We have mentioned before that merely being the majority school does not necessitate that the truth lies with that school; see Does It Matter If the Majority of Scholars Follow Your Theological School?
I don't think the "Ash'aris were predominant therefore they were (probably) right" line of argument is as important/common as the more salient "Ash'aris were predominant therefore they weren't *deviants*" line of argument (because, you can still be wrong and accept difference of opinion).
The alternative would be to condemn the vast array of the big scholars of our deen as not merely mistaken, but innovators. from ibn Hajar to al Ghazali. It would mean that our deen was preserved to us today by deviants, from the asaneed of our ahadeeth, to the qira'aat, to the books we all still learn our 'ilm from (e.g. waraqaat of Juwayni or fath al Bar. I don't think you can even say you studied usul al fiqh today without going through Juwayni or Ghazali).
It was not like Mu'tazilism which was excised out early, Ash'arism became (and remains) endemic to sunni Islam, such that it is impossible for someone who rejects the Ash'aris as ahlul bid'a to "reconstruct" an orthodoxy of sunnism that excludes them (even though the Najdi da'wah tried).
The way I see it, the only way sane way out of this is either (i) somehow mitigate their bid'ah in a way that you can say, these people are still good enough to learn our deen from, but still bad enough that you can condemn them with some of the harshest of terms. Or (ii), accept that their opinions are within a valid difference of opinion and at worst "wrong".
It looks like I somehow edited it out, but I meant to write that (i) seems contrived for its purpose; of allowing yourself some kind of superposition between treating it as ikhtilaaf and as bid'ah. Shia are mubtadi' from my perspective so I don't learn my deen from their books, and I don't have to make some kind of license out of necessity (which is what (i) feels like to me) in order to do so. If it was just a relative few scholars, fine, we can treat their works 'academically' but rely on the proper scholars to understand our deen from.
But that's not the case. Our deen comes from ahlul bida'h, if you take position (i). Which is a conclusion I personally find too damning to swallow, but I'd like to hear whether it's what you believe.
What’s so “contrived” about believing that a group has been comprised in a certain chunk of a specific discipline like aqeedah, but no so in others like fiqh, hadeeth, etc.? Why’s that logically problematic?
Also be careful to clarify what you mean when you say “you take your deen” from someone. It’s a loaded statement which could be undermined when probed.
Different user but same objection and different Aqeedah as well.
Because the specific discipline ( Aqeedah) ends up touching on most if not all subjects of Islam and is the central subject of Islam. It's not like one would silo one's belief on understanding Aqeedah without it affecting how they understood at least some hadith, verses of the Qur'an etc.
Not to mention still the problems that the concept of the majority does seem to mean something in Islam.
As for taken your deen from it seems he's referring to the relaying of Ilm through the world of the scholars presumably.
Frankly I don't consider any of your arguments for a exclusive Hanbali understanding of Islam. I would like to see you have a discussion with some people learned on Ashari Aqeedah. Instead of just article posts.
To Abu Ibrahim, I disagree. There is another matter that is not factored into this equation here.
There is a difference between a hukm bil-wasf vs a hukm al-ayn
The declarative insinuation “these scholars are wrong” does not necessarily equate 100% of the time to “they are mubtadia”. This is literally the Ash’ari/sufi line of reasoning where they omit the difference between the two.
So what generally happens is when we see characterizations of the salaf condemning kalam or declaring certain ideas as kufr or heretic, it does not necessarily mean that the holder of that idea defacto has the same ruling as the issue itself has the ruling. Yet anti salafist will argue for this line of reasoning i.e. “oh, so you’re saying an-nawawi was a misguided innovator”
2. Furthermore, most of the Qur’an we have preserved comes from much more severely indicted people with false beliefs. Most of the entire realm of usulul-fiqh was essentially developed by the m’utazilah.
Even in tafsir, and language transmittal, their impact in Islamic scientific legacy is actually more impactful than Ash’aris. Yet Ash’aris are not necessarily enthused about trying to incorporate them into the fold of ahlu-sunnah, and rightly so. So why would ahlu-sunnah be forced to do the same for any other group that has diverged from the legacy of Islamic orthodoxy.
I mean by this, that we dont see m’utazili propagandist arguing against us “oh, so you’re saying Zamakshari was a deviant” when we merely highlight that m’utazili beliefs are misguided.
Even in ahadith, there is a significant sector of innovator transmitters who transmit our deen. Many of them khawarij. Just as we are able to decipher and properly compartmentalize who and what to accept and weed out in all these issues, the same has already been done with regards to the impact that Ash’ari thinkers may have had on some of the Islamic sciences.
In short, I cant see or even fathom how the mere circumstantial reality the many people over time adopting an idea can somehow alter an already established orthodoxy to somehow perform a hybridization and absorb a set of beliefs into the fold for that would render the completion and even the narrative that the orthodoxy defined by the messenger ﷺ in the sunan as being obsolete/incomplete. Just as Safarini رحمه الله said in his sharh of lawam’i “the saying of the Messenger ‘save only one’ contradicts the idea of multiplicity” when he commented on the idea that ahlu-sunnah can have multiple sects into it (Ash’aris, maturidis, atharis)
The Ash'ari differ from the Companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the Tabi'in and the tabi' tabi'iin in Aqiidah and many other things, and their founder, that they attribute their ascription to Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari, was not the same in belief as they are. Rather, it was the ash'ari belief (similar, if not the same, as the that of the Mu'tazila) he left to make the school, had subsequent generations not come back to that belief what he left behind. NOT that both were opposed to the prophet's and the companions and the 4 imams and about 200 years following the prophet. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was beet and tortured because he refused to subscribe to it.
I don't think the "Ash'aris were predominant therefore they were (probably) right" line of argument is as important/common as the more salient "Ash'aris were predominant therefore they weren't *deviants*" line of argument (because, you can still be wrong and accept difference of opinion).
The latter might be slightly more convincing as a circumstantial argument, but still flawed.
Care to elaborate?
The alternative would be to condemn the vast array of the big scholars of our deen as not merely mistaken, but innovators. from ibn Hajar to al Ghazali. It would mean that our deen was preserved to us today by deviants, from the asaneed of our ahadeeth, to the qira'aat, to the books we all still learn our 'ilm from (e.g. waraqaat of Juwayni or fath al Bar. I don't think you can even say you studied usul al fiqh today without going through Juwayni or Ghazali).
It was not like Mu'tazilism which was excised out early, Ash'arism became (and remains) endemic to sunni Islam, such that it is impossible for someone who rejects the Ash'aris as ahlul bid'a to "reconstruct" an orthodoxy of sunnism that excludes them (even though the Najdi da'wah tried).
The way I see it, the only way sane way out of this is either (i) somehow mitigate their bid'ah in a way that you can say, these people are still good enough to learn our deen from, but still bad enough that you can condemn them with some of the harshest of terms. Or (ii), accept that their opinions are within a valid difference of opinion and at worst "wrong".
Looks like you answered your own question in the first point of the last paragraph.
It looks like I somehow edited it out, but I meant to write that (i) seems contrived for its purpose; of allowing yourself some kind of superposition between treating it as ikhtilaaf and as bid'ah. Shia are mubtadi' from my perspective so I don't learn my deen from their books, and I don't have to make some kind of license out of necessity (which is what (i) feels like to me) in order to do so. If it was just a relative few scholars, fine, we can treat their works 'academically' but rely on the proper scholars to understand our deen from.
But that's not the case. Our deen comes from ahlul bida'h, if you take position (i). Which is a conclusion I personally find too damning to swallow, but I'd like to hear whether it's what you believe.
What’s so “contrived” about believing that a group has been comprised in a certain chunk of a specific discipline like aqeedah, but no so in others like fiqh, hadeeth, etc.? Why’s that logically problematic?
Also be careful to clarify what you mean when you say “you take your deen” from someone. It’s a loaded statement which could be undermined when probed.
Different user but same objection and different Aqeedah as well.
Because the specific discipline ( Aqeedah) ends up touching on most if not all subjects of Islam and is the central subject of Islam. It's not like one would silo one's belief on understanding Aqeedah without it affecting how they understood at least some hadith, verses of the Qur'an etc.
Not to mention still the problems that the concept of the majority does seem to mean something in Islam.
As for taken your deen from it seems he's referring to the relaying of Ilm through the world of the scholars presumably.
Frankly I don't consider any of your arguments for a exclusive Hanbali understanding of Islam. I would like to see you have a discussion with some people learned on Ashari Aqeedah. Instead of just article posts.
our deen ocmes form the prophet and the shabah and those who followed them in everything. not form shaykh so and so
we take form Ulama when tehy follow the quran and sunnah
if ur shaykh said zina is halal is that an excuse in front of allah to do it of course not
To Abu Ibrahim, I disagree. There is another matter that is not factored into this equation here.
There is a difference between a hukm bil-wasf vs a hukm al-ayn
The declarative insinuation “these scholars are wrong” does not necessarily equate 100% of the time to “they are mubtadia”. This is literally the Ash’ari/sufi line of reasoning where they omit the difference between the two.
So what generally happens is when we see characterizations of the salaf condemning kalam or declaring certain ideas as kufr or heretic, it does not necessarily mean that the holder of that idea defacto has the same ruling as the issue itself has the ruling. Yet anti salafist will argue for this line of reasoning i.e. “oh, so you’re saying an-nawawi was a misguided innovator”
2. Furthermore, most of the Qur’an we have preserved comes from much more severely indicted people with false beliefs. Most of the entire realm of usulul-fiqh was essentially developed by the m’utazilah.
Even in tafsir, and language transmittal, their impact in Islamic scientific legacy is actually more impactful than Ash’aris. Yet Ash’aris are not necessarily enthused about trying to incorporate them into the fold of ahlu-sunnah, and rightly so. So why would ahlu-sunnah be forced to do the same for any other group that has diverged from the legacy of Islamic orthodoxy.
I mean by this, that we dont see m’utazili propagandist arguing against us “oh, so you’re saying Zamakshari was a deviant” when we merely highlight that m’utazili beliefs are misguided.
Even in ahadith, there is a significant sector of innovator transmitters who transmit our deen. Many of them khawarij. Just as we are able to decipher and properly compartmentalize who and what to accept and weed out in all these issues, the same has already been done with regards to the impact that Ash’ari thinkers may have had on some of the Islamic sciences.
In short, I cant see or even fathom how the mere circumstantial reality the many people over time adopting an idea can somehow alter an already established orthodoxy to somehow perform a hybridization and absorb a set of beliefs into the fold for that would render the completion and even the narrative that the orthodoxy defined by the messenger ﷺ in the sunan as being obsolete/incomplete. Just as Safarini رحمه الله said in his sharh of lawam’i “the saying of the Messenger ‘save only one’ contradicts the idea of multiplicity” when he commented on the idea that ahlu-sunnah can have multiple sects into it (Ash’aris, maturidis, atharis)
The Ash'ari differ from the Companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the Tabi'in and the tabi' tabi'iin in Aqiidah and many other things, and their founder, that they attribute their ascription to Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash'ari, was not the same in belief as they are. Rather, it was the ash'ari belief (similar, if not the same, as the that of the Mu'tazila) he left to make the school, had subsequent generations not come back to that belief what he left behind. NOT that both were opposed to the prophet's and the companions and the 4 imams and about 200 years following the prophet. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was beet and tortured because he refused to subscribe to it.
However unlike that Shia, we do not do takfir as it is closer to deviance and misinterpretation than disbelief.
Maasha Allaah very well written. The last sentence said: ”Such an argument should intellectually intimate nobody.” “Intimidate” typo. 👍