Are Salafi Theological Stances Rationally Defensible?

Several critics try to portray Salafi stances on Sifat as being rationally absurd and indefensible to the point that it would constitute an intellectual threat to one’s Islam if he were to adopt them, especially if probed by non-Muslim ‘rationalists.’  

However, Salafis maintain that many of the stances held by their critics (e.g., divine timelessness, divine immutability, divine impassibility, etc.) do not only oppose the apparent reading of revelatory texts but are hardly definitively true.

Ironically, western philosophy in the past 200 years has growingly shifted to supporting stances that align with Salafism. This is a drastic shift and a severe blow to the supposed ‘certitude’ of the veracity of the opposing camp’s stances.[1]

For example, in this concise book, God and Emotion, Dr. Ryan Mullins tries to argue for a ‘passibilistic’ stance of affirming “emotions”[2] for God, which at its fundamental core, strongly resonates with the Salafi stance on literally affirming attributes for Allah such as wrath, mercy, etc. There are points made or modes of articulation in the book, which Salafis would shy away from.[3] Yet, some of the arguments therein provide a convincing rational basis for affirming such attributes as they exemplify the moral perfection of God.

Likewise, in his article, Divine Perfection and Creation, Dr. Mullins argues that it is very problematic to hold the view that God can create a universe while still holding that God is timeless and does not will over time. This is because an eternal cause must produce an eternal effect, but if an effect is temporal, so must be its cause (in this case, God’s willing that particular effect to exist). It is incoherent to affirm that no change is undertaken between God’s capacity to create and the actual act of creation. These basic Salafi contentions cause a serious blow to Asharis, who hold God to be timeless and immutable and therefore believe in a single pre-eternal will causing all effects to actualize later. Similarly, in his book, The End of the Timeless God, on pages 101-103, he puts forth a very ‘Salafi’ argument about the incompatibility of affirming divine timelessness and immutability while affirming that God created the universe ex-nihilo at some point in the finite past. This is because eternal wills cannot possibly give rise to temporal effects such as the universe. Hence, Allah, as stated in the Qur’an, surely must be periodically willing to turn temporal effects into actuality (Surah 36:82), just as Salafis affirm.

One may also consult Dr. William Lane Craig’s book, Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time, and see how he rebuts arguments in favor of divine timelessness and argues in favor of divine temporality (which Salafis affirm). I particularly like the argument on “divine knowledge of tensed facts,” as it is very rationally powerful and was even proffered brilliantly by Ibn Taymiyyah as well.

Moreover, Salafis would not only contend that their beliefs are rationally defensible but also rationally superior. Consider the rational superiority of their response to Euthyphro’s Dilemma,[4] in contrast to the rigid divine voluntarism of Asharis, which would make most people feel personally disturbed about its entailments. Or consider how Salafis avoid adopting the counterintuitive stance of occasionalism adopted by Asharis, or how Salafis adopt the commonsensical and intuitive stance that Allah creates with purpose.[5] It is no surprise why the masses adopt Salafi stances.[6]

Critics need to up their game. Long gone are the days when they think they could persist in dismissing their opponents on their intellectual high horses. They need to contend directly with the arguments convincingly and stay up to date with the latest discourse. And if they ponder and self-introspect seriously enough, they will come to realize what Salafis have been saying all along is true: that the bulk of conclusions reached by kalami discourse are speculative and should never be used as a basis for overriding the apparent reading of scripture![7]

---

[1] This keeps aside the fact that the arguments for these positions were also heatedly disagreed upon among the Mutakallimun themselves.

[2] Salafis have reservations about unrestrictedly using unscriptural terms like 'emotion' with respect to God due to certain inappropriate meanings and negative connotations it could imply.

[3] Like when he says that “God is capable of suffering” or that “God’s happiness is disturbed by what transpires in the universe.” Or his section on “The Unity Problem” and so on.

[4] See here.

[5] See here. One may also consult Dr. Mullins article, The Problem of Arbitrary Creation for Impassibility, where he argues that it is theologically problematic to hold the view that God creates arbitrarily without reason, as this would contradict His rationality (or what Salafis refers to as “wisdom”) and His goodness (or what Salafis would refer to as Allah’s kamal or perfection).

[6] See here.

[7] And I must stress, in case some people have misunderstood the point of this article, that Salafis do not engage in philosophical theology to establish their creeds. Furthermore, Salafis do not necessarily have to agree with all the arguments of these philosophers simply because their conclusions align with Salafi views. The only point of this article was to demonstrate that their stances are more than philosophically defensible.