Does It Matter If the Majority of Scholars Follow Your Theological School?

Ultimately, not as much as we might think. [1] Scholars from all theological schools would stress this point, especially in eras when they are the minority. They would stress the importance of following the truth regardless of how few a group is, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself even spoke about how the people of truth will be few and that the Jama’ah are those who have the evidence and are upon the truth regardless of their number.[2]

Take the Asha’ris, for example. They have been the dominant theological school for nearly a millennium now,[3] but has this always been the case?[4]

Let's consider Ibn Kullab (d. 241 A.H.) and Imam Al-Harith al-Muhasibi (d. 243 A.H.), who are regarded by many as proto-Asha’ris due to their affirmation of the attributes yet held some views that Asha’ris later embraced. We find that they were heavily resisted for their views by Imam Ahmad and his camp, so much so that it is said that only four people could attend Al-Muhasibi’s funeral.

Imam Ahmad’s influence and popularity are undeniable, and his disapproval of the views of these two scholars, in addition to his call to boycott them, is all well too documented. Thus, how could it be that proto-Asha’ris dominated the scholarship of this period? Hanbali scholars in aqeedah were confidently proclaiming their anti-Ash’ari beliefs as enjoying the acceptance of the majority.[5]

Suppose we fast forward two generations later to Imam Abul Hassan Al-Ash’ari’s (d. 324 A.H.) time. In that case, we find him struggling to attain the approval of the Hanbalis of his time, who were suspicious of his views and his claimed ascription to the theological school of Imam Ahmad. The Hanbalis dominated Baghdad, the caliphate capital at the time, and they were indisputably the most influential theological school of their time. Abul Hassan Al-Asha’ri struggled to gain their approval and tried to convince them that he was, in fact, following the theology of Imam Ahmad,[6] but his attempts failed.[7]

More than two centuries later, the Ash’aris still had to defend themselves against the charge that they were the minority and were thus upon falsehood. One such Ash’ari scholar was Ibn Asaakir )d. 571 A.H.), who in his book, Tabyeen Kidhb al-Muftari, argued that despite the majority of the Ummah not following Imam Ash’ari’s creed, it was not relevant, for as he argued, the opinions and stances of the laity do not essentially matter. Rather, he argued that what ultimately matters is the scholars' opinion.[8] He was not alone in his reasoning.[9]

However, it must be pointed out that even when it came to scholars, the Ash’aris were still not a majority during the time of Ibn Asaakir. Ibn Asaakir tried to compile a list of Ash’ari scholars until his time, and they barely exceeded 80-90 scholars.[10] However, this is a tiny number considering that more than two centuries passed since Abul Hassan al-Asha’ri’s death and that scholarship flourished back in those days compared to our times.  

Moreover,[11] up until Ibn Asaakir’s time, Hanbalis could list significantly more scholars.[12] This is notwithstanding separate lists of scholars that could be found in polemical theological works such as Ibn Qudamah’s, Ithbaat Sifat al-‘Uluww, and Imam adh-Dhahabi’s, Kitab al-‘Uluww, where they sought to appeal to hundreds of scholars who held beliefs in opposition to Ash’aris.

Perhaps the most evident proof demonstrating that the Ash’aris were a minority is history itself. One should just simply read about how Ash’arism spread over time[13] and the people’s theological beliefs before they dominated the regions they did.[14] A good work to check out would be George Makidisi’s two-part article series entitled “Ash’ari and the Asha’rites in Islamic Religious History.”[15]

In conclusion, does it matter if most scholars follow your theological school? Perhaps an exceptionally persuasive argument could be made if one could demonstrate that the majority of the earliest generations of scholars adopted a certain theological school given their chronological proximity to the Sahabah and how enough of time still did not pass for any falsehood to have crept into the Ummah and sway the majority of the scholars to the wrong theological direction. The dominant theological schools are wary of this, so they all try to claim the earliest generation of scholars for themselves by asserting that their theological beliefs align with their own.

Keeping this exception aside, I hope this article has made it clear that to simply claim that one is upon the truth simply because the majority of scholars at a given point in time ascribe to their school is not a persuasive argument.

Recommended Reading:

Can All These Ash’ari Scholars Be Wrong?

Is Ash'arism the Theology of the Masses?

Allah's Divine Attributes Discourse

---

[1] There is certainly value in knowing the opinions of the majority of scholars; see the book, Qadhiyyat al-Aghlabiyyah min al-Wijha ash-Shar’iyyah, by Shaykh Ahmad ar-Raysuni.

We should be prompted to at least ask why the majority of Muslim scholars adopt a certain stance; however, it is important to note several factors when it comes to the context of aqeedah: 1) Are we assessing the opinions of all scholars regardless of their specialization in aqeedah or only those scholars that do (i.e., mujtahid theologians)? 2)  Are there alternative explanations for why most scholars adopted a certain theological school (e.g., political pressure and backing, limited options given geographical location and upbringing, social pressure, career protection, etc.)? 3) Is the majority significant or not significant (e.g., is it a 55% majority or a 95% majority, etc.)? 4) Has a particular theological school always been the majority, or did it only become so at a certain point in time? And if it has always been, are we genuinely willing to accept any implications if, at some point in the future, it becomes reduced to a minority?

So much more could be said, but it suffices to be said that a mere majority, especially one that does not border too closely with being a consensus, is not considered by anybody to be definitive proof of the truth of a certain belief.

[2] Ibn Mas’ud is reported to have said that the Jama’ah are those who follow the truth, even if alone:

الجماعة ما وافق الحق وَلَوْ كنتَ وَحدَكَ

Al-Fudayl b. ‘Iyaadh (187 A.H.) said that you should traverse the path of guidance even if the people on that path are few:

عليك بطريق الهدى وإن قل السالكون، واجتنب طريق الردى وإن كثر الهالكون

Nu’aym b. Hammad  (d. 228 A.H.) is reported to have said that it is important to stick to what the Jama’ah is upon before beliefs get corrupted, for even if you are on the truth alone, then you alone would be considered the Jama’ah:

إذا فسدت الجماعة فعليك بما كانت عليه الجماعة قبل أن تفسد، وان كنت وحدك، فإنك أنت الجماعة حينئذ

Ibn Qudamah (620 A.H.), in his book, Hikaayat Al-Munaadhara fil Qur’an, after arguing that even the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself taught that the people of truth will be few in number anyway, dismissed his opponents from the Asharis when they tried to argue that they were upon the truth because of their great numbers:

ومن العجب أن أهل البدع يستدلون على كونهم أهل الحق بكثرتهم وكثرة أموالهم وجاههم وظهورهم، ويستدلون على بطلان السنة بِقلّة أهلها وغربتهم وضعفهم، فيجعلون ما جعله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دليل الحق وعلامة السنة دليلا على الباطل، فإن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أخبرنا بقلة أهل الحق في آخر الزمان وغربتهم، وظهور أهل البدع وكثرتهم، ولكنهم سلكوا سبيل الأمم في استدلالهم على أنبيائهم وأصحاب أنبيائهم بكثرة أموالهم وأولادهم وضعف أهل الحق.

Abu Shama (665 A.H.), in his book, Al-Baa’ith ‘ala Inkaar Al-Bida’ wal-Hawaadith, says that the truth is with the first Jama’ah from the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and that we should pay no heed to the falsehood that developed later, no matter how many adopt it:

وحَيْثُ جاءَ الأمر بِلُزُوم الجَماعَة فالمُراد بِهِ لُزُوم الحق واتباعة وان كانَ المتمسك بِالحَقِّ قَلِيلا والمخالف كثيرا لِأن الحق الَّذِي كانَت عَلَيْهِ الجَماعَة الأولى من النَّبِي ﷺ وأصْحابه رضى الله عَنْهُم ولا نظر الى كَثْرَة أهل الباطِل بعدهمْ

[3] Among scholars, but not necessarily amongst the entire Ummah. Read more here.

[4] Obviously, I am not merely speaking about a group of people who simply labeled themselves “Ash’ari.”  Rather, I am speaking about proto-Ash’aris as well. In other words, was it always the case that the majority of scholars adopted beliefs that aligned in an acceptable manner with Asha’ri theology, even if they did not consciously explicitly subscribe to their doctrines? I contend that this is not the case.

[5] To avoid superfluous citations, I’ll only cite as-Sijjizzi (d. 444 A.H.) below from his book, Ar-Radd ‘ala man Ankar al-Harf wal-Sawt:

اعلموا- أرشدنا الله وإياكم- أنه لم يكن خلاف بين الخلق على اختلاف نِحَلهم من أول الزمان إلى الوقت الذي ظهر فيه ابن كلاب والقلانسي والصالحي والأشعري. وأقرانهم الذين يتظاهرون بالرد على المعتزلة وهم معهم بل أخس حالًا منهم في الباطن في أن الكلام لا يكون إلا حرفًا وصوتًا ذا تأليف واتساق وإن اختلفت به اللغات

[6] As the orientalist Christopher Melchert said regarding the ninth and tenth centuries, "Men would assert as a badge of orthodoxy that their creed was Ahmad's." (Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the Qur’an, p. 22)

[7] Qadi Abu Ya’la (d.  526 A.H.) in his Tabaqat al-Hanabila stated:

قرأت عَلى علي القرشي عن الحسن الأهوازي قالَ: سمعت أبا عبد اللَّه الحمراني يقول: لما دخل الأشعري إلى بغداد جاء إلى البربهاري فجعل يقول: رددت عل الجبائي وعلى أبِي هاشم ونقضت عليهم وعلى اليهود والنصارى والمجوس وقلت لهم وقالوا وأكثر الكلام فِي ذَلِكَ فلما سكت قالَ البربهاري: ما أدري مما قُلْتُ قليلا ولا كثيرا ولا نعرف إلا ما قاله أبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ أحمد بن حنبل قالَ: فخرج من عنده وصنف كتاب «الإبانة» فلم يقبله مِنهُ ولم يظهر ببغداد إلى أن خرج منها.

[8] Ibn Asaakir said:

فَإن قيل إن الجم الغَفِير فِي سائِر الأزْمان وأكْثر العامَّة فِي جَمِيع البلدانِ لا يقتدون بالأشعري ولا يقلدونه ولا يرَوْنَ مذْهبه ولا يعتقدونه وهم السواد الأعْظَم وسبيلهم السَّبِيل الأقوم قيل لا عِبْرَة بِكَثْرَة العَوام ولا التِفات إلى الجُهّال الغتام وإنَّما الِاعْتِبار بأرباب العلم والاقتداء بأصحاب البصيرة والفهم وأُولَئِكَ فِي أصْحابه أكثر مِمَّن سواهُم ولَهُم الفضل والتقدم على من عداهم
…
قالَ الفضيل لا تستوحش طرق الهدى لقلَّة أهلها ولا تغترن بِكَثْرَة الهالكين فَمن ذمّ بعد وُقُوفه على كتابي هَذا حزب الأشْعَرِيّ فَهُوَ مفتر كَذّاب

Even the famed  Asha’rite, Imam Al-Juwayni (d. 478 A.H.), said something similar in his at-Talkhees fi Usul al-Fiqh:

ثمَّ لا معول على السواد الأعْظَم فِي أصل الدّين. فَإن سَواد الكَفَرَة أعظم من سوادنا ولَقَد كانَ رَسُول الله [ﷺ] فِي صدر الإسْلام فِي شرذمة قَليلَة العدَد.
ولَيْسَ المَعْنى بِاتِّباع السواد الأعْظَم الِاتِّباع فِي أصُول الدّين

[9] Looking at non-Ash’aris, we find Al-Jahiz (d.  255 A.H.) having said something similar:

وأصحاب الحديث والعوام هم الذين يقلدون ولا يحصلون، ولا يتخيرون، والتقليد مرغوب عنه في حجة العقل، منهي عنه في القرآن، قد عكسوا الأمور كما ترى، ونقضوا العادات. وذلك أنا لا نشك أن من نظر وبحث، وقابل ووازن، أحق بالتبين، وأولى بالحجة.

Similarly, the Zaydi scholar Al-Qasim b. Ibrahim (d. 246 A.H.) said:

“The belief which is pure of any act of disobedience is the certain knowledge of God and the freeing of thought from fancying God. For the fancies of the fancier occupy his thought only with regard to every owner of a form and body. Whoever fancies God as a body, neither knows Him rightly, nor approaches [even] slightly the certain knowledge of God. Therefore the scholars of the masses are devoid of certain knowledge of God.” (Al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim, Kitab al-Dalil al-Kabir, ed., and trans. Binyamin Abrahamov, in AI-Kasim B. Ibrahim on the Proof of God’s Existence (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), p. 143.)

[10] Several of these ascriptions are extremely doubtful; however, this requires a separate lengthy discussion, so we will just presume that the full number is correct.

[11] Furthermore, several scattered citations could be relayed demonstrating how Hanbali theological beliefs dominated certain regions as the majority; however, citing them would be redundant and would just make this article unnecessarily longer. 

[12] See: Qadi Abu Ya’la’s book, Tabaqat al-Hanabila; Ibn Rajab’s, Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila; and Ibn Al-Mibrad’s Jami’ al-Juyush wal-Dasaakir ‘ala Ibn Asaakir, etc.

[13] For citations demonstrating the state-backed and forceful spread of Ash’arism, see section 8 in Ustadh Alaa’ Hasan’s article, Asaneed Al-Ummah ‘an al-Asha’ira.

[14] Consider one example where Abdullah b. Al-Yaaf’i al-Ashari (d.  768 A.H.) spoke about the Shafi jurist, Yahya b. Abi Khayr Al-‘Imrani (d. 528 A.H.). He claimed that he was a Hanbali in aqeedah who believed that Allah spoke in letters and sounds, just as the majority of the people of Yemen believed before they became Ash’aris:

كان حنبلي العقيدة؛ أي: يقول بالصوت والحرف والجهة كما هو مذهب الحشوية، وكان عليه عقيدة غالب أهل اليمن، حتى أن بعضهم سئل: من أين جاء أهل اليمن هذا الاعتقاد؟ فقال: غرهم صاحب «البيان»، كذا نقله اليافعي عن الشيخ عبد الله الساكن بذي السفال، ولا شك أن أهل اليمن كانوا يعتقدون ذلك من قبل ظهور صاحب «البيان»، وقد رجع اليوم غالبهم أو كلهم عن هذا الاعتقاد، وصاروا كلهم أشعرية بحمد الله تعالى.

[15] Some excerpts:

“The great struggle which began in the 11th century was not between Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites, nor even Ash’arites and Hanbalites; it was a struggle of rationalist Ash’arism against the overwhelming traditionalist forces of all sunnite schools of law. That is why, first in Baghdad, and later in Damascus, that stronghold of traditionalism which was the Shafi’ite school of law, proved for the Ash’arites a very hard nut to crack.”

…

“We have taken it for granted that the Shafi’ite school of law formed the shielding armour of Ash’arism; when in reality, the majority of Shafi’ites regarded Ash’arism as a parasite, and were hard at work ridding themselves of it.””

…

“Furthermore, we have been misled by the Ash’arite sources into thinking that the enemies of Ash’arism were, on the one hand, Mu’tazilism, the ultrarationalists who divested God of His attributes; and on the other hand, Hanbalism, the ultraconservatives, who were plagued by crass anthropomorphism. This picture was calculated to convince its viewers that Ash’arism was the middleroad orxthodoxy. And so we dutifully became convinced not only of this, but of more, by force of implication. We became convinced that these enemies of Ash’arism were also the enemies of the Shafi’ite school of law. This took us a long way from seeing that the great upheaval between Ash’arism and traditionalism was taking place within the Shafi’ite school itself. The majority of Shaf’ites, who were not Ash’arites, harbored no hatred for Hanbalism. On the contrary, it was with Hanbalites, not with Ash’arites, that the Shafi’ites were in alliance, together with all the other traditionalists, against their common enemy: Ash’arism. The alliance was not a new one; it had been in existence since the days of Mu’tazilism.”

…

“If Ash’arism had triumphed in the middle ages, Ibn ‘Asakir would have had no need to appeal to the Shafi’ite traditionalists in the 12th century; nor would Subki have needed to renew the appeal in the 14 century; nor would traditionalism have kept on the flourishing after it had defeated Ash’arism in Baghdad in the 11th.

The very existence of such propaganda as Ibn ‘Asakir’s and Subki’s is a clear indication that the Ash’arites were still struggling for recognition. For these propagandists were not representing orthodoxy interested in attracting stray sheep to the fold; they were representing a group considered to be outside the limits of orthodoxy and desperately trying to get in.

Ash’arites in theology, Ibn ‘Asakir and Subki were also two representatives of the important Shafi’ite school of law in their respective periods. These two Shafi’ites were fervent believers in Ash’arism which lacked nothing but legitimacy. The bid for legitimacy in Baghdad had already failed in the eleventh century, and traditionalism had won the day. The struggle for legitimacy was then transferred to Damascus. In order to succeed, our two Damascenes, Ibn ‘Asakir and Subki, had the task of convincing the orthodoxy of their day, an orthodoxy ever clinging tenaciously to the traditionalism of the Ancestors (Salaf), that Ash’arism bore the Ancestor’s stamp of approval. Muslim orthodoxy remained unconvinced. And after the “elucidations” of Ibn ‘Asakir and Subki, two central problems remained as perplexing as ever; namely, the origins of Ash’arism and its early development.”