We often hear that the majority of the Ummah adheres to Ashari theology. But what does it mean to be an Ashari if it does not entail a conscious adoption of its doctrines? And surely, the masses/laity form the majority of the Ummah, thus is it true that the masses of the Ummah knowingly embrace Ashari beliefs, whether explicitly or implicitly?
I don't think the asha'ira are saying that the majority of the "ummah" are asharis, they are saying the majority of ahl al-sunnah wal-jama'ah are, and by that they mean the learned scholars amongst them. So when they say "ashari", this automatically excludes any laymen because ascribing oneself to one of these three strands of creedal methodologies requires study generally beyond the ordinary lay person, and Allah knows best.
I'm no ashari. However this whole the creed of the masses is idiotic. The masses creed varies vastly and is far removed from any one creedal school.
Majority of the masses believe Allah created the Qur'an, or at the very least would not even know the created/uncreatedness was a matter of creed.
Ask any the masses do they believe Allah has fingers, walks, trots, runs, has a shin, has a foot and literally laughs, the vast majority would think you've committed likeness to creation.
None of the layman believe the above are attributes.
Now they do not agree with ashari aqida either, theres plenty of examples to prove so. The point is thought they don't belong to any one creedal school
I have no idea on what basis you think the masses believe that Allah "created" the Qur'an.
As for fingers, laughter, etc. this would only apply to a Muslim familiar with the religious texts on the matter. Not all divine attributes are deducible by fitra (like Uluww or Allah creating with purpose). And of course what they would deny is tashbeeh (as Salafis do). But they can't positively affirm what they don't know if they are unfamiliar with their religious scriptures.
Seeing what the masses believe in such a context is relevant because many of these Asharis are basically contending that the masses inadvertently fall into kufr by default unless they learn Ashari aqeedah. Salafis don't claim such a thing.
The overwhelming majority or at the very least a significant performance lay Muslims have come across the hadith of walking, running, trotting etc. It's a very very famous hadith. Yet none think those things are literal.
The majority have come across attributes like hand, since these are repeated in the Qur'an and most would have at the very least at some point come across a verse that mentions hand once in their life. Yet we don't see them all automatically affirm, some do some don't. The majority of layman who do come across such verses don't even delve into it and don't bother even finding out if these are point sof creed. They'll merely gloss over it.
Other attributes many layman do come across and most merely gloss over them without delving into it. The proof of this is many of the most famous speakers who are popular with the layman have talks and videos where such hadith and verses do come up, yet most would not think these are things we must affirm as literal attributes most just focus on the message not the points of creed which they are unaware of.
As for the Qur'an. I can almost guarantee the majority of layman do not even know it's a matter of creed whether it's created or not. I've done this experiment myself with friends who have even come from salafi families and attend salafi masaajid etc. I've asked the following questions to different lay people, 'when do you think Allah created the Qur'an?' or simply 'is the Qur'an created by Allah'. Almost all of them answer of course its created by Allah. A few realise it might be a trick question but the fact is they don't even know it's a matter of creed. This is not just personal anecdotes. The fact is the majority do not know it's a point of contention in creed. Ask any layman the following question and see what response you get back: 'A Man is calling another Muslim a deviant or even a kaafir for saying that Allah created the Qur'an'. Do you believe this man is right/wrong for accusing him of deviancy/kufr?
The majority do not even know this is something we are suppose to affirm as uncreated. They're unaware of these issues.
You may get variation of course but the undeniable fact is a significant percentage do not know these things are important at all and even believe the opposite of what they're supposed to when questioned.
I think we are conflating issues here. There's a difference between actively holding a position vs. not affirming a position.
Even Ibn Taymiyyah himself said that it's not necessary or expected of the laity to delve into all this stuff and positively affirm everything a well informed student ought to. Absence of affirmation of all truths is not the same as affirmation of falsehood. I'm sure you can tell the difference.
The point of the article is to show that many Ashari scholars believe that the masses *positively* adopt kufri beliefs (according to them), not that they merely negate affirmation of the correct ones. And this is by default. Salafis won't say such a thing.
As for your examples of what the laity you've tested about the creation of the Qur'an, well, of course, they are ignorant and were just guessing. But before you even asked them, I doubt they positively held any belief about the matter. Regarding attributes, if one reads the Qur'an, one would immediately rush to negate tashbeeh (something we are all comfortable with), even though not everyone would go as far as affirming them in the manner Salafis would expect. But that is completely different from positively taking a stance the Salafi would object to.
Both you and I don't have any stats to work with. In this article, however, I quoted from the horses' mouth, and am merely holding them to account according to their own stance.
I think the issue is that the minds of the laity changes massively over time. Culture has a massive impact on the way a lay population will conceive of a creator and even things in their own religion, this is undeniable. So what was true of the laity prior to the modern age may not be true today. And we'll continue to see shifts as culture and society changes. Thus the ashaaira in the past probably were correct in the fact the lay people took a more athari aligned stance. But today this is demonstrably not the case since they vary so widely in belief. They definitely are not aligned with ashari/maturidi either.
The fact is today a significant percentage actually believe Allah is everywhere, a belief atharis/asharis/maturidis all reject. Yes a significant percentage also believe Allah is up, but the point is a significant percentage take a belief that is wrong. Muhammad Hijab did a poll a few years back on his yt channel asking the question where is Allah with a few options: above his throne/everywhere/where doesn't apply etc Now his audience can be argued is not a lay audience nor are they unbiased since he's athari etc. Regardless though I was shocked to see the results that the majority voted everywhere. My point is though a significant percentage hold this belief.
As for the Qur'an again yes they didn't even think of the created/uncreatedness of the Qur'an prior to the questions, however this is a point of contention for salafis too since not believing the Qur'an is uncreated is wrong. Even though plenty of the layman have never even given it thought. This one specifically is not like specific attributes that you need to have come across to know them. This is precisely why I take a more laxed view on issues of tabdi or discussing with asharis/maturidis.
As for the point of not positively affirming doesn't always equal negative affirmation. I agree of course. But in the examples I gave it does. So the very famous hadith of Allah walking, running to his slave etc, the fact majority of Muslims when they first come across this hadith they take the walking, trotting, running as metaphor.
The main point is layman vary so widely in what they believe , that it's not beneficial to try and use the layman as proof of creed.
The article is not trying to argue for the correct creed by measuring what the majority of masses believe. The last paragraph where I raised the question of its relevance hints at that very thing. In this article, I'm even more explicit about my stance. https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/does-it-matter-if-the-majority-of
Salafis do not say that laymen have to go out of their way to positively affirm the uncreatedness of the Qur'an. Again, the point is to not actively hold false beliefs. Saying "I don't know" and "I never looked into this because it's above my paygrade" won't be met with takfeer and tabdi (shouldn't at least, but I can't speak for all Salafi individuals globally).
And of course lots of people would say "everywhere" because false ideas spread like wildfire and rampantly. But once again, I'm imploring you to please understand the purpose of the article. Can you do me that favor please? Stop reading what I'm saying with the urge and impulse to just respond and convey what you wish to convey. Please, actually understand the point of the article.
These Ashari scholars say that "by default" and if "people are left alone" that they would come to adopt anti-Ashari (and very Athari stances). This is what *they* say. They are not speaking about the laity being brainwashed with Atharism, but rather what they are in their natural capacity bound to gravitate toward. *THEREFORE,* this undermines the claims of Asharis when they say that the majority of the ummah are Asharis.
Please read the article again with an open mind and understand it's objective. If all your interested in conveying in this discussion is..."hey, but the opinions of masses changes over time." Well, fine, okay. But that's not really relevant to the point that's being made. No one here is making an argument for Atharism's truth by appealing to the beliefs of the masses (heck, I don't even believe that the truth MUST lie with the majority of scholars, let alone masses). Moreoever, no one here is denying that many laymen can be indoctrinated with false beliefs and how the nature of his indoctrination can fluctuate over time. The point of the article is primarily twofold:
1) Point out to Asharis that their own scholars don't even believe that the majority of the ummah are Asharis, hence, why keep regurgiating this talking point?
2) Point out to Asharis that their own scholars acknowledge that their theology is so counter intuitive that it's difficult to imagine most laymen being capable of adopting it, and that by their very nature that they are by default (not via brainwashing, but humans being merely human through intuition) going to incline toward a number of standard Athari-like beliefs, which is kufr and tajseem according to Asharism. This is a strong internal critique of Asharism itself because of its problematic ramifications (well, at least I think so!).
My comments were never to address whether ashari scholars believed the layman did not hold their believes. The point was the discussion on the layman is fruitless.
My previous comment addressed this by stating the minds of layman change over time with culture. Thus today it's not unreasonable for an ashari to suggest the layman agree with *parts of their creed (an athari can also do the same thing) while still admitting their scholars in the past were correct.
I only relayed the statements of the Asha'ri scholars who try to make it appear that way. Obviously, we would disagree. We would strongly disagree that Allah would use apparent language repeatedly in revelation that promotes major kufr (tajseem), which would reinforce the (supposed) anthropomorphic kufri beliefs of the masses. That's pretty much the entailment of the Ashari stance.
Nice post. Can you give me the summary explanation of the Ash'ari belief mentioned by Sanusi in " وكون أفعال الله تعالى معللة لغرض"? What exactly do the Ash'aris believe here and why? Jazak Allah khair.
Mr Bassam this is obviousy your sophistry and you know it. Since there’s no doubt that a massive bulk of the most eminent Islamic figures are clearly Asharis. So you want to convince people that Firaun had correct aqida? Don’t make us laugh.
My sophistry? What does the title of the article say? Surely you can read, no? How about if I tell you that before 500 A.H. even the majority of the "scholars" were not Ashari? What then? How will you digest that information?
Clearly these statements by these scholars have conveyed a disturbing truth to some; regardless, don't shoot the messenger.
Bassam, rest assured that you didn't 'strike a nerve'. Judging by the length of your response, it appears that I did ;). There is a lot to unpack here, so I'll keep my comments as brief as possible because I am quite busy. 1. Regarding the claim of Ash'arism being the theology of the masses. I believe that whoever makes this claim needs to elaborate on what they mean because it might have the potential to have a correct or incorrect meaning. As it stands, I believe it's too vague. However, if we take what seems to be your understanding, then I don’t believe that being the majority makes your position true. 2. Regarding how you misrepresented those scholars, and I'll choose Al-Ghazzali because I am familiar with the Iljam, I recommend you check out the entire text and read everything he says regarding what the masses believe. To my knowledge, he says that people don’t believe Allah is a material object (and this position, when taken to its limits, conflicts with Allah being above). Now, the more educated Salafi’s I know of like to say that they don’t affirm or negate things like “material”, but we judge by the reality of their position (much like you would shirk) which is effectively Allah being material. And this is a much longer discussion beyond the scope of my comment. By the way, you aren’t one of those Salafi’s who believes he “repents” in the Iljam and essentially becomes a Taymiyyan Salafi, right? 3. Regarding direction, Salafi theology doesn’t technically claim that Allah is above in the way the masses allegedly believe (i.e. only above), rather, it essentially claims that Allah is in every direction (not everywhere however) because the earth is spherical. Essentially, Salafi’s believe we are inside of Allah much like how a planet is inside its upper atmosphere. One wonders how this is makes sense with Salafi fitrah theology because the fitrah should be telling people Allah is in every direction, not just above, since that technically would be the case. On your “proding”, this doesn’t exactly line up with the video as they either seem to not know and for sure they aren’t all saying Allah is above. 4. My personal anecdote was my point. I don’t think my memory is failing me at all. Being “real” here, I remember back when I was Salafi, it’s position regarding wisdom and purposes caused me to have a great deal of doubt in Islam because I searched and couldn’t find these alleged wisdoms and what was presented was incoherent/false. It might sting to hear this, but the Ash’ari position truly just makes sense to people who have never even heard of Ash’arism. On occasionalism, no I would never claim that and the two aren’t analogous.
You're going off on a tangent, and it appears to me that you're being unnecessarily argumentative and refusing to deal *head on* with the clear statements of the scholars I have presented. You could have simply and explicitly said that you disagree with these theologians and ended the conversation there. It's not deviant to disagree with them you know? Just say: "they are wrong" or say "perhaps they were right during their era, but not anymore". Say whatever you like, but don't be disingenuous by alleging that I have misrepresented what in fact appears to be clear cut statements made by them.
You did not show that I misrepresented Al-Ghazali at all. Anyone can compare what I attributed to him with the actual Arabic quote. You're also being disingenuous by sneaking into what you think is the laazim of views into the discussion (we call that begging the question), nothwithstanding your distortion of what Salafis believe and contrasting that with what the masses believe.
So, Salafis believing that Allah does things for a purpose, which is the clear cut reading of dozens of Qur'anic passages and ahadith caused you doubts in Islam? Akhi, seriously, please, I'm not buying and entertaining that.
Just say that you disagree with all these scholars because of your unique and rare stances, in addition to some youtube video you found which you think supports your case and that could be the end of the discussion there.
I, for one, do not find what the majority to believe to be essentially relevant in and of itself (though of course, Asharis have to deal with the theological difficulty as to why God has permitted so many to hold what is essentially kufri beliefs according to them), so I'm not arguing for the veracity of Salafi beliefs based on this. I won't commit the same logical fallacy committed by those.
Deal with the statements *head on*. Any response that doesn't will be deleted. I'll let your red herrings and digressions slide this time, but your next response should be relevant to be entertained. Unless I see you copy paste the statement of theologian and *directly* demonstrate how I misrepresented him, your comment will be deleted. So don't waste your time typing it out if that's not what you plan to do.
I don't think you are representing Al-Ghazzali and the other Ulema fairly here. But that is besides the point, because I can speak for myself as I knew what I believed before I ever heard the word "Ash'ari" and I can say with confidence that my beliefs aligned with Ash'arism much more than Salafism. Specifically, I never believed that Allah existed in a direction or was a material object. Between the two, I never gave any thought to the former (which would probably be a problem for Salafi fitrah theory) and definitely negated, like I do now for both, the latter. Regarding the issue of Allah achieving purposes and the nature of good and bad, I was 100% Ash'ari.
In fact, regarding direction, some evidence suggests that many lay people would probably believe that Allah is everywhere (which is against both of our positions). This is based on a video where "Naseeha Sessions", which is run by a group of "Salafis", literally ask random people on the street where Allah is. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeuUUgrlntY
As you can see, most of the answers are "everywhere". I also think many Muslims probably don't even think about it to be honest. There is a lot more to said, but I'll leave it at that.
Salam. I see you disagree with those scholars; I don't. I think they are spot on, and that they would not have consistently said what they did without evidence. In fact, it was not only them who said this, but others from different theological schools as well. Consider what the prominent Mu'tazilite theologian Qadi Abdul Jabbar said in his فضل الاعتزال وطبقات المعتزلة:
فاما التشبيه ، فانما كان سبب حدوثه في هذه الأمة ، أن قلوب العامة لا تسبق الا الى ما تصوره . فلما تركوا النظر وركبوا طريقة التقليد، أداهم ذلك الى ما قلنا. ولو نظروا بعقولهم لعلموا أن ما يجوز عليه الجمع والتفريق والتبديل والتغيير لا يكون إلا محدثا
How about when Yazeen b. Harun (d. 206 A.H.) said:
من زعم أن الرحمن على العرش استوى خلاف ما يقر في قلوب العامة: فهو جهمي
Isn't it obvious what he means by the "hearts of the masses"?
And don't get me started with relaying over a dozen citations from scholars (including those scholars Asharis deem to be of a high station) who said that the people raise their hands upward during dua because they believe Allah to be "above."
And I wish you pointed out how I misrepresented these scholars. Why did you say it was "besides the point," when, in fact, it was precisely the point? What is the point exactly, your personal anecdote? I'm not going to call you a liar, but I strongly doubt that your memory is serving you right, especially on the "achieving purposes" bit. What next? You're going to tell me you adopted the Ashari stance on occassionalism since you were a child too? Let's be real with each other here please.
As for the prevalence of "Allah is everywhere," yes, I get that a lot too, but when I probe, they don't literally mean that God is literally present everywhere, but that His "presence" is, meaning His impact and knowledge.
But once again, does this mean much? I'm not the one going around making a big deal out of what the majority believe; rather, I'm the one probing those that do with this short article. And stay tuned for an upcoming article inshallah when I demonstrate that Asharis prior to 500 A.H. were a minority of the Ummah. So was Asharism wrong before 500 A.H. according to those who make a big deal out of what the majority believe? Again, this isn't directed to you personally, but to a certain group of people.
It appears that these statements that I relayed struck a nerve; perhaps you should take it up with the scholars in your camp to explain them away in a manner that satisfies you. For myself, I'm just relaying their plain and obvious reading. I'm genuinely curious as to how anybody can even begin to spin what these words are explicitly stating.
And for you to suggest that Salafis believe God to be a "material object" and that your prior denial of it allegedly poses a problem for Salafi "fitrah" theory is really disappointing. You have much reading to do akhi.
As far as you using the video for evidence its worth pointing out that this is a clear cut case of selection bias. The whole point of the video is to refute the claim that Allah is everywhere. Therefore, if they interview 100 people and of those 100 people only 10 people say Allah is everywhere, they're going to select the interviews of those 10 people to showcase in the video in order to highlight this ignorant mentality. As Ustadh Bassam and the other scholars quoted above mentioned the vast majority of the laymen are more likely to be aligned with Atharis on this point of contention and only a small minority would say Allah is everywhere. Therefore its not a valid point to even bring up the video.
Isn’t izz bin abdussalam who also authored a sharh of aqidah tahawiyyah, an fully fledged athari who followed ibn taymiyya and ibn al qayyim?
No, that's Ibn Abi al-Izz (d. 792 A.H.), while Al-Izz b. Abdus Salam (d. 577 A.H.) is somebody else.
I don't think the asha'ira are saying that the majority of the "ummah" are asharis, they are saying the majority of ahl al-sunnah wal-jama'ah are, and by that they mean the learned scholars amongst them. So when they say "ashari", this automatically excludes any laymen because ascribing oneself to one of these three strands of creedal methodologies requires study generally beyond the ordinary lay person, and Allah knows best.
I guess it depends whom you speak to. Since the folks I often see actually say "ummah." As for scholars, check this out https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/does-it-matter-if-the-majority-of
Assalamu 'alaykum
I think Al-Bayjuri's date provided here is incorrect; how can he be before Al-Sanusi?
Wa Alaykum assalam,
You’re right. I confused him with Buran ad-Din. Jzak.
I'm no ashari. However this whole the creed of the masses is idiotic. The masses creed varies vastly and is far removed from any one creedal school.
Majority of the masses believe Allah created the Qur'an, or at the very least would not even know the created/uncreatedness was a matter of creed.
Ask any the masses do they believe Allah has fingers, walks, trots, runs, has a shin, has a foot and literally laughs, the vast majority would think you've committed likeness to creation.
None of the layman believe the above are attributes.
Now they do not agree with ashari aqida either, theres plenty of examples to prove so. The point is thought they don't belong to any one creedal school
I have no idea on what basis you think the masses believe that Allah "created" the Qur'an.
As for fingers, laughter, etc. this would only apply to a Muslim familiar with the religious texts on the matter. Not all divine attributes are deducible by fitra (like Uluww or Allah creating with purpose). And of course what they would deny is tashbeeh (as Salafis do). But they can't positively affirm what they don't know if they are unfamiliar with their religious scriptures.
Seeing what the masses believe in such a context is relevant because many of these Asharis are basically contending that the masses inadvertently fall into kufr by default unless they learn Ashari aqeedah. Salafis don't claim such a thing.
Salam.
The overwhelming majority or at the very least a significant performance lay Muslims have come across the hadith of walking, running, trotting etc. It's a very very famous hadith. Yet none think those things are literal.
The majority have come across attributes like hand, since these are repeated in the Qur'an and most would have at the very least at some point come across a verse that mentions hand once in their life. Yet we don't see them all automatically affirm, some do some don't. The majority of layman who do come across such verses don't even delve into it and don't bother even finding out if these are point sof creed. They'll merely gloss over it.
Other attributes many layman do come across and most merely gloss over them without delving into it. The proof of this is many of the most famous speakers who are popular with the layman have talks and videos where such hadith and verses do come up, yet most would not think these are things we must affirm as literal attributes most just focus on the message not the points of creed which they are unaware of.
As for the Qur'an. I can almost guarantee the majority of layman do not even know it's a matter of creed whether it's created or not. I've done this experiment myself with friends who have even come from salafi families and attend salafi masaajid etc. I've asked the following questions to different lay people, 'when do you think Allah created the Qur'an?' or simply 'is the Qur'an created by Allah'. Almost all of them answer of course its created by Allah. A few realise it might be a trick question but the fact is they don't even know it's a matter of creed. This is not just personal anecdotes. The fact is the majority do not know it's a point of contention in creed. Ask any layman the following question and see what response you get back: 'A Man is calling another Muslim a deviant or even a kaafir for saying that Allah created the Qur'an'. Do you believe this man is right/wrong for accusing him of deviancy/kufr?
The majority do not even know this is something we are suppose to affirm as uncreated. They're unaware of these issues.
You may get variation of course but the undeniable fact is a significant percentage do not know these things are important at all and even believe the opposite of what they're supposed to when questioned.
I think we are conflating issues here. There's a difference between actively holding a position vs. not affirming a position.
Even Ibn Taymiyyah himself said that it's not necessary or expected of the laity to delve into all this stuff and positively affirm everything a well informed student ought to. Absence of affirmation of all truths is not the same as affirmation of falsehood. I'm sure you can tell the difference.
The point of the article is to show that many Ashari scholars believe that the masses *positively* adopt kufri beliefs (according to them), not that they merely negate affirmation of the correct ones. And this is by default. Salafis won't say such a thing.
As for your examples of what the laity you've tested about the creation of the Qur'an, well, of course, they are ignorant and were just guessing. But before you even asked them, I doubt they positively held any belief about the matter. Regarding attributes, if one reads the Qur'an, one would immediately rush to negate tashbeeh (something we are all comfortable with), even though not everyone would go as far as affirming them in the manner Salafis would expect. But that is completely different from positively taking a stance the Salafi would object to.
Both you and I don't have any stats to work with. In this article, however, I quoted from the horses' mouth, and am merely holding them to account according to their own stance.
I think the issue is that the minds of the laity changes massively over time. Culture has a massive impact on the way a lay population will conceive of a creator and even things in their own religion, this is undeniable. So what was true of the laity prior to the modern age may not be true today. And we'll continue to see shifts as culture and society changes. Thus the ashaaira in the past probably were correct in the fact the lay people took a more athari aligned stance. But today this is demonstrably not the case since they vary so widely in belief. They definitely are not aligned with ashari/maturidi either.
The fact is today a significant percentage actually believe Allah is everywhere, a belief atharis/asharis/maturidis all reject. Yes a significant percentage also believe Allah is up, but the point is a significant percentage take a belief that is wrong. Muhammad Hijab did a poll a few years back on his yt channel asking the question where is Allah with a few options: above his throne/everywhere/where doesn't apply etc Now his audience can be argued is not a lay audience nor are they unbiased since he's athari etc. Regardless though I was shocked to see the results that the majority voted everywhere. My point is though a significant percentage hold this belief.
As for the Qur'an again yes they didn't even think of the created/uncreatedness of the Qur'an prior to the questions, however this is a point of contention for salafis too since not believing the Qur'an is uncreated is wrong. Even though plenty of the layman have never even given it thought. This one specifically is not like specific attributes that you need to have come across to know them. This is precisely why I take a more laxed view on issues of tabdi or discussing with asharis/maturidis.
As for the point of not positively affirming doesn't always equal negative affirmation. I agree of course. But in the examples I gave it does. So the very famous hadith of Allah walking, running to his slave etc, the fact majority of Muslims when they first come across this hadith they take the walking, trotting, running as metaphor.
The main point is layman vary so widely in what they believe , that it's not beneficial to try and use the layman as proof of creed.
And I agree with ITs stance on the layman.
The article is not trying to argue for the correct creed by measuring what the majority of masses believe. The last paragraph where I raised the question of its relevance hints at that very thing. In this article, I'm even more explicit about my stance. https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/does-it-matter-if-the-majority-of
Salafis do not say that laymen have to go out of their way to positively affirm the uncreatedness of the Qur'an. Again, the point is to not actively hold false beliefs. Saying "I don't know" and "I never looked into this because it's above my paygrade" won't be met with takfeer and tabdi (shouldn't at least, but I can't speak for all Salafi individuals globally).
And of course lots of people would say "everywhere" because false ideas spread like wildfire and rampantly. But once again, I'm imploring you to please understand the purpose of the article. Can you do me that favor please? Stop reading what I'm saying with the urge and impulse to just respond and convey what you wish to convey. Please, actually understand the point of the article.
These Ashari scholars say that "by default" and if "people are left alone" that they would come to adopt anti-Ashari (and very Athari stances). This is what *they* say. They are not speaking about the laity being brainwashed with Atharism, but rather what they are in their natural capacity bound to gravitate toward. *THEREFORE,* this undermines the claims of Asharis when they say that the majority of the ummah are Asharis.
Please read the article again with an open mind and understand it's objective. If all your interested in conveying in this discussion is..."hey, but the opinions of masses changes over time." Well, fine, okay. But that's not really relevant to the point that's being made. No one here is making an argument for Atharism's truth by appealing to the beliefs of the masses (heck, I don't even believe that the truth MUST lie with the majority of scholars, let alone masses). Moreoever, no one here is denying that many laymen can be indoctrinated with false beliefs and how the nature of his indoctrination can fluctuate over time. The point of the article is primarily twofold:
1) Point out to Asharis that their own scholars don't even believe that the majority of the ummah are Asharis, hence, why keep regurgiating this talking point?
2) Point out to Asharis that their own scholars acknowledge that their theology is so counter intuitive that it's difficult to imagine most laymen being capable of adopting it, and that by their very nature that they are by default (not via brainwashing, but humans being merely human through intuition) going to incline toward a number of standard Athari-like beliefs, which is kufr and tajseem according to Asharism. This is a strong internal critique of Asharism itself because of its problematic ramifications (well, at least I think so!).
Clear akhi? Inshallah it is.
Yes it's clear.
My comments were never to address whether ashari scholars believed the layman did not hold their believes. The point was the discussion on the layman is fruitless.
My previous comment addressed this by stating the minds of layman change over time with culture. Thus today it's not unreasonable for an ashari to suggest the layman agree with *parts of their creed (an athari can also do the same thing) while still admitting their scholars in the past were correct.
nice article , jazakAllah khair
though it makes salafi/athari creed appear dumb (for laity) and asharism is for intellectuals , lol !
I only relayed the statements of the Asha'ri scholars who try to make it appear that way. Obviously, we would disagree. We would strongly disagree that Allah would use apparent language repeatedly in revelation that promotes major kufr (tajseem), which would reinforce the (supposed) anthropomorphic kufri beliefs of the masses. That's pretty much the entailment of the Ashari stance.
Nice post. Can you give me the summary explanation of the Ash'ari belief mentioned by Sanusi in " وكون أفعال الله تعالى معللة لغرض"? What exactly do the Ash'aris believe here and why? Jazak Allah khair.
Mr Bassam this is obviousy your sophistry and you know it. Since there’s no doubt that a massive bulk of the most eminent Islamic figures are clearly Asharis. So you want to convince people that Firaun had correct aqida? Don’t make us laugh.
My sophistry? What does the title of the article say? Surely you can read, no? How about if I tell you that before 500 A.H. even the majority of the "scholars" were not Ashari? What then? How will you digest that information?
Clearly these statements by these scholars have conveyed a disturbing truth to some; regardless, don't shoot the messenger.
Bassam, rest assured that you didn't 'strike a nerve'. Judging by the length of your response, it appears that I did ;). There is a lot to unpack here, so I'll keep my comments as brief as possible because I am quite busy. 1. Regarding the claim of Ash'arism being the theology of the masses. I believe that whoever makes this claim needs to elaborate on what they mean because it might have the potential to have a correct or incorrect meaning. As it stands, I believe it's too vague. However, if we take what seems to be your understanding, then I don’t believe that being the majority makes your position true. 2. Regarding how you misrepresented those scholars, and I'll choose Al-Ghazzali because I am familiar with the Iljam, I recommend you check out the entire text and read everything he says regarding what the masses believe. To my knowledge, he says that people don’t believe Allah is a material object (and this position, when taken to its limits, conflicts with Allah being above). Now, the more educated Salafi’s I know of like to say that they don’t affirm or negate things like “material”, but we judge by the reality of their position (much like you would shirk) which is effectively Allah being material. And this is a much longer discussion beyond the scope of my comment. By the way, you aren’t one of those Salafi’s who believes he “repents” in the Iljam and essentially becomes a Taymiyyan Salafi, right? 3. Regarding direction, Salafi theology doesn’t technically claim that Allah is above in the way the masses allegedly believe (i.e. only above), rather, it essentially claims that Allah is in every direction (not everywhere however) because the earth is spherical. Essentially, Salafi’s believe we are inside of Allah much like how a planet is inside its upper atmosphere. One wonders how this is makes sense with Salafi fitrah theology because the fitrah should be telling people Allah is in every direction, not just above, since that technically would be the case. On your “proding”, this doesn’t exactly line up with the video as they either seem to not know and for sure they aren’t all saying Allah is above. 4. My personal anecdote was my point. I don’t think my memory is failing me at all. Being “real” here, I remember back when I was Salafi, it’s position regarding wisdom and purposes caused me to have a great deal of doubt in Islam because I searched and couldn’t find these alleged wisdoms and what was presented was incoherent/false. It might sting to hear this, but the Ash’ari position truly just makes sense to people who have never even heard of Ash’arism. On occasionalism, no I would never claim that and the two aren’t analogous.
You're going off on a tangent, and it appears to me that you're being unnecessarily argumentative and refusing to deal *head on* with the clear statements of the scholars I have presented. You could have simply and explicitly said that you disagree with these theologians and ended the conversation there. It's not deviant to disagree with them you know? Just say: "they are wrong" or say "perhaps they were right during their era, but not anymore". Say whatever you like, but don't be disingenuous by alleging that I have misrepresented what in fact appears to be clear cut statements made by them.
You did not show that I misrepresented Al-Ghazali at all. Anyone can compare what I attributed to him with the actual Arabic quote. You're also being disingenuous by sneaking into what you think is the laazim of views into the discussion (we call that begging the question), nothwithstanding your distortion of what Salafis believe and contrasting that with what the masses believe.
So, Salafis believing that Allah does things for a purpose, which is the clear cut reading of dozens of Qur'anic passages and ahadith caused you doubts in Islam? Akhi, seriously, please, I'm not buying and entertaining that.
Just say that you disagree with all these scholars because of your unique and rare stances, in addition to some youtube video you found which you think supports your case and that could be the end of the discussion there.
I, for one, do not find what the majority to believe to be essentially relevant in and of itself (though of course, Asharis have to deal with the theological difficulty as to why God has permitted so many to hold what is essentially kufri beliefs according to them), so I'm not arguing for the veracity of Salafi beliefs based on this. I won't commit the same logical fallacy committed by those.
Deal with the statements *head on*. Any response that doesn't will be deleted. I'll let your red herrings and digressions slide this time, but your next response should be relevant to be entertained. Unless I see you copy paste the statement of theologian and *directly* demonstrate how I misrepresented him, your comment will be deleted. So don't waste your time typing it out if that's not what you plan to do.
Salam.
I don't think you are representing Al-Ghazzali and the other Ulema fairly here. But that is besides the point, because I can speak for myself as I knew what I believed before I ever heard the word "Ash'ari" and I can say with confidence that my beliefs aligned with Ash'arism much more than Salafism. Specifically, I never believed that Allah existed in a direction or was a material object. Between the two, I never gave any thought to the former (which would probably be a problem for Salafi fitrah theory) and definitely negated, like I do now for both, the latter. Regarding the issue of Allah achieving purposes and the nature of good and bad, I was 100% Ash'ari.
In fact, regarding direction, some evidence suggests that many lay people would probably believe that Allah is everywhere (which is against both of our positions). This is based on a video where "Naseeha Sessions", which is run by a group of "Salafis", literally ask random people on the street where Allah is. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeuUUgrlntY
As you can see, most of the answers are "everywhere". I also think many Muslims probably don't even think about it to be honest. There is a lot more to said, but I'll leave it at that.
Salam. I see you disagree with those scholars; I don't. I think they are spot on, and that they would not have consistently said what they did without evidence. In fact, it was not only them who said this, but others from different theological schools as well. Consider what the prominent Mu'tazilite theologian Qadi Abdul Jabbar said in his فضل الاعتزال وطبقات المعتزلة:
فاما التشبيه ، فانما كان سبب حدوثه في هذه الأمة ، أن قلوب العامة لا تسبق الا الى ما تصوره . فلما تركوا النظر وركبوا طريقة التقليد، أداهم ذلك الى ما قلنا. ولو نظروا بعقولهم لعلموا أن ما يجوز عليه الجمع والتفريق والتبديل والتغيير لا يكون إلا محدثا
How about when Yazeen b. Harun (d. 206 A.H.) said:
من زعم أن الرحمن على العرش استوى خلاف ما يقر في قلوب العامة: فهو جهمي
Isn't it obvious what he means by the "hearts of the masses"?
And don't get me started with relaying over a dozen citations from scholars (including those scholars Asharis deem to be of a high station) who said that the people raise their hands upward during dua because they believe Allah to be "above."
And I wish you pointed out how I misrepresented these scholars. Why did you say it was "besides the point," when, in fact, it was precisely the point? What is the point exactly, your personal anecdote? I'm not going to call you a liar, but I strongly doubt that your memory is serving you right, especially on the "achieving purposes" bit. What next? You're going to tell me you adopted the Ashari stance on occassionalism since you were a child too? Let's be real with each other here please.
As for the prevalence of "Allah is everywhere," yes, I get that a lot too, but when I probe, they don't literally mean that God is literally present everywhere, but that His "presence" is, meaning His impact and knowledge.
But once again, does this mean much? I'm not the one going around making a big deal out of what the majority believe; rather, I'm the one probing those that do with this short article. And stay tuned for an upcoming article inshallah when I demonstrate that Asharis prior to 500 A.H. were a minority of the Ummah. So was Asharism wrong before 500 A.H. according to those who make a big deal out of what the majority believe? Again, this isn't directed to you personally, but to a certain group of people.
It appears that these statements that I relayed struck a nerve; perhaps you should take it up with the scholars in your camp to explain them away in a manner that satisfies you. For myself, I'm just relaying their plain and obvious reading. I'm genuinely curious as to how anybody can even begin to spin what these words are explicitly stating.
Salam
And for you to suggest that Salafis believe God to be a "material object" and that your prior denial of it allegedly poses a problem for Salafi "fitrah" theory is really disappointing. You have much reading to do akhi.
As far as you using the video for evidence its worth pointing out that this is a clear cut case of selection bias. The whole point of the video is to refute the claim that Allah is everywhere. Therefore, if they interview 100 people and of those 100 people only 10 people say Allah is everywhere, they're going to select the interviews of those 10 people to showcase in the video in order to highlight this ignorant mentality. As Ustadh Bassam and the other scholars quoted above mentioned the vast majority of the laymen are more likely to be aligned with Atharis on this point of contention and only a small minority would say Allah is everywhere. Therefore its not a valid point to even bring up the video.