification.
Science is the knowledge of the reality of existing things. It is divided into two parts, theoretical and practical. Theoretical
science aims at knowledge for its own sake; practical seeks an end beyond knowledge, viz., the production of something.
We call it then art. Thus geometry is a science in so far as one desires to know the nature and relations to each other of
solid, surface, line, point, square, triangle, circle. But if his purpose is to know how to build a square or circular house, or
to construct a mill, or dig a well, or measure land, he becomes an artisan. Theoretical science is three-fold. First and
foremost stands theology, which investigates the unity of God and his laws and commandments. This is the highest and
most important of all the sciences. Next comes logic and ethics, which help men in forming opinions and guide them in
the path of understanding. The last is physics, the knowledge of created things.
In the ninth and tenth chapters of his book Al Mukammas discusses the divine attributes. This was a very important
problem in the Muʿtazilite schools, as we saw in the Introduction, and was treated in Muʿtazilite works in the first division,
which went by the title of "Bab al Tauhid," the chapter on the unity.
God is one—so Al Mukammas sums up the results of his previous discussions—not in the sense in which a genus is said
to be one, nor in that in which a species is one, nor as the number one is one, nor as an individual creature is one, but as
a simple unity in which there is no distinction or composition. He is one and there is no second like him. He is first without
beginning, and last without end. He is the cause and ground of everything caused and effected.
The question of God's essence is difficult. Some say it is not permitted to ask what God is. For to answer the question
what a thing is is to limit it, and the limited is the created. Others again say that it is permitted to make this inquiry,
because we can use in our answer the expressions to which God himself testifies in his revealed book. And this would
not be limiting or defining his glory because his being is different from any other, and there is nothing that bears any
resemblance to him. Accordingly we should answer the question what God is, by saying, he is the first and the last, and
the visible and the hidden, without beginning or end. He is living, but not through life acquired from without. His life is not
sustained and prolonged by food. He is wise, but not through acquired wisdom. He hears without ears, sees without
eyes, is understanding in all his works, and a true judge in all his judgments. Such would be our answer in accordance
with God's own testimony of himself.
We must on no account suppose that the expressions living, wise, seeing, hearing, and so on, when applied to God
mean the same thing as when we ascribe them to ourselves. When we say God is living we do not mean that there was
a time when he was not living, or that there will be a time when he will not be living. This is true of us but not of God. His
life has no beginning or end. The same thing applies to his wisdom. It is not acquired like ours, it has no beginning or
end, and is not subject to error, forgetfulness, addition or diminution. It is not strange that his attributes should be so
unlike ours, for it is fitting that the Creator should be different from the thing created, and the Maker from the thing made.
We must, however, analyze the matter of divine attributes more closely. When we say God is living, we may mean he is
living with life as his attribute, i. e., that there is an attribute life which makes him living, or we may deny that there is any
such attribute in him as life, but that he is living through himself and not through life as an attribute. To make this subtle
distinction clear we will investigate further what is involved in the first statement that God is living with life. It may mean
that there was a time when God was not living and then he acquired life and became living. This is clearly a wrong and
unworthy conception. We must therefore adopt the other alternative, that the life which makes him living is eternal like
him, and hence he was always living from eternity and will continue to be living to eternity. But the matter is not yet
settled. The question still remains, Is this life through which he lives identical with his being, or is it distinct from his being,
or is it a part of it? If we say it is distinct from his being, we are guilty of introducing other eternal beings beside God,
which destroys his unity. The Christians are guilty of this very thing when they say that God's eternal life is the Holy
Ghost, and his eternal Wisdom is the Son. If we say that his life is a part of his being, we do injury to the other aspect of
his unity, namely, his simplicity. For to have parts in one's being implies composition. We are forced therefore to
conclude that God's life is identical with his being. But this is really tantamount to saying that there is no attribute life
which makes him living, or that he is living not through life. The difference is only in expression.
We may make this conception clearer by illustrations from other spheres, inadequate though they be. The soul is the
cause of life to the body, i. e., the body lives through the soul, and when the latter leaves it, the body loses its life and
dies. But the soul itself does not live through anything else, say through another soul. For if this were the case this other
soul would need again another soul to make it live and this again another, and so on ad infinitum, which is absurd. The
soul lives through itself. The same thing applies to angels. They live through their own being; and that is why souls and
angels are called in the Sacred Scriptures spirits. A spirit is something that is fine and light and incomposite. Hence their
life cannot be due to anything distinct from their being, for this would make them composite.
This statement, however, that souls and angels are living through their own being must not be understood as meaning
that they have no creator who gave them being and life. The meaning merely is that the being which God gave them is
different from the being he gave to bodies. Bodies need a soul to become living, the soul is itself living. So in material
things, also, the sun shines with its own light and not with light acquired. The odor of myrrh is fragrant through itself, not
through anything else. The eye sees with its own power, whereas man sees with the eye. The tongue does not speak
with another tongue, man speaks with a tongue, and so on. So we say of God, though in a manner a thousand-fold more
sublime, that he is living, but not with a life which is distinct from his being; and so of the other attributes, hearing, seeing,
and so on, that we find in the Scriptural praises of him.
It is necessary to add that as on the one hand we have seen that God's attributes are identical with his being, so it
follows on the other that the various attributes, such as wise, seeing, hearing, knowing, and so on, are not different from
each other in meaning, though distinct in expression. Otherwise it would make God composite. The reason we employ a
number of distinct expressions is in order to remove from God the several opposites of the terms used. Thus when we
say God is living we mean to indicate that he is not dead. The attribute wise excludes folly and ignorance; hearing and
seeing remove deafness and blindness. The philosopher Aristotle says that it is truer and more appropriate to apply
negative attributes to God than positive. Others have said that we must not speak of the Creator in positive terms for
there is danger of endowing him with form and resemblance to other things. Speaking of him negatively we imply the
positive without risking offence.
In the sequel Al Mukammas refutes the views of the dualists, of the Christians and those who maintain that God has
form. We cannot afford to linger over these arguments, interesting though they be, and must hurry on to say a word
about the sixteenth chapter, which deals with reward and punishment. This no doubt forms part of the second Muʿtazilite
division, namely, the "Bab al ʿAdl," or section concerning God's justice.
He defines reward as the soul's tranquillity and infinite joy in the world to come in compensation for the sojourn in this
world which she endured and the self-control she practiced in abstaining from the pleasures of the world. Punishment, on
the other hand, is the soul's disquietude and sorrow to the end of days as retribution for indulging in the world's evil
pleasures. Both are imposed by God with justice and fairness. It is fitting that the promises of reward and threats of
punishment consequent upon obedience and disobedience should be specified in connection with the commandments
and prohibitions in the Scriptures, because this is the only way to train the soul to practice self-control. A child who does
not fear his teacher's punishment, or has no confidence in his good will will not be amenable to instruction. The same is
true of the majority of those who serve kings. It is fear alone which induces them to obey the will of their masters. So God
in commanding us to do what is worthy and prohibiting what is unworthy saw fit in his wisdom to specify the
accompanying rewards and punishments that he who observes may find pleasure and joy in his obedience, and the
unobservant may be affected with sorrow and fear.
As the world to come has no end, so it is proper that the reward of the righteous as well as the punishment of the wicked
should be without end. Arguments have been advanced to show that unlike reward which is properly infinite as is
becoming to God's goodness, punishment should have a limit, for God is merciful. On the other hand, it is claimed on the
basis of the finiteness of human action that both reward and punishment should be finite. But in reality it can be shown in
many ways that reward and punishment should be infinite. Without naming all the arguments—as many as ten have been
advanced—in favor of this view, we may urge some of the more important.
It was God's own goodness that prompted him to benefit mankind by giving them laws for their guidance, and not any
prior merits on their part which gave them a claim on God's protection. God himself is not in any way benefited by man's
obedience or injured by his disobedience. Man knows that it is for his own good that he is thus admonished; and if he
were asked what reward he would like to have for his good deeds he would select no less than infinite happiness.
Justice demands that punishment be commensurate with reward. The greater the reward and the punishment the more
effective are the laws likely to be. Besides in violating God's law a person virtually denies the eternity of him who gave it,
and is guilty of contempt; for he hides himself from men, fearing their displeasure, whereas the omnipresence of God has
no deterring effect upon him. For such offence infinite punishment is the only fit retribution.
The question whether the soul alone is rewarded or the body alone or both has been answered variously. In favor of the
soul alone as the subject of reward and punishment it has been urged that reward raises man to the grade of angels,
who are pure spirits. How then can the body take part? And punishment must be of the same nature as reward. On the
other hand, it is claimed that the Bible says nothing of man being raised to the status of angels, and we know in this
world of physical reward and punishment only. The Garden of Eden of which the Bible speaks is not peopled with
angels, and that is where the righteous go after death.
The true solution is that as man is composed of body and soul, and both share in his conduct, reward and punishment
must attach to both. As we do not understand the nature of spiritual retribution so the composite is equally inconceivable
to us. But everyone who believes in the resurrection of the dead has no difficulty in holding that the body has a share in
future reward and punishment.