We have mentioned before that merely being the majority school does not necessitate that the truth lies with that school 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.
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.
Maasha Allaah very well written. The last sentence said: ”Such an argument should intellectually intimate nobody.” “Intimidate” typo. 👍