Hylomorphism and Kalaam

Salam, I pray you’re doing well! 

I was wondering, could I hold to hylomorphism while rejecting the eternity of matter? I understand Imām Qāsim Rassī, and Imām Ḥusayn b. Qāsim spoke on hylomorphism, but Imām Ḥusayn b. Qāsim also criticized atomism, and that didn’t stop Imām Murtaḍā Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā to hold to it. So, could I hold to the form of hylomorphism which negates the eternity of matter? I have also seen a later Zaydī scholar arguing for an act/potency distinction which itself was apparently attacked by Imām Qāsim. Thus, I am convinced that there is room for ijtihād here, but I would really appreciate your feedback on this. I tried corresponding with numerous Zaydī scholars, but they didn’t give me a straightforward answer as Kalām isn’t their expertise. 

A second question I have is what are barometers for a Zaydī when it comes to Kalām, meaning where can I do my ijtihād and what exactly am I bound by? Thus far, all I can see it that we’re bound by:
1. Divine simplicity via analogical predication 
2. A rejection of Neoplatonism. 
3. No eternal contingent. 

Is there anything else that we’re bound by, or am I free to do my ijtihad so long as I hold to these 3 Uṣūl? Again, if the rejection of hylomorphism (without eternal matter) is premised on what Imām Qāsim, or Imām Ḥusayn b. Qāsim al-ʿAyānī have said, then this opens more issues than it solves as mentioned with the case regarding atomism. Furthermore, I think Imām Ḥusayn b. Qāsim himself was refuting some weird notion of hylomorphism which isn’t really Aristotelian hylomorphism as what he was addressing was a substance that can actualize itself without an external cause, which is of course absurd and not the Aristotelian view. Therefore, even appealing to him (as) doesn’t follow. Nonetheless, I am granting it, because there isn’t a demonstrable consensus on the matter. 

Moreover, Imām Hādī doesn’t really touch on this, but one can definitely glean that from him and I am intimately studying Imām Qāsim, Imām Hādī, and Imām Yaḥyā b. Ḥamza (who accepts Aristotle’s view on universal and particulars) to see whether anything they say does entail the view itself. 

Your feedback is highly appreciated, may Allāh bless you. 

---

Salaams!

I pray that all is well with you and your family during this blessed season! 

Thank you for your questions! Admittedly, I am not too familiar with Aristotelian philosophy as I should be. However, to answer your complex question simply, I would say that what you mentioned does not seemingly imply anything that is problematic theologically. My understanding of hylomorphism is that it divides existence into two primaries: the matter and the immaterial. As you know, our theologians divide existence into three: body, accident and essence. I guess accident and essence can be lumped under 'the immaterial' in hylomorphism; however, I would say that there is a reason our theologians differentiated the two. But I digress...

I don't think that hylomorphism in itself implies the eternality of the material or immaterial since both can be said to be mutually dependent upon the other; that which is dependent cannot be considered eternal. All of that withstanding, there shouldn't be a problem with it. 

As you said, it is tenable that the imams who argued against hylomorphism actually misunderstood it and equated it with the 'eternality of matter' view. Even as a translator of Imam Rassi's works and a 'Qaasimi' myself, I am not hardpressed to admit that the imam's concept of Western philosophy was tertiary and not direct since his travels were restricted to the Hejaz and a part of Egypt--none of which were hubs of Aristotelian or Neoplatonist thought.     

As for your 2nd question, I don't think that there are many philosophical concepts that the Zaydi is bound by except those held as consensus by the likes of Imam al-Qaasim b. Muhammad (as) in works such as the Assaas. I think the imam is pretty thorough in delineating that which is agreed upon and that for which there are disagreements. Everything else can be subject to scholarly debate.

Hopefully I've answered your question! And Allah knows best!

IRS