Shibi zaman says
The Islamic theological creeds or "`Aqa'id" that people divide themselves over today were at one time a source of protection from the influences of various philosophies the Muslims encountered as their domain spread at an unprecedented rate unseen in history before it. As Hellenic philosophies crept into the theological creeds of the Muslims, just as had occurred with the Jews and Christians before them, the works of the Atharis, Ash`aris and Maturidis against the Aristotelianism of the Mu`tazilis and other groups saved Sunnism.
Today, Aristotelianism isn't a threat to the Muslim world and hasn't been for hundreds of years. Neo-Atheism, Darwinism and Materialism are just some of the challenges the Muslims face for which no Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ari, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, or Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali have risen to the occasion. While these challenges are unaddressed, still arguing Atharism over Ash`arism and vice-versa is to use what was once medicine as poison.
Medicine is life saving within its prescribed application and prior to its expiration date. Other than that, it is poison.
In an era when quantum mechanics and relativity are the standard staples of college level students, to be discussing whether God physically sits in a chair is not only poison, it's an outright lobotomization of our collective intellect.
Every point mentioned in this piece that Shibli Zaman stated therein is true except for the statement in bold above. The statement in bold is as follows
The Islamic theological creeds or "`Aqa'id" that people divide themselves over today were at one time a source of protection from the influences of various philosophies the Muslims encountered as their domain spread at an unprecedented rate unseen in history before it.
I was asked to provide a commentary on this post by shaykh Shibli by a couple of brothers on facebook.
We will regard as true everything Shibli stated after this initial statement IN BOLD so as to deflect any non applicable and definitely non constructive criticisms of anyone who believe in this very sentiment from his speech. What is being critiqued exclusively here is this single and initial statement of his.
1. Shaykh Shibli Zaman follows a particilar view, the view which was canonized in the later medieval era. There are others who concede to this viewpoint like our brother Suhaib Webb, possibly Musa Ferber (although I havent verified this, but I'am almost sure) and of course the whole of the Ash'ari and Maturidi movement who subscribe to this viewpoint.
So what is that premise?
2. The premise is constructed on the following formula
"Ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah are three: Ash'aris, Maturidis, and Atharis".
A highly polemical partisan by the name of Abdur-Rahman as-Sondalaani qualifies this statement saying
"Ahlu-Sunnah in aqeedah are three and they are the atharis, ash’aris,. and maturidis. However, in Kalaam, Ahlu-sunnah are two, ash’aris and Maturidis, and why this is so is because the hanbalis (atharis) exited their madhaab from the realm of kalaam discussions"
This premise indicates, by way of apparent conclusions, that Allah did not retain a singular creedal platform for Muslims to have an understanding of Him that He Himself is Pleased with. Of course nobody has this intention, rather this is just the unintended result of the premise. The basis of this premise from the mutakalimeen who made it up was to absorb these once considered heterodox ideologies (maturidism and Ash'arism) by all of ahlu-sunnah, into the fold of ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah. The end result is a pluralism in Islamic creed. What even further makes no sense to the human intellect is that these three creeds are diverging in nature. So how does Islam retain a contradictory belief system? Even worse, how did Allah sanction three diametrically composed belief systems in His book and in the sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ. Now. Am I some jahil commoner bandit muslim trying to cause dissent with my evaluation stated above? Am I alone? The answer of course is a resounding no.
Imam as-Safareeni al-Hanbali رحمه الله in his commentary on creed, Lawami’ Al-Anwar Al-Bahiyya wa Sawati’ al-Asrar al-Athariya Li Sharh Ad-Durra al-Madiyya fi ‘aqd al-Firqa al-Mardiyya, mentions the following
"Some scholars said: (the saved sect) meaning, Ahl al-Hadeeth, i.e. the Atharis, the Ash’aris and the Maturidis"
From what I have encountered, no scholar in Islamic history before or during as-Safarini’s time has made this statement, ever. Nevertheless the fact that he says “some scholars said” is apparently something he heard that may have been going around or something he came across. Whatever the case, it is apparent that this premise is not something he agrees with. In fact his very explanation of this statement proves this.
He states
I say: The wording of the Hadeeth, i.e. The Prophet’s statement: ‘except one sect’, contradicts the idea of multiplicity, and thus I said:
This text (about the saved sect) cannot be applied to any sect save the Ahl al-Athar’ (1/76)
The basis of this kalam based premise is on the interpretation, out of all people, a statement made by Imam Ahmad when he explained the meaning of the hadeeth of the saved sect, his interpretation being "it is the ahlul-hadeeth wal-athar" apparently after 5 centuries of the Muslim ummah understanding their creed as one creed, a handful of mutakalim scholars in Safarini's time must have come up with a brilliant idea of how to infuse their heterodox ideologies into the fold of ahlu-sunnah. And so they've managed to do this through interpreting Imam Ahmad's explanation of "ahlul-hadeeth wal-athar" to include "atharis, Ash'aris, and maturidis".
Clearly, the Imam of the Atharis of his time, noted that this idea contradicts the hadith of the Messenger verbatim stating the phrase "saved secT". He is basically implying that this idea of "multiplicity" (what we would identify as pluralism in our times) contradicts the sunnah. I, the ummah for 7 centuries prior to this invented concept, and the orthodox atharis from time immemorial have always remained unwavering about the single Islamic creed and consider it strange to consider this premise as a premise by which is accepted, or that makes sense for that matter.
The second point embedded in Shibli's statement was that these diverging creeds were "a source of protection"
What protection is our brother talking about???
Does the audience understand what happened when ash'arism was first introduced into the Muslim ummah after 300 AH. How did the existing ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah respond to the dialectic that al-Ash'ari رحمه الله came with? How did Imam at-Tabari ash-Shafi'ee respond to al-Ash'ari, nevermind the rest of the athari hanbalis of the day.
The then ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah did not view the "Ash'aris" (at the time, al-Ash'ari and a handful of followers) as a "source of protection from the influences of philosophies" as Shaykh Shibli asserts here. They viewed the upstart of this newly concocted ideology as yet another branch in the onslaught of ilmul-kalaam sects to further war with ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah. Even its proto-ashari source, the kullabi doctrine, was taken by the orthodix aimah at the time as one of the seventy three sects. This marks the entrance of Ash'arism in the muslim world. The same with Maturidism in the east in Khorasan with Abu Mansur. Ash'aris and Maturidis are groups of kalaam, intrinsically proved from their own creedal stances, affirmed by the then ahlu-sunnah of their time, as well as affirmed by Ash'aris and Maturidis by their own admittance. If we couple this with the insurmountable refutations of every scholar on earth at the time against kalaam, how on earth can atharis assume that kalam based ideologies, by which all three are diametrically opposed might I add, could somehow be an Islamically validated creedal belief. How is three divergent creeds accepted as one. This premise is literally as theologically flagrant and illogical as the Christian creed of the Divine One actually being three. The concept of a triune god contradicts the actuality of tawheed just as Imam as-Safarini claims (and most Muslims agree) that the concept of multiple divergent/contradicting belief systems for the saved sect intrinsically contradicts the Islamic message of one.
Are we to somehow omit the fact that when anthropomorphism ceased to exist once the shia adopted mutazilism in the early third century, that the Ash'aris and Maturidis managed to transfer the "relevance" of the "threat of anthropomorphism" at the seat of the ahlu-sunnah, the athari hanbalis, shafi'ees and Maalikis at the time. Are we to omit that the ahlu-sunnah viewed the Ash'aris as an offshoot of the jahmiyyah, often times calling them "mu'atillah" i.e. Deniers of the sifaat. If Ash'aris "affirm" the sifaat as they claim, why does Ibul-Qayyim identify the Ash'aris as "mu'atillah" in his "nooniyyah", and he wasnt talking about actual jahmis. Are we to simply omit that Ibnul-Qudamah regarded the Ash'aris as the dajjal incarnate and almost hinting towards a takfeer of them. Are we to omit that the doctrine of kalam nafsi developed by Ash'aris is the belief of the jahmiyyah among the m'utazilah as affirmed by Imamul-Haramayn Ibnul-Juwayni رحمه الله, that the Qur'an is actually created. A belief that no one under the sky has regarded except in the light of kufr that expels from Islam. At least this is the age old traditionalists (athari) argument.
Why am I stating all of these extremely sensationalized polemics here? I'm not stating them here to revive such polemics wa iyaadhu billah. I have personal friends who are Ash'aris and I love them. I highly respect some Ash'ari and Maturidi students and shaykhs like Shams aduha and others. The purpose of highlighting this is to exemplify that Shibli's statement is from all angles and approaches, a mistaken comment from left, right, and center. As well as inside, outside, above and below loool. It has no basis at least in the basic shariah unless one wants to incorperate a concoction of later scholars as part of that shariah. It is devoid of any historical precedent and in my opinion, a byproduct of some delusional form of unity. True unity does not come about from this fashion and angle by altering history or by altering principles of the sunnah, i.e. Making the saved sect the Messenger ﷺ claimed, to be multiple.
However, what must be said for due justice, is that what seems to be the basis for this idea that these three fundamentally opposed creeds were a source of protection was with the Ash'ari front against the m'utazilah as well as the maturidiyya, and thus they championed the orthodoxy of sunnah, ahlu-sunnah, and the corruptions of the real deviants have been neutralized (example, the tahafut al-falsafiya by Imam Ghazali رحمه الله).
Everything Shibli stated afterwards was spot on. Furthermore, Im all for addressing these issues, which I have been addressing since 2008 since they are much more pressing than these age old polemics. But when bonifide Ash'ari mutakalimoon like Muhammad Ghilan, make asinine statements like blaming the essence of muslims adopting atheism at the doorstep of salafis and the salafi belief, completely disregarding the athari imams who have hinted that the Ash'ari belief is a type of non-existence of Allah (atheism), like adh-Dhahabi, Ibnul-Wazeer and others, its kind of hard to expect Muslims who are truly athari to unite at something that deeply entrenched in partisan polemics, and expect salafis to comply with such imbecilic deductions, and then accuse such members of our community of "stifling efforts towards unity".
Even I, infamously known for making the statement
"I have debated with the Ash'aris and it has become clear to me that they believe that Allah does not exist"
and for producing the publication titled "Asharism and Atheism: A Glimpse into Two Parallel Schools of Thoughts" don't even go as far as Muhammad Ghilan does and claim that the basis for Muslims becoming atheists is the "Ash'ari" belief.
Lastly, since this topic inevitably brings up the argument "some salafi scholars accepted Ash'aris as part of ahlu-sunnah". Im not going to argue over the details of this. The main point I wished to bring to light is that I, or many of us, do not need to hold such a faulty premise to agree to disagree with our Ash'ari and Maturidi brothers and to move on and unite upon good and address other more fundamental issues in the modern world that we are in, regardless if ignorant madkhalis interpret this as a "sign of ikhwaani manhaj"
There is a lot I have left out for the sake of brevity like an-Nawawi's statement between the school of the salaf and that of the khalaf and others similar to it, and those deductions dont directly imply that the creed of ahlu-sunnah is actually three creeds or two. Moreover logically within the paradigm of each creedal madhab, none of them validate the other's interpretation on that which is disagreed over. Every theologian of each school for the past thousand years wrote their "itiqaad/aqaa'id" focused on their school to the exclusion of all else while interpreting their own singular creed as thee creed of ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah.
Concluding that we are one happy family singing cumbaya as laymen is a wonderful fairy tale story, but it has no pragmatic reality outside of its slogan-like ambitions.
How do we unite together in fighting these secular humanists ideologies with a big elephant in the room like atharis believing that Islamic divine scriptures of God must be understood in its obvious meaning while having Ash'aris telling the same camp of non-Muslims that holding such a belief is from the principles of disbelief and unIslamic, courtesy of Imam Sanusi and others.
Believe it or not, non-Muslims are much more informed and smarter than that. They will, at the very onset, notice this insanely contradictory premise that is being espoused and call us on it. How could a God intend for His believers to believe Him in one way and then the exact same God diametrically opposes Himself (audhubillah) and then stipulates to believe in the opposite method towards His same believers. This is literally leverage for Islamaphobes as a tool to attack us with, and it will be the first legitmate tool that they have. I'm actually surprised they haven't utilized this premise yet as a means to delegitimize Islam.
Needless to say, I dont think it is proper to adopt this concept but this shouldn't be used by zeolot fanatics to go off and begin hereticating people who adopt this idea. Its a methodological disagreement that shouldnt impede on unity and progress and Allah Knows Best.
Comments