Others say that the name was derived from the introductory phrase “Debating...

Others say that the name was derived from the introductory phrase “Debating, or speaking of, this, or that issue..” scholastic theologians (mutakalimeen) used to start their writings or deliberations with. A third party said that it was named the science of kalaam because it involves “debating, talking about, or discussing”, the issues the traditionists, or scholars of tradition, ( ahlul hadith ) prefer to keep “quiet” about.

A fourth group are of the opinion that the name can be traced back to the discussion in the context of this science about “God’s speech - kalaam ”, which led to untold conflict and killings; that is why that period was branded “the age of tribulation”, in that people of that time overindulged in argument and polemics about religious fundamentals and on whether God’s speech was eternal or created.

Schools of scholastic theology As there was disagreement between Muslims on juridical issues and the branches of religion, ending in the setting up of different schools of thought, such as Jafari’ite, Zaidite, Hanafite, Shafi’ite, and Hanbali’ite, there was disagreement between them over doctrinal matters. Each group had adopted special principles. The most important among kalaam (scholastic theology) schools of thought are Shiite, Mu’atazilite, Ash’arite, and Murji’ite.

At this juncture, a question, tinged with regret, may be posed about the disunity of Muslims over juridical and scholastic theology issues. Their differences in kalaam have given rise to their disunity in Islamic thought. Their differences over juridical matters have deprived them of the ability to show a united front in action.

Although posing the question and expressing regret are legitimate, yet the attention must be drawn to these two points: The differences between Muslims over these issues are not so acute that they may shake the foundations of their doctrinal unity and joint programmes. The things they have in common are so many that they render the issues they disagree over insignificant. Ideological and theoretical differences in a society that still demonstrate common ideological fundamentals are inevitable.

So long as the differences stem from the same premises and principles and are a result of the different approaches to deduction, without compromising the main objects and aims, such differences are beneficial, in that they enhance research and scholarship.