Refutation of the Ashariyyah Aqidah
Refutation of the Ashariyyah Aqidah
Aqidah:
Ash’ari beliefs:
1. Divine timelessness i.e. that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ does not perform new sequential actions Himself.
2. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ acts without motive or wisdom behind His acts as they believe if Allah was acting to fulfill a purpose then He would have been previously imperfect as He would be in need of something.
3. Metaphorical interpretations of Allah’s actions and attributes in order to avoid anthropomorphism.
4. Occasionalism i.e. the belief that God is the only true cause and that what we perceive as causes and effects in the world are merely occasions for God’s direct intervention. They deny that created entities have any intrinsic causal power or secondary causation. In other words, God creates the cause and the effect at each moment independent of the material
5. objects that seem to be involved.
6. Morality is arbitrarily based on Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ will i.e. absolute Divine Command Theory.
7. The Quran is both uncreated and created i.e. distinction between the eternal speech of God (kalam nafsi) and the physical written or recited Quran (kalam lafzi), the latter of which they may describe as created in the sense that it is manifested in a temporal form.
8. Iman or faith is belief in the heart. Actions are not considered a component of faith itself.
9. Faith does not increase or decrease.
10. Reason (speculative reason/theological rhetoric stemming from Greek philosophy (kalam)) over revelation.
11. Reject Divine Simplicity.
12. Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ “actions” refer to His effects or the temporal events witnessed in creation and are not attributes of His essence.
13. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ does not have directionality or spatial confinement. They claim this as they believe that if He has directionality then He must have a body.
In contrast, the Athari beliefs:
1. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ acts in succession i.e. is dynamic
2. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ acts with motive and wisdom behind His acts.
3. Moral facts are known through the fitra and therefore are not arbitrary.
4. The attributes of God as described in the Quran and Sunnah, affirming them and their meanings without delving into their modality while denying a resemblance to human attributes.
5. The Quran is entirely uncreated including my recitation and it was revealed in time.
6. God is the ultimate cause of all things but acts through secondary causes within creation.
7. Faith is belief, on the lips, and in the actions of the believer.
8. Faith does increase or decrease based on one’s piety and actions.
9. True reason and revelation can never contradict.
10. Reject Divine Simplicity.
11. Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ acts are His attributes.
12. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ has directionality but to ask whether He has a body or not is an innovation.
Overall, the Ashari Aqidah can be summed up by Ash'ari scholar al-Sanusi. He states,
“Most laypeople exhibit a lack of engagement with scholarly gatherings and interactions with pious individuals. This leads to a prevalence of erroneous theological concepts among them, including anthropomorphism, assigning directionality to God, the attribution of events to natural causes (affirming secondary causation), the belief that God's actions are purposeful, and the misconception that His speech is composed of letters and sounds, sometimes He speaks, and sometimes He is silent, like human speech. These notions align with the doctrines of the people of falsehood. Significantly, some of these beliefs have been condemned as kufr (disbelief) by the consensus of Islamic scholars.”
Abu Hasan al Ash’ari’s Aqidah:
The aqidah of Abu Hasan al Ash’ari himself can be found in his book, “Al Ibanah An Usul ad-Diyanah” on pages 200-239,
“Jannah is Haqq, Jahannam is Haqq. The Hour will be established no doubt about it. Allah will resurrect those in their graves. Allah ascended above His Throne as He said in the Quran, ‘the most merciful ascended above the throne’”
“and (belief in the) the Face of Allah without asking how as He stated in the Quran, ‘and there will remain the Face of your Lord the owner of majesty and honor’”
“and (belief in the) hands of Allah without asking how as stated in the Quran, ‘with that which I created with My Hands’ and the ayat, ‘rather His Hands are opened He spends however He wills’”
“and (belief in the) Eyes of Allah without asking how as Allah said, ‘they sailed under Our Eyes’. He who claims the names of Allah are other than this they are misguided”
“and affirm Power to Allah as He said in the Quran, ‘did they not consider that Allah who created them was greater than them in strength?’”
“Quran is the word of Allah uncreated and nothing of it is created”
“and to believe that Allah will be seen (by believers) yawm al qiyamah with our eyes the way we see the full moo at night as the messenger of Allah said, ‘bring the hadith’ and the kuffar will not be able to see Allah”
“and to believe that the hearts are in between the two fingers of Allah, and the heavens and the earth are in between the fingers of Allah without takyif (asking how and distorting meanings, affirm it as is and believe in its meanings but do not try to delve deeper or imagine it) as it was narrated in the narrations that came from the messenger of Allah”
“Iman is speech and action, it rises and decreases, and we submit to the narrations (ahadith).”
“We see all the Muslims raising their hands during du’a towards the sky, because Allah is above the Throne, which is above the heavens, and that if Allah was not above His Throne, they (the Muslims) would not have raised their hands towards the throne just as they do not lower their hands during du’a (because He is not below)” (pg 409)
These narrations from his book alone show that Abu Hasan al-Ash’ari was on the usul of the salaf unlike his later followers who follow the views of the second stage of his life (after abandoning the Mu’tazilites and adopting the Kullaabi creed) as well as the views of the Mu’tazilites and the Jahmites.
Quotes from the Salaf:
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said,
“Allah is on the Throne and the Kursi is the place of His feet. ... Allah is on the Throne, and the Throne has bearers carrying it. ... He is in movement, He speaks, He looks, He laughs, He rejoices, He loves and He detests, He displays ill-will and kindness; He becomes angry and He forgives.... Every night He descends, in the manner He wishes, to the nearest heaven... the hearts of humankind are between two fingers of the Merciful; He turns them over as He desires and engraves on them whatever He wants. He created Adam with His hands and in His image. On the Day of Resurrection, the heavens and the earth will be in His palm... The People of Paradise will look at His Face and see it. Allah will honor them.He will appear to them and dispense His grants to them. The servants will appear before Him [on] the Day of Judgment. It is He, Himself, who will ask them for their accounts. Other than He will not administer that.” (Tabaqat al Hanabilah, Ibn Abi Ya'la 1/29)
As understood by Imam al-Bukhari, the Quran portrays Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ as a dynamic Creator capable of acting in succession. Al-Bukhari asserted that the Quran was the Word of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ and uncreated, whereas God creates the recitations or actions of human beings. He states,
“Chapter: on Allah’s saying: ‘Every day He is engaged in some affair’ [Quran 55:29], and His statement: ‘[Quran 21:2], and Allah saying: ‘Perhaps Allah will ordain (yuhdithu) a matter after that’ [Quran 65:1], and that His occurrences (hadathahu), exalted be He, are not similar to the occurrences (hadath) of creatures. According to the saying of Allah, Most-High: There is nothing like Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. [Qur’an 42:11]”
He also states that Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions are His attributes and are distinct from their effects while the Asharites claim that they are not by stating that Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions refer to His effects or the temporal events witnessed in creation and are not attributes of His essence,
“So, Allah’s action is His attribute, and that which is acted upon is distinct from Him, being part of His creation…And the Jahmiyyah said: ‘The act (of Allah) is the same as that which is acted upon.’ This is why they said to ‘Be!’ - “[It is] created.” And the people of knowledge said: ‘Al-Takhliq (bringing into existence) is the act of Allah.’” (Khalq Af’aal Al-’Ibaad, vol 1, pg 113)
It would seem that the Asharites follow the heretical Jahmites in these matters. Imam Bukhari also believes that Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ commands are both temporal and uncreated and this can also be applied to the Quran as it is the Words of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ unlike the Asharites and Jahmites who claim that the Quran is created,
“[In his discussion of the verse] {Indeed, to Him belongs the creation and the command. Blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds.} [Al-A’raf: 54] Ibn Uyaynah said: “Allah has distinguished the creation from the command by saying: {Indeed, to Him belongs the creation and the command} [Al-A’raf: 54], so the creation is by His command, as He stated elsewhere, such as: {To Allah belongs the command before and after} [Ar-Rum: 4], and as He stated: {His command is that only when He intends a thing that He says to it, “Be,” and it is} [Ya-Sin: 82], and as He stated: {And of His signs is that the heaven and earth remain by His command} [Ar-Rum: 25], and He did not say by His creation.” (Khalq Af’aal Al-’Ibaad, vol 1, pg 45)
Imam Shafi’i was against the use of Kalam while the Asharites view it a needed tool in theology,
“My judgment with respect to the people of Kalam is that they be smitten with fresh leafless palm branches, that they be paraded among the communities and tribes, and that is be proclaimed: ‘This is the punishment of him who has deserted the Book and the Sunnah and has taken up Kalam!’” (al-Bayhaqi, Manaqib al-Shafi’i 1:462)
The same goes for Imam Malik,
“’Beware of the innovations!’ It was said, ‘O Abu ‘Abdallah, what are the innovations?’ He said: ‘Ahl al-Bida’, those who speak concerning the Names of Allah and His Attributes and His Speech and His Knowledge and His Power; and they do not remain silent about that which the Companions and the Followers, and those who followed them in goodness, kept silent!’” (Abdallah al-Ansari, Dham al-Kalam wa-Ahlihi 4:115 no. 872)
Imam Ahmad is also reported to have said,
“I am not a person of argumentation or Kalam. I am only a person of narrations and reports.” (Hanbal b. Ishaq, al-Mihnah pg. 54)
Imam Abu Hanifa is reported to have said,
“…O my son! Verily these retarded ones are from the people of kalam. From amongst those who you will see that they used to be upon one word and one religion, until shaytan came between them. So now you find amongst them enmity and differing, so be upon clarity…” (Manaaqib Abi Hanifah, pg 184)
As for faith, Imam Shafi’i said,
“The Ijma’ (consensus) of the Sahabah (companions) and Tabi’in (companions of the companions), and those who came after them, and our contemporaries is that Iman (faith) [consists of] speech, actions, and intentions; and none of these three are valid except with the other” (Majmu al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 7, pg 209)
As for the Istiwa or Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ rising over the Throne, the four Imams said the following,
“Imam Abu Hanifa said, ‘Whoever says, ‘I do not know whether my Lord is above the heavens or on the earth,’ has indeed committed kufr (disbelief). Likewise, the one who affirms that He is above the Throne but adds, ‘And I do not know whether the Throne is above the heavens or on the earth,’ is also in a state of kufr.” (Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, pg 40)
“Abdullah ibn Nafi’ reported: Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about the saying of Allah Almighty, “The Most Merciful rose above the Throne,” (20:5). The man said, “How is His rising?” Malik said, “The rising is acknowledged, its modality is unknown, and asking about it is an innovation. I see you are a man who intended evil with this question.” (al-Istidhkar 2/529)
“Imam Ash-Shafi’i said, ‘The explanation of the Sunnah upon which I rely, and upon which our companions, the people of Hadith, rely-those whom I have seen and from whom I have taken, such as Sufyan, Malik, and others- is the affirmation of the shahada that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And that Allah, the Exalted, is above His Throne above the heavens (fis-Sama), and He approaches His creation as He wills, and Allah, the Exalted, descends to the lowest heaven as He wills.” (Ijtima Al’Juyush Al-Islamiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, pg 1165)
“Imam Ahmad said, ‘We believe that Allah is above His Throne – however He wills – without limits, without a quality that the describer could comprehend, and without a boundary that the describer could place. Hence, the attributes of Allah are from Him and for Him, and He is as He has described Himself. He cannot be grasped by the imagination.” (Dar at-Ta'arud al-'Aql wan-Naql, Ibn Taymiyya, 2/30)
It is clear that the people of the Sunnah agreed upon affirming the divine attributes as reported in the Book and the Sunnah, interpreting them as reality and not as a metaphor, except that they do not ask ‘how’ is the modality of any of that.
Quotes from the Quran and Hadith:
One of the simplest arguments against the Asharite position comes from the Quran. In 38:75,
“(Allâh) said: "O Iblîs (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands1. Are you too proud (to fall prostrate to Adam) or are you one of the high exalted?”
Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ here is showing that He specially created Adam عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ with His Hands. It cannot mean power, as the Asharites claim, because Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ created everything with His power including Satan. If Hands meant power then Iblis could have replied to Him by saying, “but you created me with your Hands too!”. Those who deny this indirectly entail that there is no superiority for Adam عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ over Iblis.
Another argument comes from the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ,
“The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Allah will take the whole earth (in His Hand) and will roll up the Heaven in His right Hand, and then He will say, "I am King! Where are the kings of the earth?” (Sahih Bukhari 6519)
The Asharites will claim that Hand means His power then it must be asked what does it mean for Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ to have a right power? The Asharite interpretation is baseless and is contrary to the apparent meaning of the text. A hadith from Ibn Umar رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad and a son of the second Caliph Umar رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ further proves this point,
“Mujahid reported: Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Allah Almighty created four things with His hand: Adam, upon him be peace, the Throne, the Pen, and the Gardens of Eden. Then, He said to the rest of creation, ‘Be’ and it was.” (al-Sharī’ah lil-Ājurrī 756, Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani)
One would have to say that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ created everything else without power if His Hands are to be stripped of their apparent meaning. The Quran also affirms in Allah acting in succession,
“Say, ‘Allah begins creation and then repeats it’.” (10:34)
“...every day He is bringing about a matter.” (55:29)
“...perhaps Allah will originate after that a [different] matter.” (65:1)
“It is He who created for you all that which is on the earth. Then He directed
Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation,] and made them seven heavens.” (2:29)
“And We have certainly created you [O Humankind] and given you [human] form.
Then We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Adam’.” (7:11)
The Quran also affirms that Allah was wisdom when creating but this is another aspect that Asharites deny,
“I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.” (51:56)
A God that creates without wisdom is a foolish God. Does Allah not send prophets for guidance and hence guiding us be a purpose and wisdom? If Allah does not act for reasons according to the Ash'aris, then once again, strictly speaking, an Ash’ari cannot say that Allah literally created a certain prophet for the purpose of guiding humanity. If a prophet performs a miracle does Allah not allow for it to happen at a specific time and for a specific purpose? Otherwise, if God does not act for reasons as the Ash’aris claim, then strictly speaking it cannot be said why this apparently miraculous event has occurred. The outcome of an action by an All-Knowing agent would naturally be a purpose, because it serves as a motive for the action based on the agent’s perfect knowledge and will. Furthermore, why would God reveal scripture in such a way that the plain meaning of His revelation would possess the potential to mislead most of humanity? He did not. Lastly, a hadith that proves that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ is above which is something that the Asharites deny,
“Mu’aawiyah ibn al-Hakam said: ‘I had a slave-girl who tended sheep for me in the direction of Uhud and Al-Jawaaniyaah and I came one day and found that a wolf had taken one of the sheep, and I am a man from the children of Aadam, I became angry as they do, but I hit her very hard. So I came to the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and he made me aware of the seriousness of that, so I said: O Messenger of Allaah, shall I free her? He said: "Bring her." So I brought her and he said to her: "Where is Allaah?" She said: ‘Above the sky.’ He said: "Who am I?" She said: ‘You are Allaah’s Messenger.’ He said: "Free her for she is a Believer.’” (Muwatta Malik, Book 38, Hadith 8)
Refutations:
It has been established so far that the God of Islam is a dynamic creator who acts in succession. According to the practitioners of Kalam, this entails that there are new events in the essence of God such that new events or changes must themselves be created. Therefore, anything not free of new events is itself originated, implying it had a beginning and was created. God cannot be subject to new events or temporal changes because it would imply that God is created. Therefore, God is timelessness and immutable and there are no new events in His essence. Furthermore, if any of God’s attributes were temporally originated, it would imply that God's essence was imperfect before the origination of that attribute, which is impossible since God's essence is necessarily perfect. Therefore, reason must be given precedence over the sayings of the Salaf and revelation. The Aristotelian underpinnings behind these arguments by the Mutakallimun is obvious. However, the arguments of the Asharites are incorrect. God can perform actions in time without compromising His eternal perfection. God is perfect before, during, and after that action. Furthermore, God has always possessed the attributes necessary for any action, such as speaking. For instance, God did not become a speaker only upon revealing the Qur'an but rather He has eternally had the attribute of speech. God’s perfection includes the ability to act in time without undergoing any change in His essence.
As for the Asharite claim that the Atharis are anthropomorphists, this has been entirely refuted. When it is said that Allah has a Hand and that I have a hand, they are not the same as Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ is unlike His creation. When it is said we know the meaning of Hand but we do not know the reality or modality of it as that is only known by Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ is free from the imperfections that humanity has therefore the meaning of hand between man and God is analogical. Furthermore, if one holds to an anti-realist view of universals such as with nominalism and conceptualism, there will be no ontological sharing between the attributes of man and God for attributes. For example, if it is said that I exist and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ exists then there would be a sharing of an attribute between us of the universal of existence but nominalism/conceptualism holds that as universals do not exist in the real world but only particulars.
The doctrine of occasionalism that Asharites hold renders knowledge impossible. Causes are unrelated to their effects. Every event is created directly by God without secondary causation, which entails that all happenings are via direct divine intervention. From this perspective, typing the words in this sentence appearing on the screen is just as miraculous as a miracle performed by a Prophet as the event is being directly created by God at each instance rather than me typing. The causes and effects witnessed are both created by God side by side habitually. Human act is just an illusion such that there is no difference between me moving my arm purposely and me shivering involuntarily, human free will and agency are essentially non-existent. If every event is directly created by God, there is no consistent, observable link between actions and outcomes. This means we cannot gain true knowledge of the world through observation because what we observe as causes and effects are just God’s direct interventions without any intrinsic connection. Since the Asharites also deny that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ acts for a purpose or wisdom, then it would be the case that everything in this world is arbitrary and random. The Athari creed does not have this problem as we affirm that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ acts for a purpose and affirm secondary causation. Ibn Taymiyya writes in his Kitab An-Nubuwaat,
“He, the Exalted, never breaks His usual course except for a reason that befits it. For example, He split the sea for Moses, and other similar miracles that He sent. This was created to be a sign and a proof, and it was due to the Prophethood of Moses, the salvation of his people, and the denial of Pharaoh. Whoever allows that this sea, or another, could have split for Moses without there being a divine reason befitting it, is afflicted in his mind. The confusion of the Ash’arites in distinguishing between the miracles of the Prophets and the (unusual/supernatural acts/miraculous events) of others. Because of this, the proponents of this opinion became confused, and they had no way to distinguish between the proofs of Prophethood and other (unusual) phenomena. The miracles of Prophets, as well as one’s knowledge that they are miraculous [if properly established], corrupts their principles, and if they consistently adhered to their principles, they would deny reason and revelation. They thus could neither believe in the Prophets, nor have knowledge of anything else about God’s actions that He performs for reasons and wisdoms, as explained elsewhere.”
Ibn Taymiyya also offers a critique of the Asharite occasionalism,
“Some scholars like Abu al-Hasan [al-Ash'ari] and those who followed him from the schools of Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad, among others, have denied powers (quwa) and natures (tabā’i). These individuals and groups who have denied powers and natures have also denied causality. Instead they claim that God acts in those occasions but not through those causes [i.e. occasionalism]. They therefore claim that God does not satiate an individual through bread, nor quench an individual through water, nor bring forth vegetation through water; rather, [they claim that] He acts at those occasions, but not through those [causes]. These individuals and groups have contradicted the Scripture, the Sunna, and the consensus of the Predecessors, in addition to contradicting clear reason and sense (sarih al-'aql wa'l-hiss), since God has stated in His Book, And He it is Who sendeth the winds as tidings heralding His mercy, till, when they bear a cloud heavy (with rain), We lead it to a dead land, and then cause water to descend thereon and thereby bring forth fruits of every kind. Thus bring We forth the dead. Haply ye may remember. Thus, God informed us that He brings down rain by means of the clouds and brings forth vegetation through this rainwater…Finally, people know by virtue of their senses and reason that some things are causes for [effects], just as they know that satiety results from eating--not solely by preparing [food]--and from eating food--not by eating pebbles. And they know that water is an [essential] cause for the life of animals and plants. God said, And we made every living thing of water. Animals are only quenched by drinking water, not by walking [to get water]. There are many other examples of this…” (Ibn Taymiyya, On Causality and Reliance On God, Translated by Tallal M. Zeni, pg 160-161)
Overall, unlike the Asharites, Ibn Taymiyya argues that miracles performed by prophets are special events that occur for specific divine reasons and purposes. For example, the parting of the sea for Moses was a sign and proof of his prophethood and a means of salvation for his people. The Quran, Sunnah, and rational evidence all support the existence of secondary causation. For instance, the Quran describes rain leading to the growth of vegetation, indicating a clear causal relationship. Denying secondary causation and the purposeful nature of divine actions leads to an irrational and worldview. Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that God creates through created secondary causes and for a wise purpose. However, a single created cause is insufficient to bring about its effect. Created causes are always accompanied by other causes and conditions for producing their effects. God’s will alone is capable of creating anything that He wishes. God can also prevent any effect from occurring by creating barriers that prevent the effect from being produced.
Lastly, it has been established that the God of Islam has Wisdom and acts for a purpose. The Asharites denied this fact in order to maintain that God is free as if God acted for a purpose then His actions would be constrained such that He would need to fulfill that purpose. However, This doctrine renders God imperfect as a being who does not act for reasons, which entails that His actions are arbitrary and foolish. I wrote this article for a purpose; therefore, I have more wisdom than the Asharite conception of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ. The Asharite claim also goes contrary to the Quran as previously mentioned. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim states in his book, “Shifa’ al-‘alil fī masa’il al-qada’ wa’l-qadar wa’l-hikma wa’l-ta’lil”,
“The deniers (the Ash'aris) state, 'You have mentioned your imagined and improvised proofs, so now consider our refutation of them and respond if you can.' Thus, I will relate what the most clever of the latter's group, Muhammad b. 'Umar [Fakhr al-Din] al-Razi, has said [in his book al-Arba'in fi usul al-din], 'Any agent who performs an action to attain some benefit or to prevent some harm----assuming that the accrual of those advantages takes precedence over not doing so has benefitted by carrying out that action. But whoever is like that has an essence which is deficient, and therefore needs to derive perfection from another. This is impossible with regards to God. But if [performing such or not] is considered to be equivalent by Him, then there is no preponderant one, and therefore it will not occur.' Then he relayed a question: 'What about the case in which it is equivalent to Him, yet the servant prefers its occurrence, and due to that preference God (Glory be to Him) preponderates its existence over non-existence?' He responded to his own question by saying, "The occurrence of these benefits or their absence is either considered to be equivalent by God or not. In the latter case it goes back to the previously-mentioned division." Those who affirm [His wisdom and causality] state that there are many ways to respond to this specious argument: As for the statement that any agent who performs something for some purpose possesses an 'essence which is deficient, and therefore needs to derive perfection from another', do you mean [first] that he lacks some type of perfection which he should have possessed before his intent [to carry out that action]? Or [second] do you mean that he lacks some type of perfection before the existence [of that act]? Or are you suggesting a third meaning? If the first [is your position], this claim is false. One performing something for some purpose (which takes precedence over its absence) is not necessarily lacking in some requisite type of perfection before his intent to do that action. Indeed, intent is not described as being perfect before it becomes existent. If the second [is your position], its absence is also not considered to be a deficiency. A purpose cannot perfect something else before its existence; and if something is not perfect in one instance it cannot be considered to represent a deficiency should it be absent. The absence of some entity before its creation [obviously] takes precedence over its existence; but after its origination its existence takes precedence over its non-existence. Thus, its non-existence before its existence should not be considered to be a deficiency nor should its existence after its non-existence. Instead, perfection entails the non-existence [of that entity] before its existence, and its existence after it is originated. The intended wise purposes and objectives are of that sort. Their existence when existent is considered to be perfection. Had they been non-existent at that time, then that could be considered to be a deficiency. Likewise, their non-existence when it should be so is considered perfect, and had they been existent in that case it would be considered a deficiency. For this reason, the denier is the one who attributes faults to God, not the one who affirms [His wisdom]. Finally, if you intend a third [option], you must elaborate before we can discuss it further. Do you mean by that [same] statement that the wise purpose, which should be existent, occurs from a source other than Him? Or do you mean that He does not possess that wise purpose itself or that He derives perfection from it only [after its existence]?...”
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi argues that any agent who acts to attain a benefit or prevent harm must need that benefit or harm avoidance, implying an initial deficiency and since Allah is perfect and free from any deficiency, He cannot be said to act for reasons or purposes. However, Ibn al-Qayyim refutes this by questioning what is meant by the claim that an agent acting for a purpose indicates a deficiency. Either If the agent lacked some perfection before intending the action, this is not necessarily true. The intent to achieve a purpose does not imply pre-existing imperfection. Or, if the agent lacked perfection before the act’s existence, this too is not necessarily a deficiency. The non-existence of a purpose before its actualization does not imply imperfection. Perfection involves the timely existence of purposes and objectives, not their perpetual presence. Ibn al-Qayyim also clarifies the nature of wise purposes such that the existence of wise purposes when they should exist is considered perfection. Their non-existence when they should not exist is also perfect. The non-existence of something before it is meant to exist should not be seen as a deficiency. If the wise purposes arise from Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ, they do not indicate a deficiency. If it is claimed that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ derives perfection from these purposes only after their existence, this still does not imply that He was imperfect before. Ibn al-Qayyim also states in the same text,
“Had His actions been devoid of wise purposes and praiseworthy objectives then that would have required [attributing] faultiness [to Him], but doing so is impossible. Reason, the innate disposition and knowledge----both the requisite and theoretical types----all confirm by necessity that denying His wisdom, rather than affirming it, would result in faults being attributed to Him. Being faulty is either a possibility or impossibility. If it is a possibility then their proof is invalidated [because they have characterized God as being deficient]. If [attributing faults to Him) is impossible then their argument [denying His wisdom and causality] is also invalidated. Therefore, their proof is invalid in both instances. Attributing faults to God (Almighty and Most Glorious is He) is known to be invalid through reason, just as well as by transmitted evidence. Reason and transmitted evidence both necessitate characterizing Him with Attributes of perfection Having knowledge, power, will, hearing, vision, speech and life are all attributes of perfection, while [being characterized by any] opposites of those constitute being faulty. It is required to declare Him to be infallible above any opposites of perfection], because they would nullify His perfection. The occurrence of that which God (Exalted is He) loves in the time frame that He loves is perfection, since it occurs in a fashion that He loves, Its non-existence beforehand does not represent a fault, since He did not love that it should exist anterior to that time...Pure reason dictates that whoever does not possess a wisdom or intended objective for an action of his is more deserving of being characterized by faults than someone who performs an act for wise purposes, even if [that wisdom] was previously absent and when becomes present only at the time that his wisdom decreed to originate that action. Therefore, how can a rational person claim that God's performance of an action for a wise purpose necessitates faultiness [being attributed to Him], while actions that are devoid of wisdom do not result in Him being considered faulty? The deniers (the Ash'aris) say that the Sublime performs whatever He wills without consideration of the wisdom of doing so. Thus, they make it permissible for Him to do anything, which is a possibility (mumkin) even to command polytheism, lying, injustice, abominations, or to forbid monotheism, honesty, justice and legal retribution. In that case we say: Deeming it permissible for Him to [command those abominations] and claiming that there is no deficiency [attributable to Him] in intending those represents the worst attribution of faultiness to Him. Now the claim that whoever performs [an action] for a reason [or a benefit or to prevent some harm] is considered to be deficient without [that action] is an absolute claim not a general one. Some will contend that whoever honours those who are ignorant, unjust and corrupt, yet dishonours those who are knowledgeable, just and benevolent, is an unjust fool. But the deniers allow and permit saying this about God, and they do not consider Him to be unjust or foolish in general...It is unreasonable and even impermissible to claim that the freely-chosen actions of one who is living and knowledgeable are done for no objective or purpose. These [aimless actions] do not arise except from an insane person, one who is sleeping, or one who is unreasonable. Having wise purposes and final objectives are what makes one having a will described as such. If one knows the advantage, benefit and objective of an action, then he will intend it...”
Basically, Ibn al-Qayyim argues that if Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions lacked wise purposes and praiseworthy objectives, this would attribute faultiness to Him, which is impossible. Both reason and innate disposition (fitra) necessitate affirming Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ wisdom, as denying it would imply imperfection. Reason and revelation both affirm Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ attributes of perfection, such as knowledge, power, will, hearing, vision, speech, and life. These attributes of perfection are inherently incompatible with the idea that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ could act without wisdom. The occurrence of what Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ loves, at the time He loves, constitutes perfection. The absence of something before its divinely appointed time does not indicate fault. Pure reason dictates that an agent without wise purposes is more fault-prone than one who acts with wisdom, even if that wisdom manifests only when it is meant to. In the same text,
“Pure reason and the sound innate disposition have corroborated what the Qur'an and the Sunna prove: that God (Glory be to Him) is the Most Wise and He does not do anything in vain or without benefit or wisdom. Instead, all of the Sublime's actions have intended objectives and proceed from His far-reaching wisdom. Likewise they are originated through causes. His words and those of His Messenger all substantiate the above. There exist such a great number of instances that they cannot all be listed individually, but we will recount some… He is praiseworthy for His intention of the act, for His action itself, and for the occurrence of His praiseworthy objective [of that act]. The deniers (the Ash'aris) of His wisdom and causality do not consider Him praiseworthy for His intention nor for the occurrence of the objective, because they consider it impossible for Him to intend it, rather it occurred only by accident. It is self evident that an agent is not praiseworthy for an action of objective if he does not intend it. The sole occurrence of an action----which emanates from an agent having no intended objective is not praiseworthy… The Qur'an is replete with examples of this [type]. The Exalted informs us that His ruling regarding matters is in accordance with His wisdom and justice, and that it is the same for something similar or comparable. If we were to enumerate every example therein it would require a separate book… He also informed us that only His enemies claim that His creation is in vain, not His saints: And We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in vain. That is the opinion of those who disbelieve. How can anyone who knows Him say that He has not created for wise ends that He intends, or commanded and prohibited things for wise reasons. They claim instead that His creating and commandments emanate solely as a result of His will and power devoid of wisdom or intended objective. Does this not represent anything but a rejection of the reality of His praiseworthiness? In actuality, His creation and commandments were established for wise purposes and objectives that are manifestations of His praiseworthiness and His wisdom. Thus, to deny [His] wisdom is to deny the reality of His creating and commandments. These deniers (the Ash'aris) have instead claimed that [His] creation and commandments are devoid of mercy, benefit or wisdom----the Lord is infallible and exalted above this being attributed to Him. It is possible in their doctrine that He would command something having no benefit whatsoever to those who are charged with it, or that He would forbid something which is beneficial. Everything [in their thinking] is equal in His estimation. Furthermore, in their doctrine He could have instead commanded what He has forbidden and vice versa; there is no [determining factor except His will]. It is also possible in their doctrine that He could punish someone who never disobeyed Him, but instead spent his whole life in obedience, thankfulness and remembrance of Him; or that He could grant His blessing [and reward] to someone who never obeyed Him, but instead spent whole life in disbelief, polytheism, committing injustice and immorality. They [claim that the] only way to reject their doctrine is if the message of the Prophet [explicitly denies it] otherwise all of the aforementioned is permissible. These are again the most repugnant and worst types his of thoughts regarding the Lord (Glory be to Him)...”
Pure reason and the sound fitra align with the Qur’an and Sunnah in confirming that Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ is the Most Wise, and His actions are never in vain but are full of wisdom and purpose. As shown previously, the Qur’an and hadith provide numerous instances where Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions are depicted as being wise and purposeful. For an action to be praiseworthy, the agent must intend the action and its praiseworthy objective and therefore, the Ash’ari denial of divine intention behind actions leads to a view where Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions are seen as accidental, stripping them of praiseworthiness. The Qur’an explicitly rejects the idea that creation is purposeless. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ states that the heavens and the earth were not created in vain, and only disbelievers hold such a view. Denying divine wisdom and purpose in creation and commandments implies a view that Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions are arbitrary, devoid of mercy, benefit, or wisdom. Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions are not arbitrary and if they were then He could command actions that are harmful for no reason. All where the Asharites differ from us stem from the heretic Jahm b. Safwan and the influence of Aristotle. Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ perfection is absolute and immutable and His actions are manifestations of His inherent attributes of wisdom, mercy, and justice, rather than changes or additions to His essence. His attributes are not contingent upon human actions but are rather the means through which they are displayed in the world. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ is self-sufficient and independent, with creation being entirely dependent on Him.
As for time, the Asharites believe that God is outside of time and therefore does not act in succession. The Atharis have a different view of time such that time is purely relational between events rather than being a substance that exists like a created entity. The events are Allah’s سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ actions as He does one thing after the other as evident through the Quran and Hadiths. Time also refers to the change of the celestial bodies such as the Sun and the Moon which are used to calculate prayer times and makes the Islamic calendar respectively. The Asharite conception of God cannot be a personal God for this reason. A God outside of time is a static God that acts eternally and does not change. For example, God’s love for the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the same before creating him, before his prophethood, and after. The same applies for before God created anything and after God created you. Therefore, God’s love is not personal unless God is a dynamic creator who hears our prayers and directly responds in time which is the Athari position and the position of the Quran and Hadiths.
As for space,“Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven in the last third of every night, and he says: Who is calling upon me that I may answer him? Who is asking from me that I may give him? Who is seeking my forgiveness that I may forgive him?” (Sahih Bukhari 1094)
The descending is in a modality unknown and known only to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ and is not like the descending of the creation. We affirm the meaning alone. For any scriptural texts that describe Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ in ways that might imply a time or place, the wording of these texts is accepted while their modality is left to the unseen. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said,
“If what he means by saying that Allah is beyond place is that no place could encompass Him – may He be glorified and exalted – then this is correct, for nothing of His creation can encompass Allah, may He be exalted; He is too great and too exalted to be encompassed by anything. How can it be otherwise, when “the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand” [az-Zumar 39:67]? But if what he intends when saying that Allah is beyond place is to deny the exaltedness of Allah, then this is not correct; rather it is false according to the evidence of the Qur’an and Sunnah, the consensus of the early generations, reason and sound common sense. It is proven from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he said to the slave woman: “Where is Allah?” She said: Up above (meaning above the heaven). He said to her master: “Manumit her, for she is a believing woman.” Narrated by Muslim (537). Everyone who calls upon Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, can only think of Him being on high. This is instinctive to the human nature (fitrah) that Allah has instilled in people. No one thinks otherwise except one whom the devils have confused. You will not find anyone whose nature is sound calling upon Allah and thinking of Him as being to the right or to the left or down below, or any other direction. Rather he will only think of Him as being up above. (Majmoo‘ Fataawa wa Rasaa’il Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (1/196-197))
first
ReplyDeleteKys
Delete