GURUKUL LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH

INSTITUTE,CHENNAI

Sub: Islam

Topic : Ashrites

Submitted to : Rev. Dr. Thomas Birla

Submitted By : Jessy

Class : BD III

ASHARITES

Introduction

Asharites means in Islam, school of theology supporting the use of reason and speculative
theology (kalām) to defend the faith.

Asharism is the name of a philosophico-religious school of thought in Islam that developed

during the fourth and fifth/tenth and eleventh centuries. This movement was “an attempt not
only to purge Islam of all non-Islamic elements which had quietly crept into it but also to
harmonize the religious consciousness with the religious thought of Islam.”1

Who are the Ash'arites?

Ash‘aris are those who adhere to Imam Abu Hasan al-Ash‘ari in his school of theology, and
before we understand what this school of theology is we should know who Abu Hasan al-
Ash‘ari was.Imam Abu Hasan al-Ash‘ari and scholarly praise for him.

Understanding the aspects of Ashari thought that are criticized

Orthodox theology of Sunni Islam, both the Ashari and Maturidi schools, is clear in all
aspects of theology. However, most who criticize these schools have been ignorant of the
school’s tenants of belief in God and this has to do with “additions to God” or what is
technically referred to as “attributes that God has informed us of ”

This confusion has its roots in certain Quranic words which God has added in His book, and
some people seek to affirm these extra attributes in their literal linguistic meaning which
amounts to anthropomorphism. The people of truth, however, understand these attributes are
not meant for us to establish literally since they are obscure. This opinion holds that these
attributes cannot be established by intellection, and only from the fact that we have been
informed of them through the revelation of the Quran. These attributes, therefore, are to be
accepted the way they are without trying to derive from their linguistic, literal meanings. The

1
https://www.al-islam.org/history-muslim-philosophy-volume-1-book-3/chapter-11-asharism accessed on 11-
08-2022.
reason being is that the literal, linguistic meanings are counter to the tenants of belief in God.
This opinion is that of the early Sunni theologians, those who were first called Asharis. The
later Ashari theologians, however, took a slightly different route; one of interpretation. These
scholars held it better to establish a meaning, even from an obscure word or theme, rather
than fall into anthropomorphism and its necessaries. Both the early and late Sunni theologians
are in agreement that the best approach is to pass over these passages without describing and
interpreting them as well as not believing in the literal meaning that leads to
anthropomorphism. The later theologians, however, added that one only understands from
these attributes what is becoming of God. This is as if to say to the opponents, “if you must
understand these attributes then do so only in a way that is becoming of God. So say o
opponents the eye of God is His care for His creation as is in His statement ‘in order that thou
may be reared under Mine eye.’ However never say that the eye of God is actual!” Therefore
one can say that the early theologians’ method was one of belief and the later theologians’
method was one of debate.

This is the methodology of Sunni theology in dealing with these obscure words, which if
taken literally will lead to anthropomorphism. This is why al-Hafidh al-Iraqi stated
concerning the “face or countenance of God” which occurs so often in the Qur’an and Sunna,
“in understanding this there are two opinions: one, to pass over it as it is without asking how.
So one believes in it fully and resigns its meaning to the One who posses this meaning with
firm conviction that there is none like unto God. Two, its interpretation in a way that is
becoming of God’s essence so the meaning of the face or countenance of God is His
existence.” And he means that those who posses these opinions are the people of truth.

Al-Ash'ari maintains an intermediary position between the two diametrically opposed schools
of thought prevailing at the time. He had to fight against both the opposing parties. At the one
extreme were the Mu'tazilites who made reason in preference to revelation the sole criterion
of truth and reality and, thus, passed slowly into comparatively innocuous heretics. At the
other extreme were the orthodox groups, particularly the Zahirites, the Mujassimites
(anthropomorphists), the Muhaddithin (Traditionists), and the Jurists, all of which were
wholly opposed to the use of reason or Kalam in defending or explaining religious dogmas
and condemned any discussion about them as innovation. Al-Ash'ari wrote his Istihsan
al-Khaud mainly to meet the objections raised by the orthodox school against the use of
reason in matters of faith.

In that treatise he says: “A section of the people (i.e., the Zahirites and other orthodox people)
made capital out of their own ignorance; discussions and rational thinking about matters of
faith became a heavy burden for them, and, therefore, they became inclined to blind faith and
blind following (taqlid). They condemned those who tried to rationalize the principles of
religion as `innovators.'2

They considered discussion about motion, rest, body, accident, colour, space, atom, the
leaping of atoms, and attributes of God, to be an innovation and a sin. They said that had such
discussions been the right thing, the Prophet and his Companions would have definitely done
2
Qadi ‘Add and Sayyid Sharif, Mawaqif, vol. IV, p. 182; Musallam al-Thubut, p. 114.
so; they further pointed out that the Prophet, before his death, discussed and fully explained
all those matters which were necessary from the religious point of view, leaving none of them
to be discussed by his followers; and since he did not discuss the problems mentioned above,
it was evident that to discuss them must be regarded as an innovation.”

They further contended that these so-called theological problems were either known to the
Prophet and his Companions and yet they kept silent and did not discuss them or they were
not known to them. If they knew them and yet did not discuss them, we are also to follow
them in keeping silent, and if they could remain unaware of them we can also do so. In both
cases discussion about them would be an “innovation.” These were, in brief, their objections
against the use of Kalam in matters of faith.

Al-Ash'ari, then, proceeds to justify theological discussions about matters of faith. He

tries to meet these objections in three ways.

First, by turning the objections of the orthodox against themselves by pointing out to them
that the Prophet had not said that those who would discuss these problems were to be
condemned and charged as innovators. Hence, their charging or condemning others as
innovators was itself an innovation, for it amounted to discussion about matters which the
Prophet did not discuss, and condemn the action of those whom the Prophet did not condemn.

Secondly, “the Prophet was not unaware of all these problems of body, accident, motion, rest,
atoms, etc., though he did not discuss each of them separately. The general principles (usul)
underlying these problems are present in general, not in details, in the Qur'an and the
Sunnah.” Al-Ash'ari then proceeds to prove his contention by citing verses from the Qur'an
and the sayings of the Prophet, and thereby showing that the principles underlying the
problems of harakah, sukun, tawhid, etc., are, as a matter of fact, present in the Qur'an and
the Sunnah.3

Thirdly, “the Prophet was not unaware of these matters and knew them in detail, but as
problems about them did not arise during his life-time, there was no question of his
discussing or not discussing them.” The Companions of the Prophet discussed and argued
about many religious matters which appeared during their life-time, although there was no
direct and explicit “saying” of the Prophet about them, and because of the absence of any
explicit injunction from the Prophet they differed in their judgments about them.4

The main problems about which the Ash'arites differed from the Mu'tazilites are:

1. The conception of God and the nature of His attributes.

2. Freedom of the human will.
3. The criterion of truth and the standard of good and evil.
4. The vision (ru’yah) of God.
5. Createdness of the Qur'an.
6. Possibility of burdening the creatures with impossible tasks.
3
https://www.al-islam.org/history-muslim-philosophy-volume-1-book-3/chapter-11-asharism accessed on 12-
08-2022.
4
Dhahabi, Mizan al-I`tidal (Allahabad edition), pp. 179-93; al-Ash'ari, al -Maqalat, pp. 582-602.
 7. Promise of reward and threat of punishment.
8. The rational or non-rational basis of God's actions.
9. Whether God is bound to do what is best for His creatures.

According to the Ash'arites, God is one, unique, eternal, existent Being;

He is not a substance, not a body, not an accident, not limited to any direction, and not in any
space. He possesses attributes such as knowledge, power, life, will; He is hearing and seeing
and has speech. About the nature of divine attributes two extreme views were held before the
Ash'arites. On the one hand, there were the extreme Attributists (Sifatis), the
Anthropomorphists (Mujassimin), and the Comparers (Mushabbihin), who maintained that
God possesses all the attributes mentioned in the Qur'an and that all such attributes as God's
having hands, legs, ears, eyes, and His sitting firmly (istiwa) on His Throne must be taken in
their literal sense.

Such a view of the attributes of God is pure anthropomorphism, implying God's bodily
existence. On the other hand, there were the Mu'tazilites who held that God is one, eternal,
unique, absolute Being, having no touch of dualism in Him. His essence is self-contained. He
does not possess any attributes apart from His essence. His essence is, for instance, knowing,
powerful, seeing, willing, etc. They denied the attributes of God as anything other than and
addition to His essence.

The Ash'arites maintained a view which was, so to say, a reconciliation between the two
extreme views. In agreement with the Sifatis and in opposition to the Mu'tazilites and the
“philosophers” (those who were under Greek influence), the Ash'arites held that God
possesses attributes in general. They classified the attributes of God into two main groups:

(i) sifat-i salbiyyah, or negative attributes, and

(ii) sifat-i wujudiyyah or existential or positive attributes. According to them, the
sifat-i wujudiyyah, which they also called sifat-i `aqliyyah or rational attributes,
were seven: knowledge, power, will, life, hearing, seeing, and speech.

The extreme Sifatis asserted that even those attributes of God which imply His bodily
existence are also to be taken in their true literal sense. As against them, the Ash'arites
maintained that God possesses the apparently anthropomorphic attributes no doubt, but these
should be understood not in their literal sense. They are to be believed in bila kaifa, without
asking “how,” and bila tashbih, without drawing any comparison.5

5
Al-Ash'ari, al-Ibanah, p. 47.