There were numerous miscellaneous issues brought up in the previous comments, I’ll try to answer them briefly. Those that remain unanswered are being dealt with in upcoming articles insha Allah.

- One of the major differences between orthodox Sunni Islam (a.k.a. the Ahl al-Hadith) and the people of kalaam is the issue of theological priorities. The people of kalaam, of all stripes, considered proving the existence of God to be their utmost priority. Hence, they exhausted much of their efforts to this end. Every major theological textbook of the Ash`arites begins with this in mind. And this, of course, is a byproduct of their philosophical inclinations (this issue continues to remain center-stage in modern philosophy classes). The Quran, in stark contrast, hardly devotes any attention to actually proving the existence of God; in fact Allah says, upon the tongue of one of the prophets, ‘Is there any doubt about Allah?’ (Surah Ibrahim, 10). And the Prophet (saw) informed us “Every child is born upon the fitrah; then his parents make him a Jew or Christian” (Sahih Muslim). Hence, the fitrah, which is ingrained in every human, innately affirms the existence of God. It is for this reason that atheism has always been an aberration and minority belief in all societies. Atheism has never been a serious threat to the Muslim ummah, it is currently not a threat, and it never will be a threat. I am obviously not denying that it is possible to find some people who leave Islam and become atheists, but for every one such person, there are thousands upon thousands of Muslims whose problems have more to do with a weakness of Iman, not a lack of Iman.

- The grandiose claim that the Ash`arites ‘saved’ the Muslim Ummah from embracing atheism en masse by using their own philosophical proofs to refute them, while placating to Ash`arite ego, is actually historically and intellectually false. There simply was no serious threat from atheism, and there continues to be no serious threat, simply because man by his nature (fitrah) needs to believe in a Divine Being. Rather, the threat of worshiping other than the True God (i.e., shirk) is actually much more real and pronounced, and it is for this reason that literally thousands of verses in the Quran deal with the problem of shirk, whereas only a handful deal with atheism. And to this day, shirk is a greater problem for the Muslims than atheism (how many Muslims make du’aa to other than Allah, claiming this is a legitimate form of ‘tawassul’?). I only wish the Ash`arites took on refuting shirk with the same passion and zeal that they do in determining what God ‘can’ and ‘cannot’ be characterized with.

- Neither the ‘Proof from Accidents’ nor the Ash`arite belief in atomism are ‘Quranic’ proofs per se. What I mean by this is that the Quran itself does not make such claims; if someone wishes to read in such elaborate premises and cosmological views into vague verses, then while I would applaud them for their imagination, I would venture that any unbiased reader would concur that the Quran itself does not call to these matters. And the greatest evidence for this is that the earliest generations of Islam (and even the Prophet (saw) himself) did not derive such complex cosmological premises from the Quran. Now, the claim that a certain proof or theory does not contradict the Quran is not the same as saying it is Quranic. Much of what is taught in science classes in our times does not contradict the Quran, but at the same time no one would claim that it is Quranic (meaning, derived from the Quran). With this differentiation in mind…

- The problem then comes that one takes a non-Quranic evidence as a certain fact, and then uses it to deny or distort what is clearly Quranic (in this case, the Attributes of God). Herein actually lies the main contention that the Ahl al-Hadith have with the Ash`arites. The Ash`arites give precedence to what they perceive to be intellectual proofs, claiming that these proofs have greater authority than the texts of the Quran and Sunnah. Both al-Ghazali and al-Razi quite explicitly (and nonchalantly, I might add) state so. But the fact of the matter is that their ‘intellectual proofs’ are merely anachronistic byproducts of Hellenestic debates that occurred in centuries gone by. What is quite poignant in this regard is that all the groups of kalaam, who claim to have such ‘intellectual proofs’, actually reach ‘incontrovertible’ proofs which are directly in contradiction to one another. What the Mu`tazilites perceived as a ‘proof’ was denied by the Ash`arites as an ‘impossibility’, and vice versa (this is not to mention the pure falasifa, or even the differences between various Ash`arite schools and Mu`tazilite branches – all of whom posited ‘intellectual proofs’ which are mutually exclusive to one another). Yet the source of both of these groups was the same: what they perceived to be ‘aql’, or intellect.

- The claim that atomism plays no role in making ta`wil of the Attributes is simply false; perhaps the one who made this claim is not aware of the intricacies of Ash`arite or Mutazilte theology. The very reason why the Ash`arites denied, for example, Allahs nuzool (descent), or istiwa (rising over the throne), is because it clashed with their basic philosophical proof for the existence of God, which is wholly based upon the belief in atomism. For them, motion is an ‘accident’, and an ‘accident’ by definition must subside in a ‘body’ (which is composed of multiple atoms), and a ‘body’ has been proven to be created. Hence, to ascribe ‘motion’ to God would necessitate, based upon Ash`arite theology, that God was created. For the Ahl al-Sunnah, firstly ‘motion’ is a term that they do not delve into with respect to God’s attributes – neither affirming it nor denying it, as this word or its Arabic equivalents are not used in the Divine Texts. Secondly, the philosophical premises that the Ash`arites use to arbitrarily deny what Allah and His Prophet have quite explicitly affirmed are not premises that the Quran itself calls to. Rather, the Ahl al-Sunnah give greater precedence to the Divine Texts and take what Allah says about Himself without questioning ‘how can this be so?’ for indeed Allah is the One who said, ‘There is nothing like Him’. If there is nothing like Him, we should not compare Him to ‘accidents’ or ‘bodies’ but rather simply accept what He says about Himself.

- The claim that objects have no ta`thir (or ‘effect’) on other objects is also one that has no basis from Scripture, reason, or even human experience. Rather, Allah has created each and every substance with intrinsic properties, and these properties may in fact effect other substances if Allah allows them to. Once again, this is the ‘middle position’ that the Ahl al-Hadith subscribed to. On the one hand you had the philosophers and natural scientists who claimed that natural causes must take effect. They claimed that, for example, if fire is exposed to cotton in normal circumstances, it is inevitable that the cotton will itself catch fire. The Ash`arites, in their attempt to defend their conception of miracles, went to the exact opposite and claimed that, in fact, fire has no effect in causing cotton to burn. The Ahl al-Hadith claim that natural causes are effective if and only if Allah wills them. Allah can prevent these natural causes from acting, but if He wills, the cause can have an effect. Hence, nothing happens except by the Will of Allah, and Allah is indeed the creator of all things, but this does not negate that Allah Himself has created substances with intrinsic properties. Ibn al-Qayyim, in his magnificent work Shifa al-Alil, discussed this point in great detail, and mentions that the evidences for this simple fact number in the thousands in the Quran. As one example, Allah says numerous times in the Quran that He sends down rain so that gardens and plants may flourish. In other words, Allah Himself states that rain is a direct cause of plants flourishing. There is no rational human being (apart from a few who have been exposed to some type of philosophical rhetoric, such as Ash`arite kalaam) who denies natural causality. Humans the world over, in fact even animals, live their lives with this basic foundational premise in mind. If they don’t eat, drink, sleep, avoid dangers, etc. they will not survive, and all of this is with the Will and Permission of Allah, not independent of it. I will insha Allah talk about this issue in greater detail in a later paper.

Once again, I appreciate all the comments. As stated before, we do not want to start an endless debate, and this thread has been open for a good amount of time. There will be other articles, on many miscellaneous theological issues, where we can continue discussions between the two groups.

I believe that this method (of leaving the comments open for a good amount of time before close them) is the most practical and useful, as all of us have limited times, and a debate between any two established groups will never actually result in a final, decisive conclusion. After ten centuries of debate (the first works written in Ash`arite theology date back to the fourth century – of course the first works that we have on Ahl al-Hadith methodology date back to the second century), it is not possible that we will produce anything new on these pages. The two groups will continue to exist, and it is only a question of individuals deciding which of the two they believe to be closer to the truth.

We will be using the same format for future theological articles (leaving comments open for a while, and then closing them). If anyone has anything to add to this article, please e-mail info at muslimmatters dot org.

I am fully confident that sincere, open-minded readers can conclude for themselves which of the two theologies presented above is orthodox and Scriptural (meaning derived purely from the Divine Texts), and which is not.

Jazak Allah Khayr.
Yasir

BB, Thanks for making me think about these verses. The verses and reasoning you’ve shared are certainly important for keeping foremost in my mind that all causes and outcomes rest with Allah.

Allah knows best.

Meaning: “Aļļaah created you and what you do.” (Aş-Şaaffaat. 96)
And the hadeeth narrated by Bukhari “إن الله يصنع كل صانع وصنعته”
In either case, the action you performed was still created by Allah, wasn’t it?

Yes, it was but we do not know the how of that creating. Is it through creating the actions of our choices or through creating both our actions and also our choices? 


But verses such as the above (and I am a native Arabic speaker), what meaning can possibly be excluded from their literal one I wonder?

The meaning that is excluded seems to be that of genuine choice. Again, consider

76:29 “Lo! this is an Admonishment, that whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord.”

If I understand you correctly, your interpretation of this verse would be rendered something like this:

76:29 “Lo! this is an Admonishment, that whosoever [that Allah wills to] will may choose a way unto his Lord.”

But that interpretation is not the plain meaning of this verse.

I’m not even a beginning speaker of Arabic, so I rely on translations. On your translations of 6:125 and 16:93, Muhammad Asad has them as:

6:125 “And whomsoever God wills to guide, his bosom He opens wide with willingness towards selfsurrender [unto Him]; and whomsoever He wills to let go astray, his bosom He causes to be tight and constricted, as if he were climbing unto the skies: it is thus that God inflicts horror upon those who will not believe.”

16:93 “For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided];”‘ and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!”

Two other similar verses from Asad’s translation:

2: 26 “Behold, God does not disdain to propound a parable of a gnat, or of something [even] less than that. Now, as for those who have attained to faith, they know that it is the truth from their Sustainer – whereas those who are bent on denying the truth say, “What could God mean by this parable?” In this way does He cause many a one to go astray, just as He guides many a one aright: but none does He cause thereby to go astray save the iniquitous, (2: 27) who break their bond with God after it has been established [in their nature], and cut asunder what God has bidden to be joined, and spread corruption on earth: these it is that shall be the losers.”

For now, let me add from my perspective, these verses in tension should increase our admiration and love of Allah for, among others, the following reasons:

(1) The verses of Allah’s creating everything, including all that we do, and from His guiding the faithful aright, means (a) that nothing can interfere with His bringing us to Paradise if He so wills and (b) that nothing we do earns us the right of that passage. It’s based on His compassion and mercy.

(2) The verses on allowing us to choose show that (a) His justice is far above ours (beyond human comprehension) and (b) that we are responsible for our intentions and actions.

(3) The constant refrain in the Quran of His compassion and mercy removes my fear of relying solely on my inadequate ability to purify my intentions and actions, that His creating is necessary and sufficient to do that.

In both cases (to a spectator) it was you, physically, who performed the act of knocking the cup off.
But you know that in #1, you ‘choose’ to knock it off, while in #2 you did not “choose” to knock it off, right?
So, in either case it was you who performed the action, but in #2 you are not attributed with choice while in #1 you are!

What can we conclude from this? Copying the verse that Abu Adam mentioned in his post:
“وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَمَا تَعْمَلُونَ”
Meaning: “Aļļaah created you and what you do.” (Aş-Şaaffaat. 96)
And the hadeeth narrated by Bukhari “إن الله يصنع كل صانع وصنعته”

In either case, the action you performed was still created by Allah, wasn’t it?
And the choice (or as you phrased it “what is inside of them”) that existed in #1 and did not exist in #2, what brought it into existence at that point of time (“inside of you”)? I’m not going to list the possibilities (possible answers) here, because it is a rhetorical.

Can’t we then, if we avoid what you objected to: “to exclude the literal and plain meaning of verses”, follow the literal meaning of verse 96 above: “Allah created you and what you do”? In addition to other verses with the meaning: “Allah created everything” ?

Some verses when read in Arabic may be afforded further explanation or detail when explaining them that is not the literal understanding of them in light of other verses/sayings. But verses such as the above (and I am a native Arabic speaker), what meaning can possibly be excluded from their literal one I wonder?

What ever you try to explain choice or “what is inside of” us, the verses still apply to it, don’t they?

All this does not contradict with Allah judging (and thus rewarding or punishing) us based on our following of His guidance or lack of. But whose Will will ultimately lead us to be guided or misguided?

v6:125 “(فَمَن يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَن يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلإِسْلامِ وَمَن يُرِدْ أَن يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقًا حَرَجًا
كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ في السَّمَآءِ كَذَلِكَ يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ)
” meaning “Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide, He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying, He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who do not believe”
And verse 16:93 (وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَكِنْ يُضِلُّ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَلَتُسْأَلُنَّ عَمَّا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ)
Meaning: If Allah so willed, He could make you all one People: but He strayes whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases: but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions

Allah knows best.
Wassalam,
BB

Still not as controversial as Sh Yasir’s Doritos post!

@BB
Is it up to us to decide what is cruel and what is not in regards to what our Creator does? By which criteria have you decided/judged/fathomed to describe as “cruelity” to anything that was said previously? You mentioned “morals”? Who are you trying to subjecate to morals here and which morals exactly?

The criteria for “which morals” come from the Qur’an and the hadith. If Allah indicates the morals He operates by, then it is He who has subjected Himself to those morals. It’s not our place to go against them.

It seems your point was to offer an example that seems cruel by some human standards that indicates that we cannot evaluate the morals of Allah, that His morals are beyond our understanding. No doubt, they are. Yet, at the same time, Allah expects that we seek His guidance through the Quran. We study His Names and Attributes so that we can understand in our own limited way His nature so that we can better praise and worship Him, and we can infer from the many rules and laws that He gives us aspects of His nature, unless someone thinks that Allah gives us rules and laws that are exactly the opposite of His nature.

So, with respect to your example and question, the Quran indicates that rejecting Allah is a crime so morally terrible that it merits this type of punishment.

Further you said “His creative power permits living beings to make choices, to have intention, to submit to Allah, or not”
By the same token, His “creative power” can deny them the act of not submiting to Him, no? (since He is All Powerful/able to create anything) So, it is upto Him almighty in either case to permit or not to permit… so, if we follow your reasoning can we then say “Why did He permit that then”?”

Of course, Allah’s creative power can deny as well as permit. The question is never, What can Allah do? The question is, What does Allah do?

One can ask, “Why did He permit that then?”, but the answer is in the realm of possibilities rather than certainties. That does not mean the question is off limits. Human beings learn through questions. When those questions stem from a desire to understand Allah better, to follow His guidance better, they are legitimate. Conversely, if the questions stem from perverse skepticism, then, rather than learning, one is withdrawing from the guidance of Allah.

As for you saying “If real intention does not exist, why is it so prominent in our religion?”
To me, I see no contradiction; that just means that if Allah bestowed upon one to have a pure intention as one is performing a deed, then one has been blessed and may recieve the appropriate reward; if not, then he is not and will not? Still, regardless, the final outcome is still upto Allah the creator.

The outcome is always up to Allah. Nothing I have said says otherwise. What is being considered, again, is not what Allah can do, but what Allah does.

BB asked for verses and hadiths. Every verse and hadith that commands what shall be done and forbids what shall not be done states that humans are responsible and act according to what is inside of them. Still, here are a few:

18:29 “Say: (It is) the truth is from your Lord. Then whoseover will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve.”
23:62 “And we task not any soul beyond its scope, and with Us is a Record which speaketh the truth, and they will not be wronged.”
45:22 “And Allah hath created the heavens and the earth with truth, and that every soul may be repaid what it hath earned. And they will not be wronged.”
76:29 “Lo! this is an Admonishment, that whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord.”

Muslim Book 035, Number 6471:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, thus stated: I am near to the thought of My servant as he thinks about Me, and I am with him as he remembers Me. And if he remembers Me in his heart, I also remember him in My Heart, and if he remembers Me in assembly I remember him in assembly, better than his (remembrance), and if he draws near Me by the span of a palm, I draw near him by the cubit, and if he draws near Me by the cubit I draw near him by the space (covered by) two hands. And if he walks towards Me, I rush towards him.

This hadith does not say “I am near to the thought of My servant as I make him think about Me” etc. Rather, it assumes human agency in following, or not following Allah’s guidance.

I offered one possibility of reconciling verses in tension (not in contradiction). Perhaps that’s not a good possibility, and I am open to others. However, what seems to have been done to promote predestination is using interpretations of other verses and inferring conclusions from these interpretations to exclude the literal and plain meaning of verses clearly stating the role of human agency in following Allah’s guidance. It’s not clear to me how, or why, that would be considered an appropriate method for understanding the Quran and Islam.

And I agree with AbuAbdAllah that what we discuss needs to make us better Muslims. For myself, to follow Allah’s guidance, I need to accept both the verses that speak of Him as Creator and also those that speak of my responsibility in following His guidance. Sometimes it’s far too easy to re-interpret some verses in light of those that I feel more strongly about, but Allah has given all of the Quran for us to guide our conduct and understanding.

Allah knows best.

shaykh waleed basyouni has started a halaqa in houston, mashaAllah, and he mentioned one thing (it may even be on the video here at MM) to us that i think should be expressed here. he gave the example of a parent counseling a child who was also a student of knowledge. the child was told that whatever person he went to study from, and whatever ‘ilm he was studying, that after 10 lessons (as i recall) the child should see an improvement in his own manners, salat, or other ibadat. and if, in all that time, there were no improvement or if there were any loss, then the child was to give up that teacher, and forget whatever had been taught because it was not beneficial knowledge.

what most impressed me in the story, though, was the unmistakable means of gauging the virtue of a student’s study. the parent’s advice does not necessarily mean that the knowledge was flawed. or that the student should never take up that study in the future. but for that student at that point in his studies, what he was studying (or how, and maybe from whom) was not making him a better person, a better Muslim.

if i have misrepresented the story in any way, than i apologize, and ask for guidance. yet the more i read this thread, the more i think of that story.