The Role of Atomism in the Groups of Kalam
Note: This is a short essay that I wrote during my Comprehensive Exams as part of the requirements of the PhD at Yale. The question was with regards to atomism and the role that it had on the groups of kalām, in particular the Ash’arites. I’ve decided to post it here, as is.
The article demonstrates, inter alia, the reason why orthodox scholars of the past (viz., the Ahl al-Hadīth and those who followed them) disapproved of kalām. The obvious Hellenistic roots of kalām, the cosmological premises that it posited, and the theological positions that were derived from such roots and premises, do not have any basis in the Sacred Texts, and in fact in most instances contradict them.
Additionally, it is simply preposterous to presume that the Companions themselves, or even the Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam, knew of these concepts or based their theology on them (and even the Ash’arites do not claim this). And surely, if the Prophet and Companions were not using such tools, then there is no need to use them, especially since they lead to positions that appear to contradict the Qur’ān and Sunnah.
Introduction of the Concept
The concept of all matter being composed of small, indivisible particles called atoms most likely goes back to the fifth century B.C., when a young contemporary of Socrates, known as Democritus, first formally introduced the idea (most likely under the influence of his teacher Leucippus). He claimed that if one continually kept dividing matter, eventually a particle would be reached that could not be divided anymore: an a-tom, i.e., ‘not divisible’. He also posited the existence of empty spaces between these atoms within which they could move - a pure ‘void’. He believed that all of the workings of the universe were the result of the vibrations of these atoms through voids and their collisions with one another.
Plato, and in particular his student Aristotle, strongly disagreed. The latter, in his Physics, wrote quite extensively against the existence of both the ‘atom’ and the ‘void’, claiming that not only were Democritus’ evidences lacking, but also that the existence of atoms and voids violated physical principles. In turn, Plato posited the ‘four natural elements’ theory: fire, air, earth and water form the basis of all else.[1]
These Greek philosophers - both the atomists and antiatomists - were attempting to explain natural occurrences and daily phenomenon without the need of resorting to supernatural explanations and believing in heavenly (or earthly) deities.[2] It is, therefore, rather ironic that this tool was then adopted by a faction of a monotheistic faith (i.e., the mutakallimūn) in their attempt to prove the all encompassing efficacy of an omnipotent God.[3] However, in their adoption of this cosmological view, they ensured that they sufficiently modified it so as to conform with and eventually support their theological positions.[4]
Kalām Atomism
From its earliest inception in the second century of the hijra, kalām has always been fascinated with the theory of atoms. A cursory look at the relevant sections in al-Ash’arī’s (d. 324/935) Maqālāt shows the center stage this issue took.[5] And although the mutakallimūn disagreed about certain secondary issues regarding atomism (such as the minimum quantity of atoms required for a ‘body’, the quantity of atoms that a single atom is allowed to touch, and so forth), the broad theory was generally upheld by both the Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites.[6]
The mutakallimūn posited that all matter is composed of identical, miniscule, indivisible particles (i.e., atoms), that are devoid of any quantitative or qualitative properties. They only acquire quantitative properties of width, height, and breadth when two or more of them unite (at which point it becomes a ‘body’), and they only acquire qualitative properties when an ‘accident’ is created within it. An accident is something that exists above and beyond the actual body. It is an accident that gives each atom (and, thereby, each body) its specific qualities that separates it from other atoms (and bodies); qualities such as color, temperature, speed or rest, life, knowledge, power, and so forth. Such accidents must reside in the atom itself, in fact by definition an accident cannot exist except within an atom.
Broadly speaking, the Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites were in agreement with regards to the affirmation of atomism, the most prominent exception being the eccentric al-Naẓẓām (d. 230/845), who was influenced by Aristotle’s denial of atomism. Due to this view, al-Naẓẓām was forced to invent the concept of the ‘leap’ (ṭufrah).[7] Also, in contrast to the Greek philosophers (and also the falāsifa), the mutakallimūn strongly affirmed the belief that both atoms and accidents were created, and that matter was not eternal.[8]
One of the most profound and unique contributions of the Ash’arites to the atomism debate was their proposition that ‘No accident can last two successive instances of time.’[9] In other words, as soon as an accident is created, it immediately ceases to exist. There is no continuity or connection between one moment in time and another. This means that if an object were to, say, remain in a state of rest, the accident of ‘rest’ must be continually created and re-created at each successive instant in time for the object to remain so. And, of course, it is only God who could create each and every accident on each and every body in each and every instance of time. The entire universe and all that transpires in it, according to the Ash’arites, must be directly controlled by God at each specific instance.
Another philosophical (albeit not original) contribution was the idea that time itself is composed of discrete and successive units, a type of ‘atomic-time’. This was derived not only from Aristotle’s notion that space, time and movement are all existentially equivalent, but also from the problem of trying to solve Zeno’s paradox as applied to time.[10]
These two positions necessarily leads to a denial of causality, meaning that the Ash’arites completely negated a cause-and-effect relationship between any two occurrences. Everything that occurred was disconnected, time and space, from anything preceding or following it. Even a body that remained a certain color did so because God continually re-created the accident of color in all of its atoms, at each instance in time (i.e., at each ‘atomic-time’ unit). A rock thrown at a window could not cause the window to shatter; an arm lifting a cup was not the cause of its lifting; the ingestion of food was not the cause of satiation; the proximity of fire to wool did not cause the wool to alight; and so forth.
With such a radical view of the world, the Ash’arites were then forced to explain not only the continuity of the universe around us (materials did not typically vanish, or transform into another substance, or change color, or inexplicably move from one instance to the next), but also the very clear causal connections upon which the livelihood of men rests. It is only because man eats that he does not starve to death, it is only because a fire is lit that food can be cooked, and so forth. Pressed with such factual realities, the Ash’arites (and in particular al-Ghazālī) developed the theory of ‘God’s habitual character’ or ‘ādah, meaning that God had ordained upon Himself to act within certain norms.[11] Thus, an object that is at rest is recreated by God at the second instance still at rest, an object that is brought close to fire and is flammable shall be set alight by God not due to the fire, but because God’s custom dictates so, and so on..
This theory safeguarded the permanent order of the universe, and also explained the apparent ‘causal’ relationship in daily life. What man perceives as ‘permanent’ is merely God’s habit (‘ādah) manifesting itself, at each successive instant. Contingent events, which man perceives as having been subject to natural physical causes, are in fact the direct result of God’s constant intervention.
Other Theological Implications of Atomism
The concept of atomism was deployed by the Ash’arites in many different fields. In what can only be described as a pun on ideas, it is true to state that the concept of atomism itself became the fundamental building block of all other aspects of Ash’arite theology.
So, for example, based upon this cosmological view, the Ash’arites formalized more than one elaborate proof for the existence of God, the most common one being the ‘dalīl al-’a'rāḍ wa ḥudūth al-ajsām’, or the ‘Proof from accidents and temporality of bodies.’ This proof relies upon the fact that (i) existence is divided into bodies (composed of multiple atoms), and accidents; (ii) bodies are inherently composed of temporal accidents and cannot exist without them, and so: (iii) ‘that which is composed of temporal elements and does not precede it must also be temporal.’ Some of the Ash’arites sought to prove this method from the story of Abraham as he ‘searched’ for God via the celestial objects (Q. 6:71-79). They claimed that Abraham understood that the star, moon and Sun could not be gods because they were moving, and movement was an accident, hence Abraham realized that any body that carried within it an accident must be created and not a God.[12]
Furthermore, based upon this atomic conception, they proved that God is One, and cannot be more than one. This proof is known as dalīl al-tamānu’, or the ‘Proof from mutual exclusion’. A summary of this is as follows: suppose that the universe had two gods, and one of them wished to create the accident of motion within an atom, while the other wished to create the accident of rest. Logically, there are only three possibilities: (i) both of them fail; (ii) both are successful; (iii) one of them is successful while the other fails. The first two logical possibilities are actually impossible, as the two are mutually exclusive, and the object has to be characterized with one of these opposing accidents. This only leaves the third option. And by definition, the one whose will is overpowering all else must be a God, and the one whose will was overpowered cannot be a god.
The Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites also propounded a theory of understanding God’s Attributes based upon their respective understandings of atomism. The primary issue at stake for them was that God could not be a place (maḥall) where accidents exist, as that would imply that He was a body composed of atoms (since accidents by definition need atoms to subside in), and hence created. So, for the Ash’arites, who defined an ‘accident’ as that which cannot last two successive instances, to posit any ‘change’ in God or from God would constitute an accident. And since all accidents must by definition reside in bodies, any accident posited of God would imply that God was a body. It was based upon this definition of ‘accidents’ that the Ash’arites could affirm God’s never-changing attributes of Life, Power, Knowledge, Hearing, Seeing, Will, and Speech, and interpret other Attributes figuratively, especially those that implied any type of motion (such as istiwā and nuzūl).
For the Mu’tazilites, on the other hand, an ‘accident’ was defined as ‘that which is superfluous to the essence (dhāt) of a substance.’[13] For them, any meaning that was not inherent to a being and extraneous to its essence (zā’id ‘alā al-dhāt) constituted an accident. Al-Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Jabbār expounded on this when he said that if God actually had power, this would imply that He were a body, as power can only be potentialized when it resides in a body.[14] Hence, to affirm any characteristic to God would imply that an accident resided within God, which would necessitate God being a body, which would in turn entail that God was created. This helps explain why Mu’tazilite doctrine concerned itself with how best to phrase some of God’s capabilities, (e.g., ‘God knows with His essence’, or ‘God knows with a knowing that is Himself’, or ‘God’s knowing implies that He is not ignorant’, and so forth) as they could not explicitly affirm any meaning within God, yet at the same time could not deny that God, for example, knows everything.[15]
Yet another theological tangent that atomism provided a basis for was that of predestination. In particular, the Ash’arite understanding of qadr was directly linked to their conceptualization of matter.
Atomism and Predestination
The Ash’arite position on predestination is that God creates the actions of the servant directly without the servant himself causing that act, and that the servant then ‘acquires’ the reward or punishment of that deed. Hence, there is only an illusion of free-will, for in the end all actions are a direct result of God’s will and action. This theory, propounded by al-Ash’arī himself, is known as the theory of ‘acquisition’, or kasb. It is, of course, based directly on Ash’arite belief of God re-creating accidents within atoms at each and every second. Man, being merely the agency upon which these accidents are created, cannot actually be the cause of any of his own ‘actions’.[16] Hence, atomism was the key factor that led Ash’arites to deny both natural causality and human free-will.
This understanding led to another ethical dilemma, and that was the accusation of God doing something evil.[17] How was it possible, the Mu’tazilites charged, that God would Himself create the actions of His servant and then punish them for it? This was the essence of evil.
In response to this charge, or perhaps pre-empting it, al-Ash’arī developed his doctrine of what constitutes ‘evil’. For al-Ash’arī, evil was merely what God had prohibited, and good was what He had commanded.[18] Therefore, according to him, no act is inherently judged as good or evil - human intellect and rationality play no role in this regard. Later Ash’arite authorities concurred.[19] Hence, for the Ash’arites, unless God explicitly states so, there is nothing that is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in the first place! God does not punish or reward based upon a deed - God’s rewards are a gift from him, and His punishment an indication of his Justice, and nothing is required or obligatory on God.[20]
Therefore, for the Ash’arites, based on their definition of evil, the charge that it is evil to deprive man of free-will and then subsequently punish him for actions which God created holds no weight. Man does not have the capacity, or even right, to say what is evil and what is good.
The Mu’tazilites took the exact opposite view. Before explaining their position on free-will, it is interesting to note that, unlike the Ash’arites, the Mu’tazilites did not reduce the concept of causality to a simple and wholly unequivocal scheme, hence it is rather difficult to piece together the relationship between their version of atomism and their position on qadr; for this response, some general observations will be made.[21]
The Mu’tazilites were, of course strong proponents of free-will, hence they denied that God created man’s actions. Instead, they supported the doctrine that man created his own actions with the power that God had given him.[22]
This led to a detailed discussion of the concept of tawallud amongst them: whether (and to what extent) a human action could cause other actions. As an example, suppose a man shoots an arrow, and another person diverts it, and an innocent person is killed, who is morally responsible for his death?[23] Despite the differences that the Mu’tazilite had amongst themselves, as a whole they affirmed causality and believed that substances posses properties that have the capacity to affect other properties.
In contrast to the Ash’arites, they viewed that it was rationally possible to judge actions as evil or good (the issue of al-tahsīn al-’aqlī). This basic premise played a profound role in their understanding of qadr. For the Mu’tazilites, if God were to directly create man’s actions and then punish him for those actions, while man himself has been deprived of free-will, this would be the height of tyranny and injustice. Therefore, God cannot be the creator of man’s deeds. For the Mu’tazilites, the Sacred Law only confirms what the intellect has already judged; it does not play any extra role in this decision.[24]
Conclusion:
Atomism was accepted by all factions of kalām and incorporated into their theological models. Even though it was the Mu’tazilites who began the discussion, it was the Ash’arites who took it to a whole new level, and relied upon it even more than the Mu’tazilites.
For the Ash’arites, the only perpetual object is the atom. The atom itself is created at a specific point in time, but after that time, it remains in creation until God wills otherwise. Everything else in the world besides the atom is ‘accidental,’ meaning something that lasts for only a fleeting instant. And time itself is composed of discrete, successive units that are not directly connected to each other. It is God who must create and re-create each accident, on each atom, at each instance of time. Based upon this understanding, they extracted proofs for God’s existence, His Unity, His Attributes, and His all-encompassing power (i.e., predestination). Additionally, they denied natural causality.
For the Mu’tazilites, although they did use their understanding of atomism to derive similar proofs for God’s existence, since they defined ‘accidents’ in a manner different to that of the Ash’arites, their understanding of God’s attributes differed as well. Additionally, they did not elaborate upon the relationship of atomism with free-will as much as the Ash’arites did.
Other issues, not directly related to atomism, also played a role in conceptualizing their respective positions on predestination versus free-will. For the Mu’tazilites, if God demanded obedience from man yet simultaneously created his actions and deprived him of any free-will, it would be the height if injustice and contradict Divine Wisdom. All of this is clear and incontrovertible, according to them, because the intellect is capable of deciding what is praiseworthy and what is not. For the Ash’arites, since the intellect plays no role in deciding good from evil, it was not possible to judge any of God’s actions. Therefore, if God requires us to do something and, at the same time, does not grant us an independent will to execute it, that is permissible, for God can commit no injustice, and we cannot judge the actions of God.
Postscript
The debate of whether this elusive ‘smallest indivisible object’ actually exists remains alive up until today. The belief in such objects survived, even as it adapted and modified itself through many controversies, via medieval Christianity, Jewish philosophy, and the Renaissance. Finally, in the post-Enlightenment period, John Dalton (d. 1844) formulated his concept of the atomic theory, which was then developed and held sway for much of the 19th and early 20th century. For the first time, atoms were discovered to be of different types, and molecules to be combinations of atoms. Daltonian physics still considered the atom to be the smallest indivisible unit, but claimed (unlike kalām) that atoms of different substances were different from one another. From the early part of the 20th century, physicists, starting with Rutherford (d. 1937), discovered smaller sub-atomic particles from which atoms were made, namely, electrons, protons and neutrons. This then gave way (largely due to the efforts of Max Planck (d. 1947) and Albert Einstein (d. 1955)) to quantum mechanics, and later to the discovery of even smaller sub-atomic particles, such as quarks and leptons, which are currently believed to combine in specific ways to form protons and neutrons. Research is still being done in this field, and daily discoveries and experiments continue to shape and challenge current theories.
For those theologians who based aspects of their theology on atomism, it is interesting to posit how these new scientific discoveries might possibly affect their theological models and positions.
[1] See: John McDonnell, The Concept of an Atom from Democritus to John Dalton (New York: 1991) p. 1-4, 21-25.
[2] Bernard Pullman, The Atom in the History of Human Thought (Oxford University Press: 1998), p. 17.
[3] Wolfson, Philosophy of the Kalām, p. 468.
[4] It should be noted that there is a very strong possibility of Indian atomism heavily influencing the mutakallimūn as well, as Pines (p. 117) and Wolfson (p. 473) show.
[5] Al-Ash’arī, Maqālāt, p. 314-321.
[6] Much has been written on this. The standard introduction is that of Shlomo Pines, Studies in Islamic Atomism (Jerusalem: 1997). Also see Richard M. Frank, “Bodies and Atoms: The Ash’arite Analysis;” Bernard Pullman, The History of the Atom, p. 107-114; Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalām, p. 466-518; EI2, s.v., ‘Djuz’. It is interesting to note that the most accessible and elaborate explanation of kalām atomism has been written by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, in his Guide to the Perplexed. D. Macdonald has translated and analyzed these passages in his article “Continuous Recreation and Atomic Time,” Isis, v. 9 (1927).
[7] Wolfson, Philosophy, p. 495. The ṭufrah is the belief that an object has the capacity to move from point A to point C without traveling through the intermediate point B but rather ‘leaping’ over it. This belief was needed in order to explain how a body could traverse from point A to point C when, according to al-Naẓẓām, there were an infinite amout of points between them.
[8] Ibid, p. 471.
[9] See, for example, al-Ash’arī, Maqālāt, p. 358; al-Baghdādī, Uṣūl al-Dīn, p. 50, al-Ghazālī, Tahāfut, p. 88.
[10] Macdonald, ‘Continuous Re-Creation,’ p. 320.
[11] See al-Ghazāli’s Seventeenth Discussion in his Incoherence (tr. Marmura), p.171-3.
[12] Al-Bāqillāni, al-Inṣāf, p. 44. I have written a paper on this specific issue elsewhere. Also see: Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalām, p. 386-390; Herbert Davidson, Proofs for eternity, creation, and the existence of God in medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy.
[13] Al-Ash’arī, Maqālāt, p. 369; Frank, “Bodies and Atoms,” p. 42.
[14] Sharḥ Uṣūl al-Khamsah, p. 162.
[15] It goes without saying that both the Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites had other concerns as well, all of which led them to formulate their respective doctrines regarding the Attributes of God; the point here is to stress how their theory of atomism directly affected their conceptualization of God’s Attributes.
[16] Watt, The Formative Period, p. 315.
[17] It also led them to develop a unique understanding of God’s justice: for the Ash’arites, God was never unjust, not because He chose not do show injustice (the Mu’tazilite position), but rather because whatever He did was always just. Hence, if He rewarded a sinner or punished a just man, that recompense in and of itself would constitute Justice on God’s part. This of course solved the conundrum of how God could (from the Mu’tazilite perspective) ‘force’ someone to do something and then punish him for it.
[18] Al-Ash’arī, Risālah īlā Ahl al-Thaghr, p. 74.
[19] See, for example, ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Bahdādī, Uṣūl al-Dīn, p. 149; ‘Aḍad al-Dīn al-Ījī, al-Mawāqif, p. 323.
[20] See, for example, al-Bāqillānī’s description of this in his al-Inṣāf p. 48.
[21] See Pines discussion of this in his Studies, p. 32-34. I believe this issue certainly warrants further study.
[22] al-Qāḍī Abd al-Jabbār, al-Mughnī, v 2, p. 340.
[23] Pines, p. 37-8; al-Ash’arī, Maqālāt, p. 408-10.
[24] See al-Qāḍī Abd al-Jabbār, al-Mughnī, v. 6, p. 26, 30 - 34. Also, it should be borne in mind that the Mu’tazilite authorities differed amongst themselves on some of the finer details of this issue. In particular, is an act inherently good or evil, or is it due to external consequences that such a description can be made? The former view is held by the Baghdadian authorities, while the Basrians held the latter view.
More from this category
- Hitchens on Waterboarding: “Believe me, it’s torture.”
- Issues and Concerns
- Out of the picture: Obama volunteer bars hijabis from photo op
- Is Daniel Pipes a Former Muslim? (Obama & the Apostasy Argument)
More from this author
- ‘Nabiha My Love’ - But a Person is With the One Whom They Love
- The Arabic Qur’ān and Foreign Words
- The Role of Atomism in the Groups of Kalam
- Salvific Exclusivity: Part One
Subscribe to this author
Amazing article Shaikh Yasir!!! Jazzakallahu khair!! It is always interesting to know about the history of these ideas and how they affected the ummah.
I wanted to know if this article violates the Sunni Pledge that was signed a few months back even though it doesn’t mention any contemporary duaat who follow and teach the Ashari or Maturidi Aqeedah?
Salaam Alaikum
Jazak Allah for the comment and question.
Actually many people have mistakenly presumed that the ‘Pledge’ precludes any discussion of theology, and this is completely unfounded. What the Pledge seeks to do is to ensure that theological differences are spoken of with the proper etiquette, and without any ad hominen attacks on specific individuals. I believe the article fully conforms to the spirit and letter of the Pledge.
Yasir
Salam,
Being a supporter of the pledge who admires the scholars who signed it, I have to say, I found this article enlightening and informative. It does not attack or blame anyone. It is simply an academic discussion which does not aim to cause jidaal amongst people. I had to read it a couple times though
It does not discuss anyone’s salvation or lack thereof but simply comments upon a historical and academic theological discussion within Islam. I wish that more articles and ideas took this tone.
jazakAllah khair Sh. Yasir,
AA
That was a really juicy article…jazak Allah khayr Shaykh!
One thing I think (IMHO) the article lacked- since it’s written at Yale, obviously certain statements wouldn’t have been proper, for example, ‘this belief is contrary to Islam’ etc. I really would have liked to see the sunni position (not to exclude the Asha’ira from being ’sunni’) on these issues, especially Occasionalism and the justice of Allah. I once read that the Ash’ariyya believe that Allah’s af’al don’t necessarily proceed from wisdom or something like that- is that true (do they believe that and, what is the sunni belief on the issue)?
I have so many questions I’d like to ask you…what’s it like, how is Yale different? Has it changed you as a person? What’s the difference between Muslims and ‘Western’ lands in terms of the way they approach issues? Is the latter more ’sophisticated’ or is it just a different angle?
Wow.
Cool stuff shaykh. Alhamdulillah, I got shaykh Yasir Qadhi to blame for my dislike of kalam…although by nature I think it lends itself to that
So I wrote this a while back testing what I learned in the AlMaghrib Light upon Light class and adding to it. Might be of interest, shaykh…
http://muslimology.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/kalam-and-trinity/
Assalaamu ‘alaykum,
A great article, especially since I have for a long time been interested in the debate about atomism and it’s philosophical opposite, the position of “infinite divisibility“. It seems that contemporary philosopher agree that the debate is deadlocked, and I honestly fail to see how such debate could end up differently. The fact that human reason is unable to penetrate the essence of the created world is immensely important, because it undermines the very foundations of every rationalistic approach to theology. If reason cannot fully explain and understand the created world, how can we expect it to understand the Creator? Wassalaam.
I might be wrong, but there seems to be something wrong with the title of the article….
Assalaamu ‘alaykum,
Jazaak Allaah khayr for a well written article. Could someone explain to me what the Matrudi position is in regard to this and why its not discussed as prolifically as the Ash’ari position? Is it because they’re virtually the same?
Jazaak Allaah khayr,
ibrahim
Salaam
I have to say i really liked the way they argued for the oneness of God. it really helps to understand 21:22 and 23:91, even without having to accept the philosophy that led them to their argument.
«”If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, The Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!” »[Al-Qur’an 21:22]
«”No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free)from the (sort of) things yhey attribute to Him!” »[Al-Qur’an 23:91]
Hmmm, looks like a number of groups dealing in kalaam started with atomism, created a paradigm for understanding God and the universe, and with said paradigm went searching back into the Qur’aan and Sunnah for whatever confirmed that paradigm.
What caused them to turn to atomism to build this model of thinking?
Siraaj
Shaykh Yasir, regarding this part of the article
How do Ash’aris define causal relationships? For example, I have heard some mention things like supplicating to the dead is ‘taking the means’
How do they differentiate what is a legitimate “means” with a cause and effect? I.e. how can fire not burn, Allah burns, but at the same time asking the dead to supplicate for you is a proven cause somehow. Is it conjecture or are there other evidences?
-To put it more simply: How can they seemingly deny cause-effect and then say something like asking the dead is taking a means?
jazakAllahu khayr for a great article!
My brain hurts now
ibnabeeomar, the point where sufis and asharis intersect.
I can see the Matrix now…indeed I can
Jazak Allah Khair for Sh Yasir, it really clarified some of the lingering questions I had from LUL
Shaykh Yasir Jazak Allaahu Khairan for making available for us this essay.
You are probably familiar with how Philosophy of Religion classes address mostly Christian assertions in theology and it is interesting to read how they too have accepted or responded. These philosophers, and unfortunately those who follow them of any faith, give too much credit to that which has also been created (their minds) while Allaah swt and the Qur’aan are eternal.
If possible shaykh I would love to read more on the history of theologies as it adds so much to the cautious awareness of my own and is so fascinating. Should I just stay tuned to this website or is it possible to recieve an email when you publish something in a journal or on a website?
wasalaam,
Ibrahim
Salaam Alaikum
Jazak Allah for all the positive comments. To respond to some queries:
- Yes of course its confusing!! Very confusing, actually. And that’s the whole point: the religion of Allah, and in particular the Names and Attributes of Allah, are meant to be simple and to the point, words and phrases that increase one’s Iman and lift one’s spirit. Contrast such philosophical discussions and what they do to your Iman with the Quran and Sunnah, and what it does to your Iman.
- Why did they adopt atomism? We can only theorize… I subscribe to the view that the early Mu`taziilites, as they were exposed to the works of philosophy, started answering its questions (is there an atom? what defines a body? etc.) Then, as the Ash`arites came and basically took over where the Mu`tazilites left off (in the guise of refuting them) they in fact took these questions to a whole new level. It is amazing that the Ash`arites in fact have a more sophisticated theology surrounding atomism than do the Mu`tazilites.
- The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with ‘wisdom’. They deny what is called ‘al-Hikma wa al-Ta`lil’, whereas the Mu`tazila unconditionally affirm it. As is typical, the Ahl al-Sunnah are in the middle. But that is the discussion of another article!!
- The Maturidi position is identical to that of the Ash`arites, for most of the points raised in this article. The main difference of opinion between the two movements is related to Qadr; Ash`arites are almost Jabariyyah whereas Mu`tazilites are almost Qadariyyah. Again, as usual, Ahl al-Sunnah is in the middle between them, with the pure Jabariyyah on the far right and the Mu`tazilah on the far left (and a few other groups scattered over the spectrum).
- The Quranic proof for there not being more than one God is not the same as the Ash`arite one; again that is the topic of another paper. The Qur`anic proof is basically the fact that the universe is orderly and systematic; had there been more than one God the heavens and earth would became chaotic and each of the gods would be battling the others. As for the Ash`arite claim that the Prophet Ibrahim was using the ‘Proof from Accidents’, I have already written a separate paper for Yale where I discussed this issue, and how Ibn Taymiyyah refuted them. Perhaps I’ll put that up as well later.
- The permissibility to make du`a to the dead is of course an import of (late) Sufism, and not pure Ash`ari thought; although of course in our times the two movements (which, once upon a time, were distinct and separate), are now one. I have written and am presently writing a number of papers on the merging of these two movements. Basically, this issue goes back to the Ash`ari definition of ilah, which, as al-Razi and others state, means ‘the one who can independently create’. Hence, if you don’t believe your dead Shaykh can create life or give you sustenance himself, but rather does so by a power given to him by Allah, this would not be shirk according to that definition. As we proved in our class ‘Light of Guidance’, the Arabs of old also believe their idols were given powers by Allah, and did not claim they had independent powers. Additionally, our definition of shirk is taken from the Quran, and is ‘to give the rights of Allah to other than Allah’, and du’a is a sole right of Allah. But all of this is a separate topic, meant for another article!!
- Yes I do plan to write more articles regarding such topics in the future; after all this is my passion and specialty! In fact I’m currently in the process of documenting the spread of the Ash`arite creed from the fourth century (when it really started) to the seventh (when it basically became the creed of the majority of scholars of the middle Mamluk state). Perhaps I’ll publish that when I finish…
Wa salaam
Assalamu alaikum.
Awesome. One of the best things on here. It seems the fact that Asharites believed ‘atoms’ to be smallest indvisible particle makes their theorizations obsolete.
I think, all the elaborate theology and concepts aside, at the very basic level the only thing that sustains Ash’arite theology is the fact that Ash’arites believe what they believe is ‘logical’ and is derived through a logical process. However, just because they think something is logical does not discount the fact that some one else may think otherwise. Also, it is purely sepculative, as some of these ideas are already very much obsolete is proof enough.
One question that does come to my mind all the time; then why do Ash’arites still dominate? What are the historical reasons or otherwise that Ash’arites are still the majority of Muslim intelligentsia?
Anyway Jzak Allahu khair a lot Sh. Yasir Qadhi.
(oh and I wish some one translates Shaykh ul Islam’s Minhaj as sunnah!)
as salamu`alaykum wa rahmatullah Sh Yasir,
I guess I can perhaps understand that this theology is taught in the traditional schools few 100 years back but I just cannot imagine say our Deobendi Ulema of the subcontinent ever reading this stuff in their aqeedah courses. Do they actually teach this still in the Universities or do they just teach the final points derived from these theories and not the theories themselves?
Also, how many of the Ashari scholars and students of Knowledge today actually read and know this stuff? Is it only those who study Aqeedah as a specialty?
jazak Allahu khairan
Kamran
Asalaamu Alaiakum
“My brain hurts now”
Same here! Insha’ALLAH i’ll have to read this more than once Sheikh.
Good point about the fact that Allah SWT’s Names (and the religion of Al Islam) is supposed to be simple.
they complicate Islam with their ‘ideas’, theories…innovations.
SubhanALLAH all of these ideas of these sects were borrowed from pagan and athiest greek philosophers, May Allah guide us, ameen
I listened to a talk either on Usool as Sunnah, or on Bio of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal once. the Sheikh mentioned a debate he (Imam Ahmed) or one of his fellow shayookh had with a ruler’s advisor. He asked him simple questions like did the Prophet, SAW, ever conceal any of the knowledge given to him by Allah? and the wazir said no, so he said then did the Prophet SAW know about the Mu`tazilah notion of the Quran being a creation, and he said yes. Sheikh then asked then why would the Prophet, SAW conceal this? Why would he, SAW, not inform us about this in 23 years of Prophethood, why did the companions not ever mention it? Why did the tabieen not ever mention it? And the advisor he did not know what to say….
May Allah guide us, ameen
Look forward to re-reading, insha’ALLAH
Wa’alaykum Asalaam wa Rahmatullah
Jazakallahu Khairan Shaikh for a very timely article.
The thing which i have found interesting in my own studies of the history of ideas is this. The claim of the early Asharites was to mitigate the excesses of the mutazalites by engaging with the basic philosophical ideas and concepts of the ancient Greeks. This supposedly led to the development of a more sophisticated theology, one which would give Muslims the ability to penetrate the principles governing the natural world and make scientific advances, which in turn would improve Muslim society, and retain Muslim power at a global level.
Yet, according to the Ghazzalian view which you mentioned, namely ” that the Ash’arites completely negated a cause-and-effect relationship between any two occurrences” a different picture emerges. This view is considered, in the philosophical works that i have encountered, to contrast against the very grain of the late 16th Century scientific revolution, wherein causality was a factor in both discovering and linking phenomena in the natural world. Hence, the Asharite view was, in this sense a hindrance, not a help to the scientific advancement in the West, and indeed in our own times. (conversely, the muatalizites are considered more influential, the very movement who the Asharites were meant to challenge!).
If these premises are indeed correct, (and this is partly, in itself a question?) could it then be argued that the Asharite theology, despite proving influential from the medieval period, actually failed to address the really big questions regarding the acquisition and production of earthly knowledge?
Hey cool, another Saqib. Assalaamu alaykum bro, nice name.
Totally agree. The Pledge basically regulates the method of discussing these issues from hateful to sensible and respectful.
Wa alaikum assalam brother Saqib…yes, not many of us around…I am sure you can share the constant experience of having our names spelt with a ‘u’ and being mispronounced.
Masha’Allah great blog
Assalamu alaykum,
JazakAllah khayr Shaykh Yasir Qadhi!
Sidi Saqib: I think it would be very difficult to argue that the Ash’ari view is a hindrance to scientific progress. Whether a researcher is studying physical laws that Allah put in place at the beginning of time or His “habitual character”, the end result is basically the same. In fact, the latter can make the researcher feel closer to Allah. The central error that modern scientists have made is that they took the concept of physical laws to the extreme, denying their Creator. In opposition to that, a paradigm based on Allah’s habit is a safer way of establishing science.
La hawla wala quwwata illa billah
Ibn Adam
Bismillah ArRahman ArRaheem
Dear Shaykh Yasir,
Could you please explain exactly how the Maturidiyyah are close to being Qadariyyah? Is this error present in “Sharah Al-Aqaid An-Nasafiyyah” by Saad-ud-Deen Taftazani as well? (I am asking about this particular book because it is a widely used text in the religious seminaries following this school of theology). I read through a very small portion of a translation of this book, and the thing that leapt out (even at an utter layman like me) was its apparently odd position on the createdness of the wordings of the Holy Qur’an.
Wassalam
bismillah. jazak Allah khayr, shaykh yasir. light upon light was pivotal for me in learning about my deen, and for determining the course of my further studies in Islam. and i enjoyed reading this article.
when you look at the influence of outside philosophies on Muslim scholars, do you find that they influenced Muslims in their conception of the infinite, as well? i once read the book the mystery of the aleph: mathematics, the kabbalah, and the search for infinity. it chronicles the quest for fully understanding infinity by a few mathematicians, and one theme of the book was that understanding the concept of infinity would unlock an understanding of the Creator… the toll of that quest on the mathematicians was an especially interesting part of the book.
since Muslims were advancing the study of mathematics at about the same time as they (or other Muslims) delved into philosophy, i wonder whether the study of the work of non-Muslim mathematicians also impacted their theology? if not infinity, then maybe even the invention of the zero could have influenced men who did not base their Aqeedah solely on the Quran and Sunnah.
nuqtah — thank you. i had to smile when i read the name “nuqtah” in a thread about atoms — you wrote: “It seems the fact that asharites believed ‘atoms’ to be smallest indvisible particle makes their theorizations obsolete.” be careful not to confuse the atoms we studied in physics and chemistry with the atoms of the ashari. even the parts of an atom (of science) are detectable — right? — that alone makes science-atoms different from ashari-atoms. ashari-atoms cannot be detected because they have no attributes, no size, no weight, no gravity, no nothing, until enough of them join to form a body. and then, too, the attributes belong to the body itself.
but maybe i am splitting hairs… er atoms. lwh (laughing with hayaa)
“It seems the fact that Asharites believed ‘atoms’ to be smallest indvisible particle makes their theorizations obsolete”
Not necessarily; ‘atomism’ is simply the belief that there is such thing as an indivisible particle out of which every material thing is constituted, whatever its name might be (quark, lepton etc). This belief was only associated with atoms because of the etymology of that word, as Sh Yasir has mentioned.
“The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with ‘wisdom’.”
That is so weird, how could a sufi openly say something like, ‘oh murid, the actions of Allah don’t proceed from His wisdom!’ Of course, you are right, though, since they state this in their books. Am I right in thiking that the Mu`tazilah took the (correct) belief (in Allah’s wisdom) to the extreme, to deny that our actions are created by Allah (based on their reasoning that Allah is just)? So the belief of Ahlus-sunnah would then be that there is a wisdom behind all of Allah’s actions, and behind qadr (a sort of theodicy, right)? The god of the Asha’ira (not making takfir, please don’t misunderstand me) seems like the god of the Deists.
“They deny what is called ‘al-Hikma wa al-Ta`lil’, whereas the Mu`tazila unconditionally affirm it. As is typical, the Ahl al-Sunnah are in the middle.”
Shaykh, what is “ta`lil”?
[quote]Not necessarily; ‘atomism’ is simply the belief that there is such thing as an indivisible particle out of which every material thing is constituted, whatever its name might be (quark, lepton etc). This belief was only associated with atoms because of the etymology of that word, as Sh Yasir has mentioned.
[/quote]
[quote]nuqtah — thank you. i had to smile when i read the name “nuqtah” in a thread about atoms — you wrote: “It seems the fact that asharites believed ‘atoms’ to be smallest indvisible particle makes their theorizations obsolete.” be careful not to confuse the atoms we studied in physics and chemistry with the atoms of the ashari. even the parts of an atom (of science) are detectable — right? — that alone makes science-atoms different from ashari-atoms. ashari-atoms cannot be detected because they have no attributes, no size, no weight, no gravity, no nothing, until enough of them join to form a body. and then, too, the attributes belong to the body itself.
but maybe i am splitting hairs… er atoms. lwh (laughing with hayaa)[/quote]
Interesting. I think this definition of asharite-atom leads to a few more problems. Really if it has no attributes, weight etc…how is it defined as being ‘real’? I mean if enough of such atoms come together to form a body, how can it suddenly have attribute(s)?
Also, physcists talk about something called the Higg’s particle (also known as god particle), they now believe that all particles and their constituent particles came from this Higg’s particle. That means atom actually has an origin, how can it be attributeless?
And also if asharite atom is something different than the atom we talk about, doesn’t that make it something abstract? Why should we even believe that such a particle comes together with other such particles to form a body? I mean it doesn’t make sense. (I don’t know if I’m making sense :/ )
Yes I do plan to write more articles regarding such topics in the future; after all this is my passion and specialty! In fact I’m currently in the process of documenting the spread of the Ash`arite creed from the fourth century (when it really started) to the seventh (when it basically became the creed of the majority of scholars of the middle Mamluk state). Perhaps I’ll publish that when I finish…
Shaykh Yasir, can you add something about the spread of Maturidi aqida as well if and when you end up putting up this paper you mentioned?
assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah
Oh my. When I read about philosophy, I suddenly appreciate the relative simplicity of the scientific process as I have experienced it. That is: propose a hypothesis; test the hypothesis using experimentation; reject, accept or modify the original hypothesis based on the accumulated data. It’s not always so simple in practice, but much easier to get to grips with than such philosophical musings, that seem to me best answered with a simple: Allahu ‘alam!
I admire those who have patience for philosophy as I really do not!
Maturidis are more like a middle-path between Asharis and Mutazila. Mostly due to Imam Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (ra) not having to deal with the distraction of constantly battling/refuting the Mutazila so his views were a bit more balanced.
Maturidi and Ashari schools of ‘aqidah are the creed for Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaat.
Nobody here has mentioned string theory, it’s quite compatible with the Ashari theology. All the “accidents” could be manifested through the multiple dimensions acting on each and every string, altering its shape and the way it vibrates, and the resulting particle it forms.
iMuslim: How do you think Muslims derived the scientific method? From philosophies of sorts.
Philosophy formed all the “proto-sciences” from which their modern successors evolved.
I don’t know how they approach it in their curriculum (re: Deobandis), but the students pursuing the graduate level degrees at least (8-10 year programs, of which a person in my family is one) know it (Kalam, Theology) quite well. It’s not that complicated to begin with, it’s just complicated to follow its history and developments through all the scholars/authors and who said what to whom, but it’s what they do as well.
Shaikh Yasir Qadhi (h) begins to raise an important question in regards to da’wah and the aqeeda in a Western context. What can be said to be grasped from his inquiry on atomism is of great significance for the specialist and the scholar alike. The question of import which we can derive from this abstract is what is the status of ilm al kalam in the face of Western science and philosophy, how will the arguments fair and further what are the implications involved in answering these questions? This what we have to be prepared for and this is the importance of introducing the Qur’an as the basis of da’wah and to understand the critique of Ibn Taymiyah on logic and how he managed to build an alternative system which drew from reason but subjugated reason to the text. This is important to deal not only with the coming crisis but also with those who have taken to the school of Mohammad Arkoun and Nasr Abu Zayd, Ghamdi and other post modernists (qirat mu’asarra) who seek to apply the philosophy of hermeneutics to the Qur’an a school originally founded upon the thought of Heidegger (card carrying Nazi) and Biblical criticism which too originated in Germany.
The predication of belief upon an Aristotlean foundation for metaphysics presents series challenges for the system of kalam challenges which will cause a shift in belief or a crisis and a demand for resolution. This same crisis was faced by the Catholic Church in the face of modernity and because the Church relied on theological dogma (based on Aristotle) more than on the Bible and the tradition of the Early Church Fathers it plunged into a crisis and for many in meant a crisis of faith and for others it entailed what is said in Islam to be “Kufr.” The intellectuals (muslims in the West) who promote ilm al kalam have yet to deal with these issues and their front against modernity and post modernity has been to rely on the arguments of Perennialism against modernity to safeguard against a direct attack from Western intellectuals. A discussion on atomism is none other than a discussion on the foundations for physics and metaphysics (in ilm al kalam) and philosophical sufism (Ibn Arabi). Revelation is what gives balance to reason and guides correct inquiry when we looked into Allah’s dhat (swt) we left science and were left with intellectual debate of which now we are challenged to see how they hold up to time and change and place and innovation (scientific).
It is without doubt that ilm al kalam as a school had great intellects the question now remains what great intellects can stave off the crisis of a world that left behind Aristotle for Boole and others. Ibn Taymiyah (r) did not destroy logic he put it in its proper place and illustrated that it is a tool not a means to truth and with this position indeed he safeguarded creed and made way for science informed by Iman and Iman informed by science but not dependent upon nor disprovable by science nor reason, he made way for Revelation in the face of kufr.
Allahu Al’am
Asslamo Allaikum Shaykh,
May Allah (SWT) reward you for your efforts.
I would like to understand a few things which are connected to your Essay, i.e.:
1) It is scientifically proven that Atoms are divisible but what about Sub-Atomic particles like Leptons etc.; what I am trying to say is that there may be a particle (eventually) which is indivisble although it may not be an Atom but sub-atomic in nature.
2) There is a strong probability that Casuality may be violated as Quantum Physics progresses forward. Feinberg reinterpretation principle for this very reason (not to violate Casuality) interprets negative-energy tachyon as positive-energy tachyon. The key word here is “Interpret” because as you well know it is all Theoritical
All in all lets hang fire on Casuality and let Quantum Physics take its course
3) You have tried to link Atomism to Ta’weel of Attributes of Allah (SWT) whereas the primary reasons of Asharees/Maturedees doing Ta’weel is not due to Atomism but in trying to avoid Tashbeeh to human qualities. This is clearly born out of the following answer of Mufti Nawalur-Rahman (Chicago) in Urdu:
http://www.shariahboard.org/viewfatwa.aspx?Question_ID=375
Since you know Urdu you can understand it clearly for those who don’t the Shaykh says:
a) Verse about the Hands of Allah (SWT) are from Mutashebehaat and the meanings are done (to the best considering the Maesty and Garndeur of Allah (SWT))
b) The Ta’weel (i.e. Allah’s Hands to Allah’s Power) is Muhtamil (i.e. from the possibilities) and to say that it is definitely the meaning is WRONG!
c) The reason for assigning a hypothetical meaning is to prevent the minds (of humans) from wondering and assigning meanings which are contrary.
Point (3) is proven from the books of Asharee/Maturedee Aqeedah as they never mention Atomism as the reasons for Ta’weel.
I whole-heartedly agree with the general premise of your article that reliance should be placed on Qur’aan & Sunnah and not Science as Science is a moving Goal-Post.
Jazakullah Khairun
Asslamo Allaikum All,
It is not my intention to start a Ta’weel or not to Ta’weel debate as that has been done to death and can be done on other forums which kick the dead-horse day & night.
Jazakullah Khairun
“He believed that all of the workings of the universe were the result of the vibrations of these atoms through voids and their collisions with one another.”
Kind of a tangent (for a Shaykh who likes tangents : ) ) but I had the same thought as Gill regarding string theory and the Islamic perspective on it. It’s strange because many people who go into physics also study philosophy and nowadays with the popularity of string theory in academic circles and the position that string theory posits that “we are all connected; the universe is connected,” eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are gaining popularity. However, there is major Shirk of al Asmaa was Sifaat in these religions because they believe ‘there is a bit of God in everyone’ authu billah.
My thoughts on this: Allahu ‘alam! Reason is a tool, not a divine source in and of itself and is prone to error. At the end of the day, kalaam and philosophy brings us no where closer to Allah (swt).
Salaam Alaikum
To answer the latest round of questions:
- Do ‘average’ Deobandis know this material? No, not at all. Most of those who subscribe to Asharite theology would also be unaware of these things, for most of them simplistic issues suffice. However, any standard work of Asharite theology, and in particular the ‘classical’ works of the 7th to 9th centuries, are overloaded with such material. A cursory look at al-Iji’s Mawaqif and its many shuruh demonstrate this point. And so, any Asharite who actually specializes in theology will, in fact, be aware of this material.
- Abul-Hussein (Shaukani?); great point, thanks for explicitly stating what the whole intent of writing the article was. Ilm al-Kalam is an outdated science whose cosmological premises have been totally shattered by modern developments. In order to be consistent, those who subscribe to it should actually update their theological beliefs that were built upon such cosmological premises. And this, of course, would mean changing their theologies. For me, understanding Allah’s Attributes should not change day to day based upon ‘discoveries’ at CERN, for example. And that was the basic critique of Ibn Taymiyyah to kalam: What you perceive to be ‘burhan’ (indubitable proof) is simply NOT ‘burhan’ but rather ‘dhann’. And the Quran and Sunnah is the only clear burhan.
As a side point, I remember that, in the course of a private conversation with the leading ‘face’ of kalam in North America, he actually mentioned that he subscribes to this view, viz., that with the advent of quantum mechanics and string theory, we should re-examine our theological beliefs so that they are in sync with them. Although I was initially shocked at the blase manner in which he suggested this, later I realized that he was sticking to his principles and, in fact, should be applauded for his ‘courage’ at upholding the foundations of kalam!!
- Regarding all questions of string theory/quantum physics, while I am *extremely* interested in these sciences on a personal level (and they were my favorite subjects waaaaay back as an undergrad in engineering), I must confess this is not my specialty, hence I can’t really comment too much on it. In fact, what’s ironic is that even if I were the world’s leading expert on sub-atomic particles, what I would say would merely be an *opinion* which in all likelihood would become outdated, if not in the time it takes a tachyon to be emitted, then at least within a few months or years! Hence, I firmly believe that understanding Allah’s Divine Nature should not , in any way, fashion or form, be linked to our current understanding of sub-atomic matter, in contrast to those who subscribe to ilm al-kalam.
- Regarding the question of ‘tawil’, I encourage you (if you’re in the US) to take the second Aqeedah class that I teach at AlMaghrib Institute, where I talk about this issue in detail. I simply cannot summarize it here effectively; suffice to state that tawil is a tool whose use is required because of the issues mentioned in this article. The definition of ‘accidents’ and ‘bodies’ is crucial to this issue. Why is it, for example, that that the Asharis/Maturidis have no qualms (unlike the Mutazilites) in affirming Allah’s attribute of Life (hayat), or Knowledge (ilm), which, in the world that we live in and experience, ONLY exist in created, animate ‘anthropomorphic’ bodies, yet claim that attributing descent (nuzool) to Allah would automatically necessitate God being a created body (tajsim)? And why did the Mutazilites disagree with this and even deny ‘Life’ and ‘Knowlege’ as separate attributes, and make tawil of them as well? All of this goes back to their respective understanding of ‘accidents’ and ‘bodies’. Again I strongly encourage you to attend the class if you can; I am not aware of any material in English that discusses this issue to the level of detail that is required.
- Re the spread of Asharism, as I mentioned earlier that is the current project I am writing up these days, as part of my dissertation prospectus. I pray that eventually (insha Allah) it will be ready to be published. In the meantime I can post some other papers I’ve written for Yale regarding other theological topics. I have, however, written a brief (and admittedly simplistic) outline on the causes of the spread of Asharite theology on the forums of al-Maghrib.
Yasir
Peace be upon you all
Some argue that Quantum physics is a means to disprove God. They argue that Quantum physics is indeterministic i.e things really do happen randomly, furthermore there are many things which which happen by pure cance, such as an atom just decaying on one go.
My questions are:
1.What is the reply to the atheists who say the universe arose by pure chance, just like an atom suddenly decaying for no reason?
2. Many Muslims and the like say that God caused the big bang, my question is, why does it take direct intervention at this point of if the big bang and not direct interveion anywhere else?
3. How does the Muslim beleif also coincide with many theoritical models arguing against the finite picture of the classical big bang model, such as the multiverse, enpyrotic model…some models are also claiming the universe to be infinite….how can God be beleived in an infinite universe?
4 We are one insignificant spec in the universe, despite the obvious design of humans, some would argue that to ask who designed is pointless because the whole universe seems very random in the fact that their are pointless stars and dead planets with moons flotaing about….surely, there are so many planets that one had to have life to evolve on them. It is said that asking why there is design on an insignificant planet in a aparantly random universe is meaningless………although I’m willing to read counter arguments. Maybe there is much design in these rabdom plkanets and dead moons, maybe they do have a purpose.
5. How can Muslims prove that God can be argued via rational pointers when the Qunatum physis shows a universe that operates out of the bound of our rational understandings
(I used the word ‘evolve’ that doesnt contardict design or Islaam http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=792 )
Thanks and I hope I can have some good answers from you good peeps from the Blessed Religion of Islam.
Salaam Alaikum
I received an e-mail from my respected brother Abdullah b. Hamid Ali, one of the teachers at Zaytuna and an expert in Asharite theology. Since the e-mail deals directly and solely with the article, I am posting it unedited as is (with his permission). The author shows that ‘a glass is half-full and half-empty’, meaning that the two groups have different ways of looking at the same thing.
I very much appreciated the brotherliness and manners displayed in the e-mail. It is my sincere desire that further discussions between our two groups follow such patterns. I hope I too am able to conform to the proper adaab…
Below is the e-mail (begin quote - until the end of this entry):
As Salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah, Shaykh Yasir
This is your brother, Abdullah bin Hamid Ali. How are things? I’d like to congratulate you on your excellently worded article related to the matter of atomism and its relationship to Ash’ari and Mutazili doctrine. I really enjoyed reading it. But, as you can expect I do have a couple of questions that I’d like for you to clarify for me. Before that, I’d like to first state as you would expect that I do not agree that you were able to prove your thesis that the Ash’ari doctrine of the attributes originate primarily from Hellenistic thought and philosophy. Rather, it is primarily originated from the Qur’an itself by inference, of course. If it then agrees with many aspects of Hellenistic thought, that should not be a problem, but of course you are free to hold whatever view that you like. Secondly, what puzzles me is that you do not see the rational origins of your own thought or even the rational origins of Ahl al-Hadith thought in doctrine generally speaking. All of us are making inferences from the sources, so why should the Ash’aris be implicated as those who have departed from the text? Furthermore, Ash’ari doctrine of the attributes is rooted in the language of the Arabs as understood during the time of the Salaf. My other question relates to this statement you made,
“The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with ‘wisdom’. They deny what is called ‘al-Hikma wa al-Ta`lil’”
I think it would be good to rephrase this to give the Ash’aris more justice on this matter. The way that you phrase it makes it sound like the Ash’aris hold that Allah’s actions are nothing more than ‘abath’ as the Qur’an clearly denies. Do deny that would be tantamount to apostasy for it would be an outright denial of Allah’s explicit words. This is not the Ash’ari view, and your words can be seen as distorting the true understanding they intend to convey. What Ash’aris negate from Allah’s actions is the “obligation” of being explained by what is known as العلة الغائية . An example of this is a door. The door has been given a henge in order to make it swing open and not simply fall down were a person to push it. This means that the door’s designer had a objective reason in making the henge. It was to ensure that it worked this way. This is all the Ash’aris mean when they say this about Allah and His actions. That is, Allah does not always need a reason or particular objective in doing something. The Ash’ari view also takes into account that many of Allah’s actions do have this termed “العلة الغائية”. What they negate from His actions is that He be “obliged” to have العلة الغائية in all that He does. This needs to be understood. As for the matter of wisdom, this is completely untrue that Ash’aris negate wisdom from Allah’s actions. You have to remember that most Ash’aris if not all are people of Usul al-Din and Usul al-Fiqh. And anyone with a firm grasp on Usul al-Fiqh knowns that it is standard and accepted doctrine that Allah legislates with علة and حكمة . As a matter of fact, every “hukm” has an ‘illa and hikma. The ‘illa is its ratio legis, which may be known at times and at other times it may not be known. As for its hikma, it is summed up as either جلب المنفعة أو درء المفسدة . However, the specifically intended “hikma” is never known to the human being. Only Allah knows. In qiyas also, a thing is not fit for being used as the basis of an analogy unless we know its “‘illa” and “hikma.” If not, it is said to be غير معقول المعنى , and unfit for qiyas. In light of this, Shaykh, I think it would be prudent for you to make this clarification to readers to help us all get beyond the حمية الأحزاب as noted in the comments of some of your readers. Instead of simply appreciating your scholarship, many people will take your words as further support for whatever personal vendetta he/she has against certain Muslim factions, while the greater concerns of our community will continue to go neglected. We need to do our best to make sure that people don’t waste too much time on chat rooms and blogs going back and forth about matters they do not completely understand. May Allah make you a light for others out of darkness.
Was Salam
Your brother
Abdullah bin Hamid Ali
Gill, I much prefer the modern successors.
Asslamo Allaikum Dear Beloved Shaykh Yasir,
The premise of my argument wasn’t as to whether the Average Deobandi knows about Atomism or not, rather I was trying to ask/say that:
a) The indivisibility of Atom has simply moved to indivisibility of sub-atomic particles according to Modern Physics and I was asking the implications of this on your Essay.
b) Causality Principle is still being hotly debated and contested and to withhold the causality principle Physicists have made a lot of suppositions (see my earlier post)
c) The Asharees don’t base Ta’weel about Atomism, although my clumsily made point is rather eloquently stated by Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali. As far as Ta’weel is concerned Imam Ibn Katheer (RA), Imam Qurtubi (RA) & Tabari (RA) all three clearly make it and also in Tafseer Jalalain for 51:47 (i.e. Yad of Allah (SWT) is interpreted as Power).
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=TABARY&nType=1&nSora=51&nAya=47
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=51&nAya=47
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KATHEER&nType=1&nSora=51&nAya=47
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=GALALEEN&nType=1&nSora=51&nAya=47
The difference is that Asharees/Maturedees plainly call it Ta’weel but the Atharees call it clarifying the meaning (or preferring one meaning to another) as Shaykh Bin Baaz (RA) stated in his talks on Aqeedah; so its six in one hand half a dozen in the other
:) 
Personally speaking I don’t make Ta’weel but I don’t regard the Ulama who made it or continue to make it upon error and Allah (SWT) knows best. Any ways don’t want to get side-tracked.
P.S.: Aqeedah courses? I looked at the prices of Al-Kauthar Courses and simply shuddered
:) 
If the Mrs finds out I have spent that sort of money I’ll be in the Dog-House Shaykh ;and I am sure you will understand that 
.
“The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with ‘wisdom’. They deny what is called ‘al-Hikma wa al-Ta`lil’”
“That is, Allah does not always need a reason or particular objective in doing something.”
This is a rather interesting point here, because the words have to be parsed carefully on both ends. If one says, “Allah does not ALWAYS NEED (emphasis mine) a reason or particular objective in doing something”, is it possible to say that He SOMETIMES NEEDS a reason or particular objective to do something? How does that square with Allah subhaana wa ta’aala being free of all needs (or is the wording in this assumption incorrect?). Does the Shaykh mean to say He NEVER NEEDS a reason?
And if that’s the case, is it more accurate to say HE ALWAYS HAS a reason, wisdom, and / or purpose behind His Actions?
If I said anything wrong here, please correct my understanding, jazakallaah khayr
Siraaj
AS
“Indeed Action Is By Intention”
Shaikh Yasir, there was an interesting point made here regarding talil al ahkam. From what I know to be the case (ala adh dhahir) the Ashari school does support some degree of talil but not for Allah’s (swt) actions and this is the madhab of Imam Fakhr ad Din ar Razi (r). A study of this issue was undertaken by Dr. Ahmad Raysuni (h) in his thesis on Imam Shatibi And The Objectives Of The Shar’iah published by IIIT in both English and Arabic.
Interesting enough he states:
” …Taj ad Deen as Subki (r) says: The most widely held view among the scholastic theologians is that the bases and purposes of divine precepts cannotbe identified -in other words, that ta’lil is neither possible nor valid -whereas the most widely accepted opinion among the jurisprudents is to the contrary, namely talil is both possible and valid.
He then states:
“Now for al Razi (r) to have rejected talil inhis writing on scholastic theology based on the philosophical understanding thereof is one thing. After all this is the stance which was taken by most Asharites in their confrontation with the philosophers and Mutazilites and in this there is nothing surprising. What is surprising however is for this rejection to be attributes to al Razi alone since he as not alone among the Asharites in taking this stance. On the contrary when he defended the rejection of talil -as related to Allah’s (swt) actions, but not in relation to Allah’s precepts. Thus for example, in explaining Allah’s (swt) declaration that “He it is who has created for you all that is on earth (Qur’an 2:29) , al Razi writes:
Our companions [Asharis] maintain that Allah (swt) performs no action with an objective (li gharad) for if this were the case it would mean that He sought completion through fulfillment of said objective,and whosoever seeks completion through something other than himself is incomplete in himself which is unthinkable of Allah (swt). pg 198″
In any case, without running the course of jadal we still are in need to understand what Ashari school Ustadh Abdullah is representing as there is no such thing as the Ashari school but rather there are the Ashari schools. So who are we referring to when we say Ashari school are we speaking of Baqilani, Imam Ashari himself or are we speaking of Iji or are we speaking of Imam Fakhr are we speaking of Farouk or Laqanni?
As regards tawil of the names of Allah (swt) we still have to see what is the proof that allows us to break the Usuli principle which says the asl is the literal meaning until a dalil comes to justify the use of majaz. What dalil is there to justify the use of majaz in the Names and Attributes other than a rational claim that there must be transcendence. This implies that one interpreted the Names and Attributes of Allah (swt) and in one’s primary interpretation violated the golden rule “there is no simile to Allah” so then another interpretation was called upon to remove oneself from tashbih (masking the Name of Attribute similar)
Imam Malik (r) had no problem with hadith such as that of the Nuzul nor with ayaat such as that of the istawa in fact he did not even make ta’wil but he understood the meaning for he said it is known (maloum).
I am still looking for the proof that justifies violating the usuli principle on majaz and literal meaning. As of now we have no justification other than a rational claim to need to make tawil to make tanzih and that in itself is a dawah bi la dalil for Allah is unlike anything as a rule there is no need to rationally establish that the Qur’an already did so.
Did I miss something?
Assalamu ‘Alykum.
I ask Allah SWT to reward brother Amad for sending me the link to this beneficial essay.
I find this essay especially beneficial because it contains English translations of Arabic terms used by people of Kalam. I’ve always struggled with finding the correct English terms while teaching ‘Aqeedah at the AIU. May Allah SWT reward Shaikh Yasir Qadhi; in this life and hereafter.
“The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with ‘wisdom’.”
This statement could be misunderstood. But not for the reason mentioned by Shaikh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali. In fact the Shaikh went against the Ash’ari creed.
Ash’aris believe that Allah SWT’s actions are neither based nor motivated by a divine wisdom. They believe that expecting Allah SWT’s decree to adhere to a wisdom would be restrictive to Him SWT, and hence contradictory to ‘Tanzeeh’. It also conflicts with the Ash’ari view of how Holy attributes relate with each other.
Obviously, this belief is erroneous.
However, to be fair, Ash’aris believe that once Allah SWT’s actions occur they result in wisdom. This is how they understand the many Quranic verses which describe Allah SWT to be wise.
Shaikh Mustafa Sabri said in his book (موقف العقل والعلم والعالم من رب العالمين) volume 3, page 4: “The benefit (فائدة) and objective (غاية) could exist as a consequence of the action, without them being a goal or a (علة غائية) that came to the mind of the actor and motivated him to act, this is the case regarding Allah’s actions.“
Imams Bajoori and Marghini have made similar statements. Ash’aris do believe Allah SWT’s actions to be wise, but not motivated by a divine wisdom.
I would like to add that such discussions do not only demonstrate the wide gap between us and the people of Kalaam in matters of ‘Aqeedah. They are proof of a notion repeated by many of their contemporary scholars, and that is that they have a different view of the entire universe than us! … no حمية الأحزاب or personal vendetta intended.
Wallahu A’lam.
As Salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah, to all
I usual don’t spend much time on chat rooms, etc. So, I’ll just say that you shouldn’t hold your breath with me in an attempt see me play tit for tat with anyone on these matters. I only respond to some of your inquiries, since my “email” response that I did allow Shaykh Yasir to post was submitted with the best of intentions and in the spirit of brotherhood, tolerance, and understanding. I am aware that some of you will naturally try to comb through anything I say with a fine tooth comb due to an apparent addiction to disputation and a desire to show those of lesser knowledge how much smarter than I am you maybe. And perhaps you all are more intelligent with me. I have no problems with that. If I am ever wrong about something, those who know me know that I am quick to correct any mistaken view that I have. All of this naturally leads me to the following:
- As for your inquiry Brother Siraj, “,,,is it possible to say that He SOMETIMES NEEDS a reason or particular objective to do something? How does that square with Allah subhaana wa ta’aala being free of all needs (or is the wording in this assumption incorrect?). Does the Shaykh mean to say He NEVER NEEDS a reason?”;
Yes, this is exactly what I meant to say. Thank you for the correction. Sometimes you write things assuming that you have properly worded them. Thank you for the correction. Allah never “needs” anything, never “needs” to do anything, and never “needs to do anything for any given reason.”
- As for Brother Abul-Hussein, the answer to your statement “…In any case, without running the course of jadal we still are in need to understand what Ashari school Ustadh Abdullah is representing as there is no such thing as the Ashari school but rather there are the Ashari schools. So who are we referring to when we say Ashari school are we speaking of Baqilani, Imam Ashari himself or are we speaking of Iji or are we speaking of Imam Fakhr are we speaking of Farouk or Laqanni?”
without even responding specifically about whose school this is or not, know that my view is a mainstream Ash’ari view and even if we presume that I am mistaken, my response is completely appropriate in its proper place, since it was a response to Shaykh Yasir’s statement that ““The Ash`aris do indeed state that Allah’s actions are not done for a purpose, nor can they be characterized with ‘wisdom’. They deny what is called ‘al-Hikma wa al-Ta`lil’” I gave a generalized answer to a generalized claim, so if there is more than one “Ash’ari” opinion on this, according to your logic it would have been appropriate that you alert Shaykh Yasir to that fact turning your ax on me once again. Truly, deeds are by intentions.
As for the discussion of ta’wil and its proof, all one has to do is read my book “The Attributes of God” to see the proof for this ta’wil. But, I imagine that many of you have not and refuse to do so. That being the case, I don’t see any reason to waste my time trying to convince you of the reality that ta’wil is a necessary consequence of majaz. If majaz is in the language, ta’wil naturally is in the language before and after the advent of the Prophet - may Allah bless and grant him peace. Such a reality is vividly apparent for any fair-minded person who knows better. In short the dalil for ta’wil is Allah’s dissimilarity to creation. That is sufficient of a dalil which itself is established by the Qur’an and Sunna. Otherwise, as Ibn al-Jawzi states, we would be bound to accept that Allah has a “ruh” (soul) based on his saying “…and when I have blown into Him from my soul, fall to him prostrate.” But there is a consensus that Allah has no soul. Rather, He is the Creator and owner of it. The same applies to the “house” of Allah, “the she-camel” of Allah, etc. He doesn’t live in the house, nor doe he ride on the camel. Beyond that, you should read the book. If not, why waste everybody’s time?
- As for Brother Haithim’s comment, “In fact the Shaikh went against the Ash’ari creed.” Well, according to Abul-Hussein I’ve taken the view of “some” Ash’aris. If I am incorrect about that assumption, then I still haven’t seen how I have gone against the Ash’ari creed. I just think you are misunderstanding what is meant by “ta’lil” and are perhaps confusing it with “hikma.” Otherwise, I don’t think it would be appropriate for you to say, “Ash’aris believe that Allah SWT’s actions are neither based nor motivated by a divine wisdom.” and then to say “Imams Bajoori and Marghini have made similar statements. Ash’aris do believe Allah SWT’s actions to be wise, but not motivated by a divine wisdom.” I don’t see where I have said anything different from this. When a person has a sensor placed on a door to detect movement so that the door opens every time a person wants to enter, this is an example of ta’lil. Why the sensor? To detect the person who’s about to enter the door. What is the wisdom of that? Perhaps, it’s to remove the burden of having to push or pull the door open, thus lightening the burden of the people. Or perhaps the wisdom is for one to simply develop an admiration and appreciation for the creator of the door with the sensor and to feel amazement for one who could do such a thing. I hope that I am clear about what the difference is between