Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

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.