Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

2- MUSLIM ETHOS THROUGH THE CENTURIES

Inmy last lecture, I invited your attention to what Islamic thinkers and reformers had often pointed out in the recent centuries.I said that Muslims today have come to view Islam in a manner characteristic of diseased minds. They failed to perceive the intrinsic vitality of Islam, which continued to exist unaffected. The adverse change in the typical way of thinking, or ethos, of Muslims has deep-rooted causes.

The deterioration in Muslim ethos set in when Islam, or one's faith, and actual practice of the same came tobe regarded as separable. This theoretical approach to Islam ignored the fact that it is a religion of action. For, no human happiness and wellbeingcould be achieved on any unrealistic and theoretical bases. By virtually discarding action as the means of achieving human progress, the Muslim ethos became unrealistic.

Islamic teachings regard appropriate efforts as capable of shaping every human destiny. This approach is realistic, sensible and in harmony with Nature. That any human achievement depends on the propriety and effectiveness of the relevant effortshas been frequently stressed in the Qur'an:

“...man has only that for which he makes effort.” (The Qur'an, 53:39)

“That day (when the earthquake will shake the earth) mankind (after resurrection) shall issue forth in scattered groups to be shown their (good/evil) deeds.

“Then, whoever had done an atom-weight of good shall see it;

“And whoever had done an atom-weight of evil shall see it.” (The Qur'an, 99:6/7/8)

The above verses emphasize the crucial significance of rectitude in human action for shaping individual and societal destinies. No doubt, these and similar otherQur'anic teachings are relevant to all individuals and nations alike. These principleshad been deeply upheld by the early Muslims whose faith and action showed no contradiction. They never desisted from actively pursuing what they believed in.

Their positive and comprehensive efforts underlined their awareness of the futility of approaching problems or situations in a one-sided, theoretical manner. Their deep,thorough and active commitment to Islam, as reflected in their individual and collective efforts, enabled than to achieve meaningful dynamism and self-reliance, as well as astounding success.

The positiveelan achieved by the early Muslims lost its dynamism in the second century of theHejira . By then Muslims had begun to spurn action and take their faith for granted. This negative trend was encouraged by the corrupt,incompetent and worldly rulers. It began as early as theUmmayad caliphates.

TheUmmayads aimed at overcoming any effective criticism of their worldly and almost secular ways. Accordingly, they propagated the misleading notion that, given the basic faith (in Islam), one's action is of no importance. With their vast power and wealth, they could unduly influence the ethos of the people, even through their patronization of pseudo-intellectual groups like the Murjites.20

Shi'a Muslims, inspired and guided by their pious Imams (a.s .), firmly believed in acting according to one's faith. The Imams always reiterated that faith is verified or confirmed by three things: verbal assertion, heart-feltconviction and physical action. They were averse to the theory that faith is independent of action. After all, when the Qur'an praises devout believers, it endorses not only one's beliefbut the conformity of his actions.

What theMurjites among the Sunni Muslims did in the past is noticeable today among theShi'a Muslims. The latter have come to scorn action, while upholding their allegiance to the guidelines set byHadrat Ali (a.s .) and the other Imams. They participate in themourning sessions for Imam Husain (a.s .), as if - God forbid - the Imam believed in an attitude of partisanship. On the contrary, the philosophy underlying Imam Husain's martyrdom showed that he wanted to reorient Islam to action. In other words, he died to render Islam dynamic in actual practice. Yet, many seem to think that he died in trying to establish Islamic order of a theoretical kind!

Reverting to theUmmayad period, it will be interesting to recall whatAbul Faraj Isfahani mentioned in his book: “Aghani ” (Melodies”). Though anUmmayad himself, AbuFaraj has been considered by theShi'ite clergy to be an impartial historian,specially for his authentic account of his martyrdoms of the descendents ofAbi-Taleb .

In his book: “Aghani ”, Abul Faraj describes the pleasure-loving and decadent amusements of the caliphs in the words of the minstrels, musicians and artists of their courts.One of the anecdotes concern s a dispute between aShi'a Muslim and aMurjite as to the pros and cons of faith and action. The former upheld both faith and action as inseparable, while the latter claimed that the basic thing is faith irrespective of action. Neither of them was able to convince the other. Then, they agreed to arbitration by whoever joined them first. The first person to join them was a musician, so that theMurjite was glad in the expectation that the arbitrator will endorse his view.

The musician gave his verdict by saying: “I'm aShi'a from my head to mywaist, and aMurjite from my waist downward”. What he meant was that he thought like aShi'a , but 'acted' like aMurjite ! Today, we find theShi'a Muslims practicallyMurjite from head to foot! We often take recourse toprotexts ,ev'en to make for paradise with them.Hadrat Ali (2), speaking about paradise emphasizes that itis granted as a prize won by accomplishments, and not pretexts or excuses. Our negative attitude is tantamount to turning away from reality towishful thinking . A nation that bases its pursuit of happiness on imagination is tobe much pitied .

In the above context, the Qur'an has condemned the Jewish notion that a people could regard themselves as privileged and condemned the Jewish notion thata people could regard themselves as privileged and condonable before God, assuming that wicked deeds were ignored by Him and good deeds were recompensed all the more. The Jews had believed that their sins and evil deeds would not cause them to go tohell, it was only a formality before their release after a few days, so that they could go to heaven to which they rightfully belonged!

In atradition we are told that Jews, Christians and Muslims ofMadina were all claiming moral superiority over one another. The Qur'an corrected them by saying: “It is not as you and others of the Book hoped and believed. God will punish whoever commits a wicked deed.” A notion of Superiority came to prevail among theShi'a Muslims, too, even during the time of the Imams. However, the Imams rejected it and counteracted the same. Two instancescan be cited in this regard.

CaliphMa'moon offered hissuccessorship to Imam Reza (a.s .). The latter declined it politely and took no part in the state affairs. Subsequently, the Imam was addressing a religious session in which his brother,Zeid bin Musa binJa'far , who had risen atMadina against the Caliphate and was suppressed and pardoned byMa'moon , was present.

Imam Reza (a.s .) noticed his brother referring to himself and the Imam as “We of the Prophet's household...” and giving an impression to the listeners that God will treat them as privileged persons. The Imam (a.s .) interrupted his discourse to tell his brother: “What is this nonsense that you are uttering? Do you think thatevery wrong done by us will be forgiven by God because of some immunity granted by Him to the Prophet's family? If it were true, you would have been superior to your father, Musa binJa'far , and heaven would be guaranteed to you, in spite of an idle life. Actually, your father deserved heaven as a result of a lifetime of effort,study and devotion to God.”

Then, Imam Reza (a.s .) turned toVesha , who was a learned narrator ofKufa , and asked him how theKufa people understood the verse of the Qur'an concerning Noah and his son.Vesha understood the Imam's purpose and replied: “Some people inKufa understood it to the effect that when Noah (a.s .) begged God to forgive his son and allow him to be taken o n board the “Ark”, the divine response was in the negative as if Noah's son was not a member of the prophet's family”. Then,Vesha continued: “Others inKufa interpreted it wrongly to mean that God told Noah that the one he regarded as his son was not really his - as if it were that Noah's wife had begotten an illegitimate son!”

The Imam (a.s .) agreed by saying: “Yes, the second group of people inKufa misunderstood the true meaning of the verse. The correct position is that Noah's son was corrupt, although he was the prophet's own child.No wonder, then, God did not accept Noah's intercession for his wicked son. And it is said in the narrative that Noah regretted his mistake in this regard.”

Then, the Imam (a.s .) turned to his brother and asked: “Was Noah's son not a prophet's son?” If mere blood relationship was the consideration, 'Why God did not accede to the Prophet's request?” “What better response than the divine aversion to t he corruptness and impiety of Noah's son can be found?”.

In another narration concerning ImamSadidq (a.s .), a tendency towards crooked thinking has been corrected in the past. A man came to the Imam andasked: “A saying has been attributed to you. I wish to knowwhether or not it is correct and authentic. Is it true that you have said that when one is properly enlightened by following the Imams one can act as onewishes ?” The Imam indicated that he had said to that effect. Then, the man enquired: “Does it mean that enlightenment allows a man to do just anything he wishes, even if it is theft or adultery?”

The Imam replied inastonishment: “How distressing it is to hear an absurd interpretation of my words! WhenI said that once you did understand the Imams' teachings you would be free to act.I never meant it to be applied to immoral acts. Understanding the Imams can only be in the context of moral rectitude, so that you are able to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.” Obviously, when we refer to the Qur'an, theSunnat and the Imams' narrations, we learn about the need for righteous action, and understand that human happiness is dependent on it.

Today, when we reflect on our characteristic way of thinking, we are likely to discern that actionis scorned in many ways. When we extend our analysis to our own society, we will probably find that our people ignore the need for genuine and righteous action altogether. For example, it is a common tendency to think that if one could get himself space for one's burial within the premises of the shrine of Imam Reza (a.s .), then, it will compensate for one's deficiencies in life.What an idea and how remote from Islam! Do such people really find happiness when, after a life of wickedness, they think that burial at the feet of an Imam will absolve them of every sin? They seem to forget that evenHarun al-Rashid is buried in the premises of the shrine of Imam Reza (a.s .) and pilgrims there curse him and his sonMa'mun . This contradiction typifies a degenerate or “dead” thinking among people.

When we speak of reviving the original Islamic ethos, wemean basically thepopularisation of the idea of a Muslim's working out his own salvation through righteous self-exertion- and not any wishful thinking or dependence on others. In this context, we may recall the former custom of an influential person granting private sanctuary to an ordinary member of the public. This custom, fortunately,is no longer allowed to continue. It had meant that when an offender wanted to evade arrest, he sought refuge of an influential clergyman and, if granted, no agent of the authorities could remove him from there. This was against both secular and religious laws. Yet, some ancient people had wrongly supposed that private sanctuary existed in the divine system. The Imam never accepted any idea of private sanctuary.

InNahjul Balagha ,Hadrat Ali (a.s .) is reported to have always emphasized two qualities of a Muslim: chastity and action. However, we seem to shut our eyes to these requirements, and then ask in our will tobe buried in Najaf - as if this final wish will put everything right!

According to the Prophet's Tradition, theBani Hashem andBani Mutalleb tribes were told by him: “Let me not witness on Resurrection Day that other people come before God, the Just, relying on their well-accumulated good deeds, while you come depending on me, pleading that 'the Prophet is one of us'; for, this will be of no avail to you.” This wason the occasion of the revelation of theQur'anic verses mentioned below;

“So, invoke not with God another god,Lest you be one of the doomed.

“And warn thy tribe of near kindred.” (The Qur'an, 26;213,214 )

In another tradition the Prophet (s.a.w .) is to have told his dear and pious daughter,Hadrat Fatima (a.s .), who he called “a portion of my heart”, as follows; “My dear, act on your own, for your kinship with me will be of no avail; follow my teachings and never say that your father is Prophet. It is of no use to you.”

NeitherHadrat Ali (a.s .) norHadrat Fatima (a.s .) ever took recourse to their kinship with the Prophet (s.a.w .). They relied on their own will and power to act and act in the righteous way of God, as taught by the Prophet (s.a.w .). Theywere deeply imbued with the fear of God, which was particularly evident in their regular and nightly prayers and constant devotion to Him. Didn't Imam Ali (a.s .) sometimes faint in the middle of his nightly prayers? Was it not due to his deeply felt fear of God? Whycouldn't he assure himself otherwise, even as a first believer in Islam, or as the Prophet's first cousin and his beloved son-in-law? The Prophet's daughter,Hadrat Fatima (a.s .), too, was so devoted to God as to render her prayers a deeply moving experience for her, specialty on Thursday nights spent in tearful concentration on Him. Indeed, they exemplified a deep assimilation of the Islamic teachings.

The early Muslims showed self-reliance, in that they depended on their own individual worth and power. This characteristic way of their thinking began to suffer damage at the hands of speculative thinkers, whose adverse social impact was insignificant at first.but in time spread like leprosy among theShi'as and a majority of Sunnis. The vicious thinkers took undue advantage of the ill-trained,credulous and impressionable people, in that they could use even the seemingly innocuous dreams to achieve their ulterior motives of damaging the originally positive Islamic ethos. Thisis typified notably in one case after the death of the renowned Islamic thinker,Muhaqiq Ardebili , who had personified a thoroughly dynamic Muslim in his lifetime.

At that time, someone spread a story about his dream involving a deceasedMulla orFaqih (sometimes referred to asMuhaqiqi , implying, asShaikh Ansari subsequently pointed out, the venerableMuhaqiq Ardebili ). In that dream, the departed soulwas asked as to how God had treated him, and the dreamer got the reply that He was Gracious indeed. When further asked as to what saved him, the reply was: “My realization that prospects for good deeds are dull!”, It is strange that while the Qur'an tells us that the prospects for good deeds are bright (in the hereafter), a dream suggests to the contrary. The story indicates the kind of damaging effect of a person's diseased thinking.

ImamBaqar (a.s .) once told his followers: “Inform theShi'as that aShi'a is no longer one when he discards virtue, chastity and positive efforts.” InNahjul Balagha ,Hadrat Ali's advice is recordedas: “Be not of those who are hopeful of salvation in the next world, but without good deeds.” Further, one is advised not to 'repent' in a manner of postponing the same while continuing to nurture all kinds of desire, and not to pretend aversion to the materialistic things while actually demonstrating that one is captivated by the world.

3- TO BE “ALIVE” AND TO BE “DEAD” IN THINKING

One of the matters described in the Qur'an is the question of life and death, whichis mentioned in all its phases for various reasons. It speaks of the life of plants,animals and human beings.But as our discussion is not about life in general but only a particular life, that is, human life, we will pay special attention to it.

Many of us think that as long as a man'sheart beats , and the nerves are active and he walks about, he is alive. Whencan he be said to be dead? When the physician listens to his heart and declares that it has stopped functioning. This is to some extent true, but this kind of life is not areally human life; it is his biological life. In thisrespect he has a common bond with animals. A dog, too, has a heart, nerves, veins (in which blood flows) , organs and limbs.But a human being has another kind of life, as well. It means, according to the Qur'an that a man's heart,nerves and limbs may be active, but he may be 'dead'.

The Qur'an refers to people as dead and alive, and then says it affects those who show a trace of life, while it has no effect on the dead ones. Whatis meant by being dead or alive? The Qur'an says elsewhere that whoever is born comes into the world with a divine-endowed nature, which seeks truth.But in some people this light of inquiry is extinguished, and thus he “dies,” though he is biologically alive.

The Qur'an gives another example and says that those who show a trace of life blossom forth in spirit when they assimilate the Qur'an, since they become susceptible to the same,like a land prepared for the growth of plants and trees.

The Qur'an says:

“Is he who was dead and We revived him (through the Qur'an) and gave him a light by which he walks among people, like one who remains in utter darkness and without access to the world beyond him?...”(6:123)

Another verse of the Qur'an in which the people are divided into two groups of “dead” and “alive”, is the one with which I began my discourse. How explicitly and beautifully it(8:24) exhorts to the effect that God and the Prophet invite us to accept Islam for its life-giving quality, since it will revive us.

Islam speaks persistently of life, and says the Prophet has brought “life” for you. You are dead now but you do not know it. Come and submit to this spiritual physician to see how he offers you life.

What does life mean? It means clear-sightedness and ability. The difference between life and death lies in these two. The greater the measure of these two, the livelier is life. Why do we call God alive? Does it mean having a beating heart and blood flow? This meaning does not apply to God; in Hiscase heart and blood do not exist.

Does life mean breathing and letting breath in and out? No, this is not the meaning of life. These are conditions of life for us, not life itself. Life itself is awareness and ability, we call God alive because He represents Absolute Wisdom and Ability, and because an excellent human life reflects qualities of His Essence, including kindness, mercy, compassion and beneficence. Islam, too, promotes wisdom and ability in actual practice, as it did for many centuries. Therefore, when human thought does not reflect the divine-endowed wisdom and ability, and instead, leads only to aggravation of ignorance and inactivity, it no longer represents Islam.

Islam is the religion oflife which is incompatible with ignorance and inability. You can accept this as a general criterion of understanding Islam. In the lastsession I mentioned action as an element of life in Islamic thought. Islam tries in its teachings to predicate human destiny on action,so as to make man rely on his own will. Islam says that your unhappiness is the result of your own misdeeds.

A human being must rely on his own conduct and personal initiative. What is more explicit than the phrase of theQuran which says:“There is not for man save what he strives for.” (53:39) . No doubt, it involves human dynamism, alertness,insight and ability.

To-day, educators try hard to awaken the sense of self-reliance in man, and rightly do so. The kind of self-reliance that Islam awakens in man is that it puts an end to the hope of relying on everything outsidehimself , and if there is a hope it must be centered on oneself.Similarly every connection with other things or persons is through action. You cannot be connected with the Prophet (s.a.w .) or Imam Ali (a.s .) or the latter's chaste Fatima (a.s .) except through deeds.

I remember a narration from eighteen years ago which affected me deeply. It was an anecdote from the life of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), so fine and meaningful, and peerless in the biography of all human beings. It is amazing how a man in a desert environment, such as that of the Prophet's could act in an extraordinarily thoughtful manner.

The Prophet in one of his travels with his companions ordered the caravan to stop and dismount. Then he dismounted and started walking in a certain direction. Soon he returned, and his companions supposed that he was looking for a suitable place for camping before he could decide about moving to another spot.

They saw him approach his camel, take a knee-band from the sack, tie the camel'sknees and walk on as before. They wondered why the Prophet (s.a.w .) had walked so far and back for such a trifling task, and asked him why he did not order them to do it. The Prophetsaid: “Never seek help from others even for a small piece of work. Try to do it yourself.”

If the Prophet (s.a.w .) had said this from the pulpit it would not have had such a deep effect, but he said it when itwas combined with action. My purpose is to show that one of the principles of Islamic teachings whichrevives Islamic thought is action and reliance on action.

I want to explain two other points of Islamic morals and educational principles, which are very significant, like a double-edged sword. If theyare taught properly the result would be excellent, but if diverted from their course, they will have opposite effects. In myexperience many of the moral and educational ideas in Islam have become perverted in the minds of Muslims.

The dynamic concept of reliance on God has an ethical and educational meaning in Islam. The Qur'an conveys an extraordinarily harmonious and heroic sense in endorsing absolute adherence to, and trust in.God. The Qur'an brings man into action and removes all fear from him. It teaches us not to fear, but rely on God and go ahead. It instructs us to tell the truth without fearing any might of an enemy.

When you seek to find this kind of reliance in the minds and hearts of people to-day, you see that it is absent or dead. When we want to be idle, and tend to neglect our duty, we resort to “reliance on God,” and use it in a sense quite the reverse of what the Qur'an teaches.

4- ISLAMIC POSITION CONCERNING ASCETICISM AND RENUNCIATION OF THE WORLD

Another aspect thatI wish to discuss concerns the word: (asceticism). In theQur'an we do not come across the word in the sense used now. Ithas been mentioned in the Prophet's tradition and in the narrations attributed to the pious Imams. However, the meaning of the word as used in the Qur'an is not obscure,specially as explained in Imam Ali's sayings.

Asceticism is very prevalent amongst us in the sense in which itwas used formerly in traditions and annals, which is different from its current sense. We hear of people, we find that their asceticism is negative, meaning that they are content with a little.But this is not the right meaning.

One of the qualities of an ascetic is to be able in his personal life to be content with a little, which is of great philosophical importance.But not everyone who is content with a little may be called all ascetic. Letme explain it further.

Asceticism is related toworldly goods and riches and even to positions. If you ask whetherworldly goods and wealth and position are good or bad, the answer depends on their use or purpose? These things are a form of power, but the questionis: what do you want them for? You may be a slave of your lust, and intend to satisfy them by means of these powers. If you are such a person whatever you use to attain your carnal desires (whether it is position, wealth, knowledge, religion or even devoutness) will be bad.

However, if you purify yourself, and do not lust, avoid self-centredness , and have a divinely worthy social objective, then the wealth, or position which you employ in this way,is used properly. This is worship and devotion, since you are using them for your spiritual goals.This is emphasized by ImamSadiq (a.s .) . A number of ascetics of his time discussed asceticism withhim . The Imam (a.s .) said: “If what you say were true, then, how is it that after Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) was proved innocent and released from prison, he sought from the Egyptian ruler a position of crucial importance to the whole wealth of the country? Why does the Qur'an mention this without accusing Yusuf (a.s .) of being worldly? Because Yusuf (a.s .) was devoted to God. He wanted that position for divine and spiritual goals, and so his action is not worldly but spiritually motivated.

Islamic men of learning say that accepting position from a tyrannical government is illegitimate, but if his goal in doing so is service, or to help the oppressed, it is not only not a sin, but according to religious verdicts, it is sometimes recommended, and sometimes even obligatory. This applies to wealth, too. Why do you gather wealth?If you have good morals and gave a spiritual goal, then you must use this power to that end, and if you do not, you are sinful.

Islam is a supporter of two kinds of power, spiritual and economic. It believes in spiritual power in the sense that it says you should be morally so strong that you do not pay undue attention to the world and what is in it, so as not tobe enslaved by it. Imam Ali (a.s .) says that Good has declared in the Qur'an that you are an ascetic when you attain a stage where power over the whole world does not please or enslave you, and even if the world is taken away from you, it does not defeat your spirit. As for economic power, we should try to gain legitimate wealth in order to use it in the right way. When we realize that Islam supports both spiritual and economic powers, then we find that we are “ascetics” in the sense ofharbouring weakness, or remaining actually weak in both spiritual and economic matters.

If we are ascetics who have avoided wealth and economic power, we have chosen weakness. Those who lack riches obviously can do nothing economically and are obliged to stretch their hands before others. We are also spiritually weak when we are brought up to think ourselves ascetic by keeping away from wealth.

Asceticism in Islam signifies spiritual strength, and having this spiritual strength enables one to make good use of wealth. Those who asked ImamSadiq (a.s .) about asceticism were ignorant of the philosophy of it. They had heard that Imam Ali (a.s .) had been ascetic, and had supposed that an ascetic must, under all conditions, wear worn-out garments and eat barley bread. They were ignorant of the reason for eating barley bread. ImamSadiq (a.s .) explained it for them, and told them that Ali (a.s .) just wanted to be human. He was not an ascetic of a type who would choose seclusion.

Ali (a.s .) was more sociable than anyone and was most active socially and economically, and. yet, he did not accumulate wealth. Hewas engaged in commerce, agriculture, gardening, planting trees, irrigation and in military expeditions.But he remained an ascetic with all these varied activities. Sometimes he went into the orchards ofMadina which belonged to non-Muslims who belonged to the Book, and worked there for a wage. Then he bought wheat orbarley which his wife turned into dough and bread.And when they came across a poor or needy person or an orphan or a captive, they served him in preference to themselves. This was Ali's asceticism.

The asceticism of Ali (a.s .) was based on sympathy, and sympathy is human. He did not even make full use of his legitimate earning. He gave himself only the wage of a soldier out of the public fund and he was not willing to sleep with a square meal.Why? Because his heart and conscience did not allow him. Hesaid: “There are many hungry ones around me. How canI sleep with a full stomach?

He was not referring only to hisneighbours . He was thinking of the Islamic lands as a whole in which someone might be in dire want of a loaf of bread. If you find such an example of asceticism, he deservesbeinghonoured by the whole humanity.But we seem to call our incapability, immobility and deadness asceticism.But Ali (a.s .) said: “Should I be one of those about whom they say; 'it is enough pain for you to sleep in satiety while others are hungry around you?'

The Prophet (s.a.w .) in his old age was exerting himself with a self-sacrificing spirit so much that he was inspired in aQur'anic verse to observe moderation. Once the Prophet's companions noticedthat the Prophet (s.a.w .) did not arrive in time for prayer. Itwas found later that an ill-clad man had come to his house at that hour, and the Prophet had nothing to offer him except his own clothes and this delayed his prayer. The Prophet had sent someone to buy the man a robe. The man bought a fine one for twelveDirhams . The Prophet (s.a.w .) on seeing the robe said: “I can do with a cheaper one.” The Prophet (s.a.w .) went out and obtained refund, and on theway back he met a slave girl who was weeping. Asked why, she said that she had lost fourDirhams of her master. He gave her fourDirhams out of the twelve and bought two robes with the remainder, giving one of them to the ill-clad man. Later the Prophet (s.a.w .) came across the same girl whowas again found crying. He asked her the reason, and she said; “If I go back I will be beaten (because I took your money).” The Prophet (s.a.w .) offered to accompany her. On reaching herhouse he shouted his customary greetings from outside. He repeated his greetings three times as was his habit. Theinmate were now sure that the Prophet (s.a.w .) was there.So they invited him to come in. The Prophet asked why they did not answer his first greeting. Theysaid: “We loved to hear your voice since it brings us blessings, and if we had acknowledged your first greeting, we would have been deprived of the second and the third.” The Prophet silently entered andsaid: “I have come to intercede for this slave girl. If she is late, do not trouble her.” Theysaid: “Inhonour of your presence here, we will set her free.” The Prophet (s.a.w .) expressed his thanks to God that with twelveDirhams he has clothed an ill-clad orunderclothed man and freed a slave. This indicates real asceticism, piety,sympathy and humanity.

This verse (8:24) shows that Islamic teaching's are capable of enlivening every aspect of life, when they penetrate one's heart and produce a renewed spirit, insight and activity.Therefore any other teaching which causes human stagnation or “deadness” is not of Islam. The history of Islam confirms the lively position indicated by the verse through several centuries.

To-day we often see that the ideas that we have “derived” from Islam lack life-giving property.Therefore it is necessary to revise them after finding out if we are possibly mistaken about them. This is the meaning of the revival of Islamic thought. The spectacles we are wearing are not right, so theymust be changed for the better.

In the lastsession I discussed some ethical ideas of Islam, such as asceticism and trust in God.I realized that the discussion was incomplete.So , to night I will give further explanations since the subject is of fundamental importance.

The current idea of asceticismis related to worldly matters, love of the world and its renunciation, which sense is not conveyed in the Qur'an. As used in Islamic traditions,specially in thesayings of the Prophet (s.a.w .) and Imam Ali (a.s .) and other Imams (a.s .), there is no doubt that it has a sublime significance. In Islamic literature, both in poetry and prose, and in Persian and Arabic literatures, asceticismis often mentioned . Now we must see what our way of thinking about itshould be in connection with the evidence and teachings offered by the Holy Qur'an.

The word 'asceticism' originally meant 'disinclination'.But it has assumed a different meaning in Islamic, Christian and other non-Islamicteaching's . An ascetic is not a person who is naturally disinclined to things, such as a patient who has no desire.for food, or someone who dislikes sweetmeats, or an impotent man becoming disinclined to sexual intercourse. It is not an instinctive lack of desire for worldly things, but a moral aversion. In ascetic is instinctively inclined towards material pleasures, but because of special or non-material goals and purposes his conduct shows disinclination to them, so that he forsakes them. In other words, spiritual or intellectual attention to something,so as to make it the goal of an activity, is one thing, and a natural instinct is another thing.

Now we must see what that goal is and what Islam thinks of it. Is there such a thing in Islam, either obligatory or recommended, that a person should forsake material pleasures, which accord with his nature, for the sake of a goal?Or does Islam recommend no such renunciation, no matter what the goal may be?

Lesson Four: The Mu’tazilites (2)

The origin of Justice

In the previous chapter, we mentioned, in general terms, the five tenets of the Mu’tazilites. We have, though, discussed in some detail their belief in monotheism. In this chapter, we will be discussing the second of their tenets, i.e. Justice.

It is manifestly clear that there is not a single Islamic sect that considers Justice among the Divine Attributes. No one has said that God is not just. However, the Mu’tazilites differed with their arch opponents, i.e. the Ash’arites, in interpretation. The Asha’rites advanced their argument in such a way that the Mu’tazilites regard as equivalent to rejecting it. For their part, the Ash’arites do not accept the charge that they are rejecters of Justice.

The Mu’tazilites’ belief in Justice is that they maintain that some actions in themselves are just while others are in themselves unjust, such as rewarding the obedient and punishing the sinner, which are thought to be just. So, when we say, “God is Just”, it is because He rewards the dutiful and punishes the offender; it is impossible that He goes contrary to that, and yet, if He does the opposite, it would count as injustice, in which case it is impossible that it could emanate from Him. By the same token, coercing man to commit vile deeds or dispossessing his willpower is regarded as unfair and unjust, which cannot emanate from God, as it is abhorrent, is not permissible, and goes contrary to the Divine affairs.

However, the Ash’arites maintain that there is no such action as intrinsically just or unjust. And yet, what God does is just. Supposing that He rewarded the sinner and punished the obedient, this is the very justice. Similarly, if He took away their willpower and made them commit that which is vile, then punished them for it, this cannot be regarded as miscarriage of justice.

Thus, the Mu’tazilites went against the Unity of Actions, because of their reading of Justice in this manner. Central to the Unity of Actions is that man should not commission the action by his own hands. In other words, God is the One who creates it, and because it is obvious that God will punish the offender and reward the compliant, punishing the sinner, who did not sin out of his free will, would be deemed unfair. This is how the Mu’tazilites concluded that Unity of Actions goes contrary to the grain of Justice.

Accordingly, the Mu’tazilites maintain that man has freewill and choice. They, therefore, defended this doctrine passionately, unlike the Ash’arites, who denied man’s freewill.

The Mu’tzalites followed the tenet of Justice - which requires that some actions are inherently just and others are inherently unjust, and that it is entirely for reason to arbitrate which is which - by another wide spanning tenet, i.e. that of inherent good and repugnance of actions. Qualities like truthfulness, trustworthiness, chastity, and piety are in themselves good, as opposed to qualities such as lying, treachery, and vile deeds are abominations by nature. Thus, actions, even before God passes judgement on them, one way or the other, are capable of demonstrating their innate good or bad aspects.

This has guided the Mu’tazilites to another tenet about man’s intellect, in that it is independent and capable of distinguishing what is good and what is repugnant of things. That is, irrespective of what the sharia law resolves, man can tell good from bad. However, the Ash’arites are disinclined to accept this argument.

Nevertheless, this question has led to a host of issues, some relate to the Divine and others to man. The question of God’s works is one of these issues. That is, is there any purpose behind God’s creation? The Mu’tazilites said: If there were no aim behind God’s creation, this would amount to committing something that is repugnant, in which case it is rationally inadmissible. How about asking man to do what is not in his power? That is, can God ask man to do that which he cannot do? The Mu’tazilites say that this is both repugnant and out of the question. Is man capable of upholding unbelief? The Mu’tazilites answer in the affirmative, in that if the believer is not capable of becoming one and the unbeliever is not able to becoming one, the institution of “reward and punishment” would be rendered nonsensical. The Ash’arites take the opposite position.

Monotheism

Promise means the hope for reward and threat is the risk of getting punished if you fell foul of the Law. The Mu’tazilites argue that since God took it upon Himself to reward the Law-abiding among His creation, as He has declared in the Holy Qur’an, “Our Lord! Thou are He that will gather mankind together against a Day about which there is no doubt; for Allah never fails in His promise.” (3/9) . And since there is unanimity between Muslims on this, He will not break His promise insofar as punishment is concerned. Therefore, God will fulfil all the threats with punishment issued to the godless and the debauchee, unless they repent in their lifetime. Thus, repentance without forgiveness is not possible.

According to the Mu’tazilites, this would entail withholding the threat, which can be equated with breaking the promise of reward, i.e. if they were true, they would necessarily be both repugnant and inconceivable. This belief of the Mu’tazilites stemmed from the question of rational good and repugnance, which is linked to the issue of forgiveness.

The middle way

The tenet of the Mu’tazilites of the middle way came as a reaction to two beliefs, which were dominant in the world of Islam then, i.e. unbelief/belief of thefasiq (godless). The Kharijites were the first ones to hold that committing a cardinal sin is akin to unbelief (kufr).

As is known, the Kharijites were catapulted on the Islamic ideological scene after the incident of “arbitration” (tahkeem ) in Siffeen war [between the then Caliph, Imam Ali (a.s.) and Mu’awiyah, the then governor of Shaam (Syria) ] in the first half of the first century of the Islamic era, i.e. circa 37 H.

It has been reported in Nahjul Balagha (The path of eloquence) [a collection of Imam Ali’s sermons, letters, axioms, etc. ] that the Imam (a.s.) engaged them in debate and refuted their claim with conclusive evidence. After the rule of Imam Ali (a.s.), the Kharijites took a hostile position vis-à-

vis all the rulers that came after him. They took it upon themselves to uphold the duty of “enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil” to the letter; they were as well the proponents of declaring people godless and unbelievers (at-tafseeq wat-takfeer). And since the majority of the caliphs were committing cardinal sins, the Kharijites branded them unbelievers. That is why they were always on the opposite side of the policies of the ruling establishment.

In opposition to the Kharijites there appeared another sect known by theMurji’ites (Procrastinators), or should we say the ruling establishment established it. They teach that the judgement of every true believer, who has been guilty of a grievous sin, will be deferred [yurj’a, hence the name murji’a], or left in a state of suspension, till resurrection. They also hold that disobedience with faith does not do harm, and that, on the other hand, obedience with infidelity would not benefit the person.

The ruling establishment benefited from the opinions of the Murji’ites, in that people were given licence to overlook the godlessness and profligacy of the rulers. It did not stop there; the wrongdoers among the rulers were even considered for future places in paradise. The Murji’ites maintain, “The imam’s (leader’s) position should not be encroached upon, even though he be a sinner. He should be obeyed and prayer behind him [in congregation] is technically deemed a proper one ”.

The Mu’tazilites teach that whoever is guilty of grievous, or cardinal, sin is neither a believer nor an unbeliever; he is in the middle ground between faith and unbelief. That is why they gave it the name, “middle way, or position”.

It is reported that the first one to espouse this view was Wasil bin Ata’ [d. 130/748], student of al-Hassan al-Basri. It is said that one day he was attending one of his teacher’s lectures on the difference of opinion [on the question of thefasiq (godless)] between the Kharijites and the Murji’ites. Before his teacher gave an opinion, he intervened, saying: I believe those guilty of cardinal sins werefasiq (godless) and not unbelievers. He then left the place; it is also said that his teacher expelled him. Having severed his relations with his teacher, he set up a seminary of his own and started imparting his views. He was joined by his brother-in-law and student, Amr bin Ubaid. This had led al-Hassan al-Basri to remark, “I’itazalana Wasil, i.e. he left our company”. However, the wider public would say, “They [i.e. Wasil and Amr] disagreed with the unanimous word, or view, of the umma (Muslim community)”.

Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong

This duty [in Arabic:al amr bil ma’rouf wan nahi anil munkar ] is considered among the essentials of Islam. Muslims are unanimous in upholding this tradition, although they may differ as to its boundaries and stipulations. The Kharijites, for instance, say that there are no strings attached to upholding it in all circumstances.

However, some ideologues say that it should be implemented, provided there be a good result, and also with the proviso that carrying it out would not attract unsavoury reaction. And yet, the Kharijites chose to differ. While others suppose that “enjoining good, or right, and forbidding evil, or wrong”

relates to one’s conscience and tongue, the Kharijites have made it compulsory that it be upheld, so much so that, in certain circumstances, they take to the sword to defend it.

Among those who teach that in upholding this duty one should not go beyond verbal counselling was Ahmad bin Hanbal [d.245/855]. At some stage during the Umayyad dynastic rule, this view was taken on board, so much so that campaigns to root out objectionable actions (mukaraat) were ruled impermissible.

The Mu’tazilites accepted the parameters of this duty, without confining it to the verbal. They, however, believe that if objectionable behaviour became widespread, or governments turned out to be repressive and unjust, it becomes incumbent on Muslims to uphold the duty.

This view of the Mu’tazilites goes contrary to that ofAhlul Hadith (the People of the tradition) and the Sunnis, whereas it concurs with that of the Kharijite, irrespective of the other differences between these schools of thought.

Lesson Five: The Mu’tazilites (3)

What has been discussed in the previous two lessons relate to the core beliefs of the Mutazilite School of Thought. However, and as we have already mentioned, they advanced many views and opinions and defended them fervently. Some of those views relate to different disciplines, such as divinity, physics (or natural sciences), sociology, and man. Insofar as subjects of divinity, or metaphysics, are concerned, there are those, which involve the public aspects, and those that deal with the intimate aspects. It goes without saying that, in common with other speculative theologians, the Mu’tazilites have aimed to deal with the latter, which revolve around the core of religious beliefs. As regards the discussion on public affairs, it is deemed as a prelude to the wider issues of discussing metaphysics. The same applies to natural sciences. That is, should theologians embark on any question in the domain of physics, they do so as a lead up to proving a religious belief or solving a problem relating to it. We give below a summary of those views, starting with metaphysics.

The Divine

Unity of the Attributes.

Justice.

The Word, or speech, of God; is it created, i.e. is the Word a characteristic of the Action, and not of the Essence?

God’s actions have aims, i.e. each and every action that emanates from God has a purpose and serves an interest.

Forgiveness without repentance is not possible. This is one of the fundamentals, i.e. promise and threat.

Asking man to do more than that in his power is inconceivable.

Man’s actions are not created by God in any form. God’s will has no say in man’s own actions.

The universe has been brought into existence (haadith). This view is diametrically opposed to what philosophers hold.

Physically seeing God, whether in this world or the hereafter, is impossible.

Natural science

The body is composed of indivisible atoms.

Smell is caused by atoms, travelling in the atmosphere.

Flavour is nothing but particles that influence the taste of man.

Light consists of particles travelling in the atmosphere.

Interference of bodies is not inconceivable. This view is espoused by some Mu’tazilites.

Impulsive motion is not inconceivable. This view too is held by some Mu’taziltes.

Man

Man has freewill and choice and is not coerced. This idea relates to the idea of creation of actions and the issue of Divine Justice.

Power, i.e. man has the power to decide, before embarking on any activity, to go ahead with it or abandon it.

The believer is capable of turning into an unbeliever and vice versa.

The godless is neither a believer nor an unbeliever.

Reason, or intellect, is capable of distinguishing certain matters independent of any prior guidance from the sharia Law.

When tradition goes contrary to reason, the latter should take precedence over tradition.

The Holy Qur’an can be interpreted by way of intellection.

Social and political issues

It is compulsory to uphold the duty of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil, even if it requires taking to fighting with the sword.

The succession to power of the Guided Caliphs in the order it took place is sound.

Ali was more superior to those who preceded him to power. This view, however, is espoused by some Mu’tazilites. The majority of them, except Wasil bin Ata’, were of the opinion that Abu Bakr was more superior. However, later generations maintain that Ali was more superior.

It is permissible to criticise the Companions [of the Prophet (s.a.w.)], study and analyse their works.

Undertaking a comparative study of the political programmes of both [the Guided Caliphs] Omar and Ali.

The above list is by no means exhaustive. In some of those issues, the Mu’tazilite views agree with those of the Ash’arites, the philosophers, the Shiites, the Kharijites and the Murj’ites.

It is to be noted, though, that the Mu’tazilites had never fallen under the influence of Greek thought, so much so that they had never espoused any of its philosophical heritage that was in vogue at the pinnacle of the Mu’tazilite ideological acumen. They even went further in writing books, refuting the claims of philosophers. The struggle between speculative theologians (mutakalimeen) and philosophers benefited both the camps, in that the gulf between the two rivals was made very much narrower, in spite of the fact that there remained some issues, on which the two sides chose to differ.

The process of change and history

Naturally, these issues did not come to the fore at one go and were not advanced by a single person or a particular group. They were propagated by several vanguards and espoused and developed steadily by others through the passage of time.

Among those contentious issues was the question of compulsion and empowerment, or delegation, (jabr andtafweedh ), which was the oldest. The Mu’tazilites adopted the principle of delegation. The Holy Qur’an discussed this question in many passages; this might have given rise to mind provoking exercises.

On the one hand, the Holy Qur’an states unequivocally that man has freewill and choice in whatever actions he takes and in his general conduct, i.e. he is not coerced to do anything he is not willing to do.

And yet, there are many Qur’anic passages that state that everything is subjected to the Will of God.

This is how the misunderstanding has happened, as those two sets of Qur’anic verses look seemingly contradictory. Therefore, some took to interpreting the first set to conclude that man has freewill over his actions. Others chose to side with the second set of verses, i.e. those concerning God’s will and decree and destiny (qadha and qadar ), deducing that everything is in the hands of the Divine.

However, there is a third group, who maintain that there is no contradiction between the two sets of verses.

This subject had been extensively discussed in Imam Ali’s words and sermons. However, debating the subject was synonymous with the emergence of Islam as a force to be reckoned with. On the other hand, Muslims taking sides on, and splitting into factions over, this issue came into being during the second half of the first century of the Islamic era.

It is said that the idea of man’s freewill was first put forward by Ghelan ad-Dimashqi and Ma’bad aj-Juhni [during the Umayyad rule]. The Umayyad wanted to disseminate the ideology of compulsion (jabr ) among the wider general public for their political ends. Under the slogan, “We believe in divine decree (qadha’), whether good or bad”, they used to justify their unjust and imposed rule. For this reason they persecuted the proponents of the doctrine of man’s freewill and freedom. Similarly, they executed both Ghelan and Ma’bad. The followers of this school were called the Qadri’ites [i.e. the believers in man’s freewill and choice].

As for the issue offisq (godlessness), it was debated even before the question of compulsion and freewill. Its first exponents were the Kharijites, during the rule of Imam Ali (a.s.). However, they did not debate it in a scientific and structured way, as was the case in the discipline ofkalaam (scholastic theology). This, though, was taken up by the Mu’tazilites, who developed it, usingkalaam techniques. The result was the espousal of “the middle way, or position”, [i.e. the godless is neither a believer nor an unbeliever; he is half way between the two].

Discussing the question of decree and destiny had led to a host of other issues. Divine Justice, rational good and repugnance, justifying Divine Actions by way of intents and purposes, and the inconceivability of requiring man to do what is beyond his power and reach, to name but a few.

In the second half of the second century of the Islamic era (Hijri ), a man called al-Jahm bin Safwan [d.127/745] circulated new ideas concerning the Attributes of the Divine. The historians of sects and factions (milel and nihel) allege that Unity of the Attributes, i.e. God’s Attributes are His very Essence, which the Mu’tazilites deem the bedrock of Monotheism, as well as the question of the dissimilarity between God and His creation, i.e. (tanzih) [the principle of elimination of “form and qualities of man” from the conception of the Divine], was first advanced by al- Jahm bin Safwan; his followers were later known by the Jahmi’ites. In the doctrine of empowerment (tafweedh ), The Mu’tazilites followed in the footsteps of the Qadri’ites. As regards monotheism and tanzih they chose to follow the Jahmi’ites. As for bin Safwan himself, he was aJabri’ite .

Thus, and as has been reported, the Mu’tazilites, in two of their fundamental beliefs – monotheism and justice, followed two other groups. That is, in monotheism, they adopted what the Jahmi’ites advocate, and in justice, they emulated the Qadri’ites. It can, therefore, be said that the Mu’tazila school of thought represents the development of the views of the two groups into a distinct shape.

The founder of this school of theology, i.e. who turned it into a distinct sect, was Wasil bin Ata’ al-Ghazzal [d. 130/748], who was a disciple of Al-

Hassan al-Basri. He deserted his teacher after he gave an opinion on the matter of the godless (fasiq ) before waiting for his teacher to reply and left to set up his own seminary. That is why his disciples and the followers of his school are called the deserters, or separatists, i.e. Mu’tazilites. However, others are of the opinion that the name was first given to a group of people who chose to take a neutral position vis-à-vis the wars of al Jamal and Siffen, [which were fought during the rule of Imam Ali], such as Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas, Zaid bin Thabit, and Abdulla bin Omar. At a later date, when the question of faith or unbelief of thefasiq (godless) was raised by the Kharijites, a question which divided Muslims into two camps, a third group took a third way, preferring to stay neutral. In other words the approach personalities such as bin Waqqas adopted in a political matter. This theological group espoused in an ideological issue, hence the name, Mu’tazilite (non-aligned).

The studies of Wasil bin Ata’ were confined to the issues of God’s Attributes,tafweedh (man’s freewill), the middle way [of the godless], promise and threat, and some other opinions on the differences of the Prophet’s Companions (Sahaaba).

After his departure, Amr bin Ubaid, his brother-in-law and leading disciple, developed his opinions. Among other prominent teachers of this school were Abul Huthail al-Allaf (d. 235H.) and Ibrahim an-Nidham (d. 231H.). At the hands of the last two, the science ofkalaam (speculative theology) took a philosophical tone. Abul Huthail studied the books of the philosophers and wrote critical essays of them. An-Nidham came up with new and numerous theories in physics, among which was the “atoms of bodies”.

Among other luminaries of the Mu’tazilites was Al-Jahidh, the famous man of letters, writer, and author of the book, “Al-Bayan wat Tabyeen” (The Declaration and Elucidation), who lived in the third century of the Islamic era (i.e.Hijri ).

The Mu’tazilites were not on good terms with the rulers of the Umayyad dynasty. In the early days of the Abbasid dynasty, they took a neutral position. However, al-Ma’moun [d. 256/870], the famous Abbasid Caliph took notice of their dogma and granted them protection; this had continued during the rule of both al-Mu’tasim and al-Wathiq, who succeeded him in the office of Caliphate. Those three caliphs were known to be of a Mu’tazilite persuasion.

In those days,kalaam issues were hotly debated, so much so that debate travelled far and wide in the Islamic world. The question of the Word, or Speech, of God, i.e. is it of the domain of His Actions or His Essence? Is it created or eternal, such as Omnipotence, Life, and Omniscience? And is the Qur’an, which is the Word of God, created and caused or not created and eternal?

The Mu’tazilites are of the opinion that the Word of God is created and that the Qur’an is created and caused; they went even further in declaring those who believe in the eternity of the Qur’an as unbelievers. Others took the opposite view. Al-Ma’moun issued an order, punishing any person who

maintained that the Qur’an is eternal. As a result many people were imprisoned and tortured.

The Abbasid Caliphs al-Mu’tasim and al-Wathinq continued the policy of their predecessor al-Ma’moun, in cracking down on dissent. Ahmad bin Hanbal [d.245/833], the founder of the Hanbalite School of Thought was the most famous of their prisoners. The Caliph al-Mutawakkil turned his back to the Mu’tazilites and persecuted them. During those testing times, a lot of blood was spilled and properties ransacked. Muslims dub that period as “tribulation”.

That onslaught by al-Mutawakkil almost decimated the Mu’tazilites. The arena was left forAhlus Sunnah (The Sunnis) andAhlul Hadith (the People of the Tradition).

Nevertheless, even during the periods of their weakness, they managed to produce outstanding ideologists, such as Abul Qassim al-Balkhi, also known as al-Ka’bi (d. 217 H.), Abu Ali al-Jibba’i (d. 303 H.), his son, Abu Hashim al-Jibba’i, Judge Abdul Jabbar al-Mu’tazili (d. 415 H.), Abul Hassan al-Khayyat, who lived at the lifetime of as-Sahib bin Abbad, az-Zamakhshari (d. 583 H.) and Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi.

Lesson Six: The Ash’arites

As we have already explained in the previous lessons that the ideas that led to the emergence of the Mutazilite School of Thought can be traced back to the second half of the first century of the Islamic era.

In an attempt to understand the fundamentals of religion and propagating them, they advocated an approach that was a mixture of logic and deduction. It goes without saying that the first parameter in this approach was giving precedence to the independent judgement of reason over any other thing. It is obvious too that the wider general public are not concerned with reasoning and examination, considering “practicing religion” synonymous to “worship”, and the manifest, or exoteric, meaning of Qur’anic verses andhadiths (Prophetic traditions), especially the latter, as a forgone conclusion. They even believe that any reasoning or exerting effort in this regard is a kind of rebellion against religiousness. This is particularly so, when the ruling establishment encourages this type of thinking; more so, if some of the clergy are proponents of such strand of ideas, and worse still if some are pseudo-clerics. Examples of these abound. The intolerance shown, and harsh smear campaigns waged, by theIkhbaris [a Shia sect that depends solely on reported tradition (Akhbar) in formulating its juridical rulings ] against the fundamentalists and themujtahids [jurists, who depend on reason, in addition to other tools of jurisprudence, such as the Qur’an, and Sunna “Prophetic tradition”, in arriving at religious judgements ] is one such example. Another is the attack by some jurists and speculative theologians on the philosophers in the Islamic world.

The Mu’tazilites had made great leaps in understanding Islam, propagating and defending it against theDahriyeen [proponents of the doctrine of the eternity of the world, a materialistic, atheistic trend in medieval Islam ], Jews, Christians, Magians, Sabians, and others. They were responsible for educating scores of propagators and sending them far and wide to promote Islam. They, nevertheless, were threatened from within the camp of Islam at the hands of Dhahirites, i.e.Ahlul Hadith , orAhlus Sunna . They were fatally stabbed in the back, so much so that they waned and eventually died out.

In the beginning, i.e. until late in the third and early fourth centuries of the Islamic era, there were no theology schools that were opposed to their school, as was the case much later. All differing views were reactions to the views that were advanced by the Mu’tazilites that boiled down tohadith andsunnah . However, originally, the chief exponents of the school ofAhlul Hadith , such as Malik bin Anas [d.179/795] and Ahmad bin Hanbal [d. 245/833] declared the study and inference in matters of belief taboo. Thus, the Sunnis not only had no school for scholastic theology (kalaam ) to counter the Mu’tazilite one, but they deniedkalaam and made dabbling in it unlawful (haraam).

However, at the close of the third and the turn of the fourth centuries, a new development took place on the ideological landscape. Abul Hassan al-Ash’ari [d. 324/935] arrived at the scene. He was a towering figure endowed with genius. He studied for years at the hands of Judge Abdul Jabbar al-Mu’tazili. He defected to the Sunni camp. He drew on his experience and

Mu’atazilite roots and managed to set up a distinct Sunni School of Thought, championing deduction in arriving at the fundamental beliefs of the Sunnis.

Contrary to the leaders ofAhlul Hadith , such as Ibn Hanbal, al-Ash’ari sanctioned the use of critical examination, deduction, and logic in the fundamentals of religion. He substantiated his research with evidence from the Holy Qur’an and theSunnah (Prophetic tradition). He wrote a book in this regard entitled, “A treatise in approving of the embarkation onkalaam (scholastic theology)”. With the advent of the Asha’rite school,Ahlul Hadith (the People of the tradition) were split into two groups, the Asharites, who endorsed the involvement inkalaam , and the Hanbalites who made the involvement in this type of theology unlawful. It is to be noted, however, that Ibn Hanbal wrote a book, justifying the barring of experimenting in logic and scholastic theology.

It did not come at a worse time for the Mu’tazilites, i.e. when they had already been weakened by the blows they had suffered. Ordinary people started deserting them in droves, especially during the events of “tribulation”, that is, when they attempted to force their way of thinking on the people under duress, making use of rulers who were sympathetic to and supportive of their brand of doctrine. Among the most vexing issues was the question of “the creation of the Qur’an”. It is well documented that the events, which were given the name, “tribulation”, led to many deaths; and people were persecuted and made prisoners of conscience. The people blamed the Mu’tazilites for those events and thus became averse to their doctrines because of what they saw of their responsibility for the mayhem.

The people’s welcoming the arrival of the new school of thought, the Asha’rite, was due to these two reasons. After the departure of Abul Hassan al-Asha’ri, there appeared new figures, who contributed to cementing his ideas and developing them. Among them were Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d. 403 H.), who was a contemporaneous of ash-Sheikh al-Mufid, Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayeeni, Imam al-Juwaini, the teacher of al-Ghazzali, Imam al-Ghazzali (d. 505 H, 1111 CE) himself, the author of the book, “Ihya’ Uloomuddin – Revival of the sciences of religion”, and [physician, philosopher, chemist and freethinker], Imam Fakhruddin ar-Razi [c.250/864 – 313/925 or 320/932].

The Ash’arite School had undergone gradual change, especially at the hands of al-Ghazzali, who watered down itskalaam image, giving it a gnostic, i.e. mystic or sufi, colour. During the time of al-Fakhr ar-Razi, it bordered on the philosophical. However, when the time of al-Khawaja Nasiruddin at-Tusi [the theologian, philosopher, scientist, and vizier 597/1201 – 672/1274] came, and wrote his book, “Tajridul I’tiqad – Uncovering of Belief”, he took the science ofkalaam (speculative theology) to an almost entirely philosophical domain. The book of this Shiite philosopher and theologian set the agenda for all scholastic theologians, who succeeded him, be they Ash’arite or Mutazilite.

After “Tajridul I’tiqad ”, at-Tusi wrote “al-Mawaqif – The Positions” and “al-Maqasid – The Intents”, and the annotations that went with them. In style and approach, the last two were not different from “Tajridul I’tiqad ”.

In fact, with the passage of time, the Ash’arites had become far removed from the teachings of the founder of their school, becoming closer to the Mu’tazilite ideology and philosophy.

We give below a broad list of the tenets of al-Ash’ari, who defended the fundamental beliefs of the Sunnis, or more appropriately made these beliefs clearly defined, in some measure:

The disunity of the Attributes [of God] with His Essence.

The universality of the Divine will, decree and destiny across the board of all occurrences, i.e. the opposite position taken by the Mu’tazilites and in conformity with the view of the philosophers.

Both evil and good originate from God.

Man has no freewill.

What is judged as good or repugnant is the exclusive preserve of the sharia Law, i.e. these characteristics are not inherent.

It is not incumbent on God to show grace and choose what is in the best interest of man. This goes contrary to the Mu’tazilite standpoint.

Man’s power to commission any action is activated while he is carrying it out not before embarking on it.

There is not such a thing as complete “tanzih”, i.e. the principle of elimination of “form and qualities of man” from the conception of the Divine.

Man does not create his action; rather, he earns it.

God can be physically seen in the hereafter.

The godless is a believer.

There is no problem in the Divine granting forgiveness, even without man repenting. Likewise, a believer can be punished.

There is no problem in intercession.

The universe is created, i.e. in time.

God’s Word is eternal, i.e. self-speech rather than the spoken word.

God’s actions do not necessarily follow a purpose or an aim.

There is no objection to requiring man to do what is not in his power.

Abul Hassan al-Ash’ari was a prolific writer, so much so that it is said that he wrote more than two hundred works. Some one hundred titles of these are mentioned in the bibliographies. It is evident, though, that most of these books had been lost. However, the most famous of his books could be, “Maqaaltul Islamiyyin – The Tracts of the Islamists”. Anther book is, “Alluma’ – The Brilliancy”.

Al-Ash’ari’s views left an indelible mark on the Islamic doctrinal landscape, and this is regrettable. However, the Mu’tazilites and the philosophers wrote many books, refuting his opinions. Many of his beliefs and views were mentioned in Ibn Sina’s (Avicenna’s) book, “Ash-Shifa’ - The Healing, without quoting the source, and were disproved. Not only this, some of his followers, such as Judge al-Baqillani and Imamul Haramain al-Juwaini had revised his theory on man’s compulsion.

Although Imam Mohammad al-Ghazzali was Ash’arite, and was instrumental in consolidating the doctrinal principles of the Ash’arite School, yet he revamped it with new ideas. He was responsible for bringing the science ofkalaam (scholastic theology) closer to gnosis (irfan ) and Sufism. The Iranian poet ar-Rumi, the author of the book, “al-Mathnawi” was Ash’arite, and yet, he was more inclined to radicalirfan . Because of

Imam ar-Razi’s philosophical background, he gave the Ash’aritekalaam a new impetus and a breath of fresh air.

The triumph of the Ash’arite in the world of Islam came at a high cost. It is a victory for inflexibility, or inertia, and prohibitive practices over freedom of thought. Although the warring was mainly between the Mu’tazilites and the Ash’arites, i.e. within the Sunni branch of Islam, yet the Shia World did not escape unscathed. However, there were historical as well as social reasons for this victory. Furthermore, certain political developments had a great influence on this front.

The Abbasid Caliph, al-Mutawakkil, had played a significant part in making the Sunni School of Thought gain the upper hand. A century later, Abul Hassan al-Ash’ari gave the School a speculative theologian touch. It goes without saying that had al-Mutawakkil been of the same persuasion of his predecessor, al-Ma’moun, the Mu’tazilites would not have faced that fate.

It is noteworthy that the ascendancy of Turkic Seljuks in Iran had played a part in the triumph and spread of the Asha’rite doctrines. The Seljuks were not people of thought and liberty, unlike aal-Buwaih, during whose rule, Shi’ism and Mu’tazilte ideology made a comeback. Ibnul Ameed and as-Sahib bin Abbad, among the politicians and scholars, were anti Asha’rite.

We are not trying to defend the beliefs of the Mu’tazilites, in that we will take issue with several of their simplistic ideas. However, one is left with no alternative but to sing the praise of their rational methodology, which died out with their departure from the Islamic ideological scene. As is known, a religion as rich and as profound as Islam is in need ofkalaam , which is based on the freedom of the intellect and well founded belief and faith.