Ash’arism by M. Abdul Hye, M.A, Ph.D, Professor of Philosophy, Government College, Rashahi !Pa"istan# !Pa"istan# A A$ A%HAR&'% $&() A*D +R- Asharism is the name of a philosophio religious shool of thought in &slam that developed during the fourth and /fth0tenth and eleventh enturies. 1his movement 2as 3an attempt not only to purge &slam of all non &slami elements 2hih had 4uietly rept into it but also to harmoni5e the religious onsiousness 2ith the religious thought of &slam.3 &t laid the foundation of an orthodo6 &slami theology or orthodo6 -alam, as opposed to the rationalist-alam of the Mu'ta5ilites7 and in opposition to the e6treme orthodo6 lass, it made use of the dialetial method for the defene of the authority of divine revela8tion as applied to theologial subets. 1he position at the end of the third0ninth entury 2as suh that the deve8lopment of suh a movement as orthodo6-alam2as inevitable. 1he rational8i5ation of faith, 2hih developed, at the beginning of the seond entury of the Hirah as a systemati movement of thought, in the name of rationalism in &slam or Mu'ta5ilite movement, 2as, in its original stage, simply an attempt to put &slam and its basi priniples on a rational foundation, by giving a onsistent rational interpretation to the di9erent dogmas and dotrines of &slam. :ut 2hen th e Mu'ta5ilite rationalists began to study the Arabi translations of the 2or"s of Gree" physiists and philosophers made available to them by the early 'Abbasid Caliphs, partiularly by al Mansur and al Mamun, they began to apply the Gree" philosophial methods and ideas to the inter8pretation of the basipriniples of &slam as 2ell. %ome of the early 'Abbasid Caliphs, partiularly al Mamun, began to patroni5e the rationalism of the Mu'ta5ilites in publi. 1he Mu'ta5ilite speula8tion, in the hands of the later Mu'ta5ilites, those of the seond and third generations, under the in;uene of Gree" philosophy and 2ith the ative sup8port and patronage of the Caliphs, tended to be purely speulative and 3ab8solutely unfettered, and in some ases led to a merely negative attitude of thought.3 <=> 1hey made reason the sole basis of truth and reality and thus identi8/ed the sphere of philosophy 2ith that of religion. 1hey tried to interpret interpret faith in terms of pure pure thought. 1hey ignored ignored the fat that the basi priniples of religion are, by their very nature, inapable of logial demonstration or rational proof. 1he basi priniples of &slam deal 2ith supersensible realities and, as suh, they must /rst be aepted on the authority of revelation. 1he Mu'ta5ilites, in their 5eal to udge everything by reason alone,
destroyed the personality of God and redued Him to a bare inde/nable universality or to an abstrat unity. unity. 1his idea of an abstrat, impersonal, absolute God ould not appeal to the ordinary Muslims. 1he orthodo6 setion of the people reated strongly against the Mu'ta5ilite rationalism and began to onsider the Mu'ta5ilites to be heretis. 1he e6treme rationalisti attitude of the later Mu'ta5ilites 2as follo2ed by po2erful reation from the orthodo6 setion of the people. 1his reation 2as greatly aggravated by the unfortunate attempt of the Caliph al Mamun to fore Mu'ta5ilism !rationalist -alam# on his subets by introduing mihnah !a ompulsory test of faith# in the Mu'ta5ilite dotrines, partiularly in their dotrine of the reatedness of the ?ur'an. 1he 2hole of the third0ninth entury 2as a time of reation. 1he orthodo6 Muslims !and among them 2ere the 1raditionists 1raditionists #, the @ahirites !the follo2ers of Da2ud ibn Ali#, and the Muslim urists !fu4aha'# adhered stritly to 1radition 1radition and literal interpretation of the ?ur'an and the %unnah, and refused to admit any 3innovation3 !bid'ah# in the %hari'ah!the &slami Code#. Any theologial disussion 2as onsidered an 3innovation3 and 2as as suh a ause of dis8pleasure to them. <> 1he reationary in;uene of &mam Ahmad bin Hanbal and his @ahirite follo2ers 2as very strong at that period and the orthodo6 Muslims "ept themselves safely aloof from the Mu'ta5ilites and the philosophers. 1he reation against the rationalist-alam2ent to suh an e6treme that even the anthropomorphi verses of the ?ur'an 2ere interpreted by them in a purely literal sense. Mali" bin Anas said 3God's settling Himself /rmly upon His 1hrone is "no2n, the ho2 of it is un"no2n7 belief in it is obligatory7 and 4uestioning about it is an innovation.3 Any speulation about sared things 2as onsidered an innovation. )very dogma 2as to be be/eved in 2ith8out raising the 4uestion ho2 or 2hy!bila "aifa#. :ut suh an attitude of blind faith ould not be maintained for any length of time. &slam, as a universal religion and as a living fore, had to adapt it8self to ne2 thoughts and to ne2 surroundings. %o, as time 2ent on, there arose gradually a party, from amongst the orthodo6 setion of the Muslims, 2ho real8i5ed the neessity of putting &slam on a solid ground by advaning 3reasons3 for the traditional beliefs, of defending these beliefs against all sorts of atta"s internal and e6ternal, and thus purging their faith of all the non &slami elements that had rept into it. 1hey founded the orthodo6 theology of &slam by using -alamor the philosophial method in order to meet the dialetial reasoning of the Mu'ta5ilites. 1hese theologians 2ho employed employed -alamfor the defene defene of their faith 2ere, 2ere, therefore, "no2n as the Muta"allimun !orthodo6 theologians#. :ut, although these thin"ers used philosophial method in their disussions, they obtained the primary materials from revelation. 1hey deve8loped a rival siene of reasoning to meet the Mu'ta5ilites on their o2n ground. &n the beginning this ne2 orthodo6 theologial movement developed privately and seretly. seretly. &t 2as at /rst a gradual unonsious drift. &t ould not ome to the open for fear of publi ritiism. Al unaid, for instane, had to disuss the unity of God behind losed doors. Al %ha/'i held that some trained people might defend and purify the faith but that should not be done
in publi. Al Muhasibi and other ontemporaries of &mam Ahmad ibn Hanbal inurred his displeasure for defending the faith 2ith arguments or reason. :ut gradually the movement gathered strength and began to be openly preahed almost at the same time in di9erent plaes of the Muslim 2orld in Mesopotamia by abu al Hasan Ali bin &smail al Ashari !d. or E0IE= or IEF#, in )gypt by al 1aha2i !d. =0IEB#, and in %amar4and by abu Mansnr al Maturidi !d. 0 IEE#. :ut of these three, al Ash'ari beame the most popular hero, before 2hom the Mu'ta5ilite system !the rationalist -alam# 2ent do2n, and he ame to be "no2n as the founder of the orthodo6 philosophial theology, and the shool founded by him 2as named after him as Asharism.
Al Ash'ari 2as born at :asrah. Regarding his date of birth there is di9erene of opinion. &bn -halli"an, in his disussion of the life of al Ash'ari, mentions that he 2as born in BJ or BK0LK or LL and died at :aghdad in 0IE= or some time after that. Aording to %hibli *u'mani and ibn Asa"ir !the author of 1abyin -idhb al Muftari, on the life and teahings of al Ash'ari#, h e 2as born in BK0LK and died in 0IE=. He 2as buried bet2een -ar"h and :ab al :asrah !the gate of :asrah#. He 2as a desendant of abu Musa al Ash'ari, one, of the famous Companions of the Prophet. Al Ash'ari, in his early youth, ame un der the are of the great Mu'ta5ilite sholar of the :asrite shool, abu 'Ali Muhammad bin Abd al +ahhab al ubba'i, and, as a disiple of his, beame an adherent of the Mu'ta5ilite shool and ontinued to support its dotrines up to the age of forty. After that there happened a sudden hange in his mind and one day he 2ent to the Mos4ue of :asrah and delared 3He 2ho "no2s me, "no2s 2ho & am, and he 2ho does not "no2 me, let him "no2 that & am abu al Hasan 'Ali al Ash'ari, that & used to maintain that the ?ur'an is reated, that eyes of men shall not see God, and that the reatures reate their ations. $o & repent that & have been a Mu'ta5ilite. & renoune these opinions and & ta"e the engagement to refute the Mu'ta5ilites and e6pose their infamy and turpitude.3 +hat brought about this sudden hange in al Aah'ari is not de/nitely "no2n to us. %hibli in his &lm al -alam says that 3the hange ame to him due to some diretions 2hih he had obtained in a dream..3 &bn -halli"an mentions in this onnetion the story of a publi disussion in 2hih al Ashari met his old Mu'ta5ilite teaher, al ubba'i, on the problem of salah un aslah, i. e., the problem 2hether God's ations are to be based on rational onsideration and 2hether He is bound to do 2hat is best for His reatures. Al Ash'ari ame to al ubba'i and presented the ase of three brothers, one being God fearing, another godless, and a third having died as a hild, and as"ed him as to 2hat 2ould be their positions in the ne6t 2orld. Al ubba'i ould not give a satisfatory and onsistent reply to that 4uestion and, on his having failed to ustify rationally the Mu'ta5ilite dotrine of salah 2a a;ah, al Ash'ari abandoned the Mu'ta5ilite amp. :ut 2hatever might have been the ause of this hange, 2hen he hanged he 2as terribly in earnest. After the hange he 2rote a number of boo"s and ibn (ura" says that the number amounted to three hundred.
&bn Asa"ir Dimash4i has given the titles of ninety three of them, but only a fe2 have been preserved and are enumerated by :ro"elmann. His 2or" al &banah an Nsul al Diyanah 2as printed at Hyderabad, Dean !&ndia#, in =B=0=I and a small treatise Risalah / &stihsan al -haud / al -alam 2as printed in =B0=IF and reprinted at Hyderabad in =EE0=IBF. Al Ash'ari's other famous 2or"s are al Ma4alat al &s&amiyyin !published in &stanbul in =EL0=IBI#, -itab al %harh 2al 1afsil, $uma, Mu'a5, &adah al :urhan, and 1ab'in. f these boo"s the Ma4alat al8 &slamiyyin 2a &"htilaf al Musalliyyin is the most authen ti boo" on the vie2s of di9erent shools about religious dogmas and dotrines. Al Ma4alat 2as 2ritten muh earlier than the other boo"s on the same subet, suh as %hahrastani's -itab al Milal 2al *ihal, or ibn Ha5m'sal (asl / al Milal 2al Ah2a' 2al8 *ihal. &bn 1aimiyyah said in his Minha alO%unnah that the most ompre8hensive of the boo"s he 2ent through on the vie2s of di9erent people on the basi priniples of &slam 2as al Ash'ari'sal Ma4alat al &slamiyyin and that he !al Ash'ari# disussed many of suh vie2s in details as 2ere not even mentioned by others. &bn al ?ayyim also spo"e very highly of this 2or". &n his Hadi al Ar2ah and &tima al uyush al &slamiyyah, he said, 3%hahrastani, Abd al ?ahir :aghdadi, and other later 2riters on the subet simply opied from al Ash'ari's boo" and did not disuss the vie2s in details.3 Al Ash'ari's other famous boo" al &banah an Nsul al Diyanah seems to have been 2ritten by him ust after his abandoning the Mu'ta5ilite vie2s. &n this boo" 2e /nd he is almost a @ahirite. 1he reation against the Mu'ta5ilite speulation might have been very strong in his mind at that period. Al Ma4alat seems to be a later 2or". 1he Risalah / &stihsan al -haud deals 2ith the obetions raised by the e6tremely orthodo6 against the use of -alam,and the replies given by al Ash'ari, ustifying its use in matters of faith. Al Ash'ari's theology has been disussed mainly in these boo"s. He had a good number of pupils 2ho passed as famous theologians and 2ho spread and developed his dotrines and dogmas. %ome of those older Ash'arites 2ere abu %ahl %alu4i, abu ?u9al, abu @aid Maru5i, @ahir bin Ahmad, Ha/5 abu :a"r urani, %hai"h abu Muhammad 1abari, and abu al Hasan :ahili. %ome of the pupils of these older Ash'arites beame still more famous and the best "no2n among them are ?adi abu :a"r :a4illani, abu :a"r bin (ura", abu al ?asim al ?ushairi and abu &sha4 &sfra'ini and his pupil abu al Ma'ali al u2aini, "no2n as &mam al Haramain. <=> : A%H'AR&1) 1H)$G Al Ash'ari maintaines an intermediary position bet2een the t2o diametrially opposed shools of thought prevailing at the time. He had to /ght against both the opposing parties. At the one e6treme 2ere the Mu'ta5ilites 2ho made reason in preferene to revelation the sole riterion of truth and reality and, thus, passed slo2ly into omparatively innouous heretis. At the other e6treme 2ere the orthodo6 groups, partiularly the @ahirites, the Muassimites !anthropomorphists#, the Muhaddithin !1raditionists#, and the urists, all of 2hih 2ere 2holly opposed to
the use of reason or -alamin defending or e6plaining religious dogmas and ondemned any disussion about them as innovation. Al Ash'ari 2rote his &stihsan al -haud mainly to meet the obe8tions raised by the orthodo6 shool against the use of reason in matters of faith. &n that treatise he says 3A setion of the people !i.e., the @ahirites and other orthodo6 people# made apital out of their o2n ignorane7 disussions and rational thin"ing about matters of faith beame a heavy burden for them, and, therefore, they beame inlined to blind faith and blind follo2ing !ta4lid#.1hey ondemned those 2ho tried to rationali5e the priniples of religion as innovators.' 1hey onsidered disussion about motion, rest, body, aident, olour, spae, atom, the leaping of atoms, and attributes of God, to be an innovation and a sin. 1hey said that had suh disussions been the right thing, the Prophet and his Companions 2ould have de/nitely done so7 they further pointed out that the Prophet, before his death, disussed and fully e6plained all those matters 2hih 2ere neessary from the religious point of vie2, leaving none of them to be disussed by his follo2ers7 and sine he did not disuss the problems mentioned above, it 2as evident that to disuss them must be regarded as an innovation.3 1hey further ontended that these so alled theologial problems 2ere either "no2n to the Prophet and his Companions and yet they "ept silent and did not disuss them or they 2ere not "no2n to them. &f they "ne2 them and yet did not disuss them, 2e are also to follo2 them in "eeping silent, and if they ould remain una2are of them 2e an also do so. &n both ases dis8ussion about them 2ould be an 3innovation.3 1hese 2ere, in brief, their obetions against the u se of -alamin matters of faith. Al Ash'ari, then, proeeds to ustify theologial disussions about matters of faith. He tries to meet these obetions in three 2ays. (irst, by turning the obetions of the orthodo6 against themselves by pointing out to them th at the Prophet had not said that those 2ho 2ould disuss these problems 2ere to be ondemned and harged as innovators. Hene, their harging or on8demning others as innovators 2as itself an innovation, for it amounted to disussion about matters 2hih the Prophet did not disuss, and ondemn the ation of those 2hom the Prophet did not ondemn. %eondly, 3the Prophet 2as not una2are of all these problems of body, aident, motion, rest, atoms, et., though he did not disuss eah of them separately. 1he general priniples !usul# underlying these problems are present in general, not in details, in the ?ur'an and the %unnah.3 Al Ash'ari then proeeds to prove his ontention by iting verses from the ?ur'an and the sayings of the Prophet, and thereby sho2ing that the priniples underlying the problems of har"ah, su"un, tauhid, et., are, as a matter of fat, present in the ?ur'an and the %unnah. <==> 1hirdly, 3the Prophet 2as not una2are of these matters and "ne2 them in detail, but as problems about them did not arise during his life time, there 2as no 4uestion of his disussing or not disussing them.3 1he Companions of the Prophet disussed
and argued about many religious matters 2hih appeared during their life time, although there 2as no diret and e6pliit 3saying3 of the Prophet about them, and beause of the absene of any e6pliit inuntion from the Prophet they di9ered in their udgments about them. Had the 4ues8tion, for instane, of the reation of the ?ur'an, or of atoms or substane, been raised in so many 2ords in the life of the Prophet, he 2ould have de/nitely disussed and e6plained it as he did in the ase of all those problems 2hih 2ere then raised. 31here is no diret verdit !nass# from the Prophet, for instane, as to 2hether the ?ur'an is reated or unreated. &f to all the ?ur'an reated is an innovation,' then, on the same ground, to all it unO reated must also be an innovation.3' Al Ash'ari then onludes that &slam is not opposed to the use of reason7 on the other hand, rationali5ation of faith is a neessity in &slam. Al Ash'ari disussed the main theologial problems in hisMa4alat al &slamiy8yin and al &banah an Nsul al Diyanah.&n these boo"s al Ashari selets a fe2 priniples 2hih distinguish the Ash'arites from the Mu'ta5ilite shool of thought. $ater on al Gha5ali put them in a onsolidated form in his &hya <=B>as the 3Priniples of (aith3 or ?a2a'id al A4a'id, and &mam (a"hr al Din al Ra5i e6plained them more elaborately. 1he main problems about 2hih the Ash'arites di9ered from the Mu'ta5ilites are !=# 1he on8eption of God and the nature of His attributes. !B# (reedom of the human 2ill. !# 1he riterion of truth and the standard of good and evil. !E# 1he vision !ruyah# of God. !F# Createdness of the ?ur'an. !J# Possibility of burdening the reatures 2ith impossible tas"s. !K# Promise of re2ard and threat of punishment. !L# 1he rational or non rational basis of God's ations. !I# +hether God is bound to do 2hat is best for His reatures. <=> 1he problems disussed by the Ash'arites in their system may be broadly lassi/ed into t2o ategories !i# theologial, and !ii# metaphysial. C (N*DAM)*1A$ PR&*C&P$)% ( 1H) A%H'AR&1) 1H)$G =. Coneption o f God and the *ature of His Attributes Aording to the Ash'arites, God is one, uni4ue, eternal, e6istent :eing7 He is not a substane, not a body, not an aident, not limited to any diretion, and not in any spae. He possesses
attributes suh as "no2ledge, po2er, life, 2ill7 He is hearing and seeing and has speeh. About the nature of divine attributes t2o e6treme vie2s 2ere held before the Ash'arites. n the one hand, there 2ere the e6treme Attributists !%ifatis#, the Anthropomorphists !Muassimin#, and the Comparers !Mushabbihin#, 2ho maintained that God possesses all the attributes mentioned in the ?ur'an and that all suh attributes as God's having hands, legs, ears, eyes, and His sitting /rmly !isti2a# on His 1hrone must be ta"en in their literal sense. %uh a vie2 of the attributes of God is pure anthropomorphism, implying God's bodily e6istene. n the other hand, there 2ere the Mu'ta5ilites 2ho held that God is one, eternal, uni4ue, absolute :eing, having no touh of dualism in Him. His essene is self ontained. He does not possess any attributes apart from His essene. His essene is, for instane, "no2ing, po2erful, seeing, 2illing, et. 1hey denied the attributes of God as anything other than and addition to His essene. 1he Ash'arites maintained a vie2 2hih 2as, so to say, a reoniliation be8t2een the t2o e6treme vie2s. &n agreement 2ith the %ifatis and in opposition to the Mu'ta5ilites and the 3philosophers3 !those 2ho 2ere under Gree" in8;uene#, the Ash'arites held that God possesses attributes in general. 1hey lassi/ed the attributes of God into t2o main groups !i# sifat i salbiyyah, or negative attributes, and !ii# sifat i 2uudiyyah or e6istential or positive attributes. Aording to them, the sifat i2uudiyyah, 2hih they also alled sifat i a4liyyah or rational attributes, 2ere seven "no2ledge, po2er, 2ill, life, hearing, seeing, and speeh. 1he e6treme %ifatis asserted that even those attributes of God 2hih imply His bodily e6istene are also to be ta"en in their true literal sense. As against them, the Ash'arites maintained that God possesses the apparently anthropoOmorphi attributes no doubt, but these should be understood not in their literal sense. 1hey are to be believed in bila "aifa, 2ithout as"ing 3ho2,3 and bila tashbih, 2ithout dra2ing any omparison. <=E> 1he Ash'arites here introdued a priniple that the attributes of God are uni4ue and fundamentally di9erent from those of the reated beings and as suh should not be ompared to them. 1his is "no2n as the dotrine of mu"ha8lafah, or absolute di9erene. 1his dotrine signi/es that if any 4uality or term is applied to God, it must be understood in a uni4ue sense and never ta"en in the sense in 2hih it is normally used 2hen applied to reated beings. :eause of the dotrine of mu"hulafah, the Ash'arites held that 2e are not allo2ed to asribe any attribute to God unless it is e6pressly so applied in the ?ur'an. God's attributes di9er from those of the reatures, not in degree but in "ind, i. e., in their 2hole nature. 1he Ash'arites, as against the Mu'ta5ilites, held that 3God has attributes 2hih inhere eternally in Him and are in addition to His essene.3 <=F> 1hese attributes are eternal, but they are neither idential 2ith His essene, nor are they 4uite di9erent
from or other than His essene. God is "no2ing, for instane, means th at God possesses "no2ledge as an attribute, 2hih is inherent in God, and although it is not e6atly the same as His essene, yet it is not something 4uite di9erent from and other than His essene. 1he Ash'arites, here, maintained a very diQult position. 1hey 2ere bet2een the t2o horns of a dilemma. 1hey ould neither assert the eternal attributes of God to be idential 2ith nor 2holly di9erent from the essene of God. 1hey ould not agree to the Mu'ta5ilite vie2 and assert the identity of the attributes 2ith the essene of God, beause that 2ould be a virtual denial of the attributes. 1hey ould not also assert that these eternal attributes are something absolutely di9erent, or other than and separate, from God, as that 2ould lead to multipliity of eternals, and go against divine unity. 1hey, therefore, maintained that these attributes are, in one sense, inluded in and, in another sense, e6luded from, the essene of God. <=J> &t is ommon "no2ledge that the Asharites ontended that essene !mahiyyah#, and attri8butes !sifat# are t2o di9erent things and they annot be other2ise in the ase of God, the %upreme :eing. 1he Ash'arites made a distintion bet2een the meaning or onnotation !mafhum# of a thing and its reality !ha4i4ah#. %o far as their meaning is onerned, the attributes and the essene of God are not the same and as suh the attributes are in addition to the essene of God, i.e., they have di9erent meanings. 1he meaning of dhat!essene# is di9erent from the meanings of di9erent attributes. God's essene, for instane, is not "no2ing or po2erful or 2ise, but so far as their ultimate ha4i4ah!reality or appliation# is onerned, the attributes are inherent in the divine essene, and hene are not something 4uite di9erent from or other than the essene of God. <=K> &n support of the above vie2 of theirs, the Ash'arites advaned the follo2ing arguments. 1he analogial argument of the Ash'arites of the older generation God's ations prove that He is "no2ing, po2erful, and 2illing7 so they also prove that He possesses "no2ledge, po2er, 2ill, et., beause the ground of inferene annot di9er in di9erent things. +hat is true in the ase of a reated being must also be true in the ase of the Divine :eing. <=L> &n the ase of a human being, by 3"no2ing3 2e mean one 2ho possesses "no2ledge and even ommon sense and dra2s a line of demaration bet2een an essene and its attributes. n the same analogy, distintion must be dra2n bet2een the essene of God and His attributes. 1he essene and the attributes should not be supposed to be blended in the Divine :eing. Hene the attributes of God annot be idential 2ith His essene, as the Mu'ta5ilites held. :ut this analogial reasoning is very 2ea", for 2hat is true of a /nite being need not neessarily be true of an in/nite being. :ut, aording to the dotrineof mu"halafah, God's "no2ledge or po2er or 2ill and, as a matter of fat, all His rational attributes signify 4uite di9erent meanings 2hen applied to reated beings.
%eondly, they argued that if all the attributes of God are idential 2ith His essene, the divine essene must be a homogeneous ombination of ontra8ditory 4ualities. (or instane, God is meriful !rahim# and also revengeful!4ahhar#7 both the ontraditory attributes 2ould onstitute the essene of God, 2hih is one, uni4ue, and indivisible!ahad#, and that is absurd. (urther, if the attributes are idential 2ith God's essene, and if, for instane, His being "no2ing, po2erful, and living is His essene itself, no useful purpose 2ill be served by asribing them to Him, for that 2ould ultimately be the virtual appliation of His essene to itself, 2hih is useless. Hene the divine attributes annot be idential 2ith the divine essene. 1hirdly, if the attributes of God are not distint from His essen e, the meanings of the di9erent attributes 2ill be e6atly the same, for God's essene is a simple and indivisible unity. 1he meanings of "no2ing, 2illing, and living, for instane, 2ill be e6atly the same, and thus "no2ledge 2ill mean po2er, or po2er 2ill mean life, and so on. <=I> 1his also is an absurdity. 1hese di9erent attributes imply di9erent meanings and hene they annot be idential 2ith God's essene. His essene is one and He possesses many attributes 2hih eternally inhere in Him and, though not idential 2ith His essene, yet they are not absolutely di9erent from His essene. B. (ree 2ill n the 4uestion of free 2ill or on the ability of man to hoose and produe ations, the Ash'arites too" up again an intermediary position bet2een the libertarian and fatalisti vie2s, held by the Mu'ta5ilites and the abrites respetively. 1he orthodo6 people and the abrites maintained a pure fatalisti vie2. 1hey held that human ations are predetermined. and predestined by God. Man has no po2er to produe any ation. 3)verything,3 they ontended, 3is from God.3 God h as absolute po2er over everything inluding human 2ill and human ations. 1he Mu'ta5ilites and the ?adarites, on the other hand, held that man has full po2er to produe an ation and has omplete freedom in his hoie, though the po2er 2as reated in him by God. 1he Ash'arites stru" a middle path. 1hey made a distintion bet2een reation !"hal4# and a4uisition !"asb#of an ation. God, aording to the Ash'arites, is the reator!"hali4# of human ations and man is the a4uisitor!mu"tasib#. 3Ations of human beings are reated!ma"hlu4# by God, th e reatures are not apable of reating any ation.3 31here is no reator e6ept God and the ations of man are, therefore, His reation.3 Po2er!4udrah#, aording to them, is either !i# original!4adamah# or !ii# derived !hadithah#. 1he original po2er alone is e9etive. Derived po2er an reate nothing. 1he po2er possessed by man is given by God and as suh it is derived. Al8 Ash’ari said, 31he true meaning of a4uisition is the ourrene of a thing or event due to derived po2er, and it is an a4uisition for
the person by 2hose derived po2er it ta"es plae.3 God is, thus, the reator of human ations and man is the a4uisitor. Man annot reate anything7 he annot initiate 2or". God alone an reate, beause absolute reation is His pre8rogative. God reates in man the po2er and the ability to perform an at. He also reates in him the po2er to ma"e a free hoie!i"htiyar# bet2een t2o alternatives bet2een right and 2rong. 1his free hoie of man is not e9etive in produing the ation. &t is the habit or nature of God to reate the ation orresponding to the hoie and po2er reated by Himself in man. 1hus, the ation of man is reated by God, both as to initiative and as to prodution or ompletion. Man is free only in ma"ing the hoie bet2een alternatives and also in intending to do the partiular ation freely hosen Man, in ma"ing this hoie and intending to do the at, a4uires !i"tisab# either the merit of appreiation and re2ard from God if he ma"es the right hoie, or the demerit of ondemnation and punishment if he ma"es the 2rong hoie. 1he Asharites, thus, in order to avoid the fatalisti position, introdued the do8trine of a4uisition by 2hih, they thought, they ould aount for man's free 2ill and lay responsibility upon him. Man has no free 2ill in the Mu'ta5ilite sense7 he has no real and e9etive po2er, but has some derived po2er by 2hih he a4uires a share in the prodution of the at &n the ase of voluntary ations of human beings, there are, so to say, t2o auses. 1he ation is the ombined e9et of the real ause, God, and the hoie and intention of man, the a4uisitor, the possessor of ine9etive po2er beause of its being derived po2er. God reates in t2o 2ays either 2ith a lous !mahall# or 2ithout a lous. Human ations are His reation 2ith a lous. 3God reates, in man, the po2er, ability, hoie, and 2ill to perform an at, and man, endo2ed 2ith this derived po2er, hooses freely one of the alternatives and intends or 2ills to do the ation, and, orresponding to this intention, God reates and om8pletes the ation.3 &t is this intention on the part of man 2hih ma"es him responsible for his deeds. Man annot ta"e the initiative in any matter, nor an heoriginate any ation. :ut the ompletion of the at is partially due to his intention He, thus, a4uires the merit or demerit of the ation beause of his intending to do a good or bad ation. Man's free hoie is, so to say, an oasion for God's ausing the ation orresponding to that hoie. &n this the Asharites ome very lose to the oasionalism of Malebranhe 2hih 2as e6pounded in )urope eight enturies and a half later. 1his orrespondene and harmony bet2een the hoie of man and God's reation, aording to the Ash'arites, is not due to a harmony established by God previously, but beause of His habit or nature to reate the harmony 2henever human ation is done. 1his, in short, is the solution of the problem of free 2ill o9ered by the Ash'arites. 1he Ashh'arite vie2 on this problem is not free from logial and ethial diQulties. &t 2as really very diQult for them to reonile the absolute determination of all events by God 2ith man's aountability and responsi8bility for his deeds. %ome, of the later Ash'arites, partiularly &mam (a"hr al Din al Ra5i, disarded the veil of a4uisition in order to esape the harge of fatalism, and advoated na"ed determinism.
. 1he Problem of Reason and Revelation and the Criterion of Good and )vil O 81he Asharites di9er from the Mu'ta5ilites on the 4uestion 2hether reason or revelation should be the basis or soure of truth and reality :oth the shools admit the neessity of reason for the rational understanding of faith, but they di9er 2ith regard to the 4uestion 2hether revelation or reason is more fun8damental and, in ase of a on;it, 2hether reason or revelation is to get preferene. 1he Mu'ta5ilites held that reason is more fundamental than revela8tion and is to be preferred to revelation. Revelation merely on/rms 2hat is aepted by reason and, if there be a on;it bet2een the t2o, reason is to be preferred and revelation must be so interpreted as to be in onformity 2ith the ditates of reason. 1he Asharites, on the other hand, held that revelation is more funda8mental as the soure of ultimate truth and reality, and reason should merely on/rm 2hat is given by revelation. 1he Asharites prefer revelation to reason in ase of a on;it bet2een the t2o. As a matter of fat, this is one of the fundamental priniples in 2hih the rational-alam of the Mu'ta5ilites di9ers from the orthodo6 -alamof the Ash'arites. &f pure reason is made the sole basis or soure of truth and reality, inluding the truth and reality of the most fun8damental priniples or onepts on 2hih &slam is based, it 2ould be a pure speulative philosophy or at best a rational theology in general and not a dotrinal theology of a partiular histori religion, i. e., that of &slam in par8tiular. &slam is based on ertain fundamental priniples or onepts 2hih, being suprasensible in nature, are inapable of rational proof. 1hese priniples, /rst, must be believed in on the basis of revelation. Revelation, thus, is the real basis of the truth and reality of these basi dotrines of &slam. 1his faith, based on revelation, must be rationali5ed. &slam as a religion, no doubt, admits the neessity of rationali5ing its faith. :ut to admit the neessity of rationali5ing faith is not to admit pure reason or analyti thought to be the sole soure or basis of &slam as a religion. Reason, no doubt, has the right to udge &slam and its basi priniples, but 2hat is to be udged is of suh a nature that it annot submit to the udgment of reason e6ept on its o2n terms. Reason must, therefore, be subordinated to revelation. &ts funtion is to rationali5e faith in the basi priniples of &slam and not to 4uestion the validity or truth of the priniples established on the basis of revelation as embodied in the ?ur 'an and the %unnah. 1he problem of the riterion of good and evil follo2s as a orollary to the problem of reason and revelation. 1he problem of good and evil is one of the most ontroversial problems of &slami theology. 1he Mu'ta5ilites held that reason, and not revelation, is the riterion or standard of moral udgment, i.e., of the goodness and badness of an ation. 1he truth and moral value of things and human ations must be determined by reason. 1hey ontended that moral 4ualities of good and evil are obetive7 they are inherent in the very n ature of things or ations and as suh an be "no2n by reason and deided to be good or bad. 1he Ash'arites, as against the Mu'ta5ilites, held that revelation and not reason is the real authority or riterion to determine 2hat is good and 2hat is bad. Goodness
and badness of ations !husn 2a 4ubh# are not 4ualities inhering in them7 these are mere aidents !a'rad#. Ations in themselves are neither good nor bad. Divine $a2 ma"es them good or bad. &n order to ma"e the ground of ontroversy bet2een the Mu'ta5ilites and the Ash'arites learer, 2e may e6plain here the three di9erent senses in 2hih these t2o terms, good and evil, are used. !i# Good and evil are sometimes used in the sense of perfetion and defet respetively. +hen 2e say that a ertain thing or ation is good or bad !for instane, "no2ledge is good and ignorane is bad#, 2e mean that it is a 4uality 2hih ma"es its possessor perfet or implies a defet in him. !ii# 1hese terms are also used in a utilitarian sense meaning gain and loss in 2orldly a9airs. +hatever is useful or has utility in our e6periene is good, and the opposite of it is bad. %o 2hatever is neither useful nor harmful is neither good nor bad. :oth the Ash'arites and the Mu'ta5ilites agree that in the t2o senses, men8tioned above, reason is the riterion or standard of good and evil. 1here is no di9erene of opinion in the above t2o senses. :ut good and bad in the seond sense may vary from time to time, from individual to individual, and from plae to plae. &n this sense there 2ill be nothing permanently or universally good or bad7 2hat is good to one may be bad to others and vie versa. 1his implies that good and evil are subetive and not obetive and real. Hene ations are neither good nor bad, but e6periene or 2or"ability 2ould ma"e them so and, therefore, they an be "no2n by reason 2ithout the help of revelation. !iii# Good and evil are also used in a third sense of ommendable and praise82orthy or ondemnable in this 2orld and re2ardable or punishable, as the ase may be, in the other 2orld. 1he Ash'arites maintained that good and evil in their third sense must be "no2n through revelation, not by reason as the Mu'ta5ilites had held. Aording to the Ash'arites, revelation alone deides 2hether an ation is good or bad. +hat is ommanded by %har' is good, and 2hat is prohibited is bad. %har an onvert previously delared good into bad and vie versa. As ations by themselves are neither good nor bad, there is nothing in them 2hih 2ould ma"e them re2ardable !good# or punishable !bad#. 1hey are made re2ardable or punishable by revelation or %har'.As there is no 4uality of good or evil seated in the verypature of an at, there an be no 4uestion of "no2ing it by reason. E. 1he Problem of the )ternity of the ?ur'an 1here 2as a great ontroversy over the 4uestion 2hether the ?ur'an is reated or unereated and eternal. 1his 4uestion is bound up 2ith another 4uestion 2hether speeh is one of God's attributes or not. 1he orthodo6 setion of the Muslims, inluding the Ash'arites, held that God has it
as one of His seven rational attributes, and as His attributes are eternal, divine speeh, i.e., the ?ur'an, is also eternal. As regards the eternity of the ?ur'an, the Ash'arites adopted again an inter8mediary position bet2een the e6treme vie2s of the @ahirites and the Mu'ta5i8lites. 1he Hanbalites and other @ahirites !e6treme orthodo6 shools# held that the speeh of God, i. e., the ?ur'an, is omposed of letters, 2ords, and sounds 2hih inhere in the essene of God and is, therefore, eternal. %ome of the Hanbalites 2ent to the e6treme and asserted that even th e over and the binding of the ?ur'an are eternal. 1he Mu'ta5ilites and a setion of the Ra/dites 2ent to the other e6treme and maintained that the ?ur'an 2as reated. 1hey denied all attributes of God, inluding the attribute of speeh, on the ground that if it be an eternal attribute of God, there 2ould be multi8pliity of eternals, to believe 2hih is polytheism and ontrary to the basi priniples of &slam. 1hey further argued that 3the ?ur'an is omposed of parts, suessively arranged parts, and 2hatever is omposed of suh parts must be temporal.3 Hene the ?ur'an must be reated. 1he Ash'arites maintained that the ?ur'an is omposed of 2ords and sounds, but these do not inhere in the essene of God. 1hey made a distintion bet2een the out2ard and on8rete e6pression of the ?ur'an in language, and the real, self subsistent mean8ing of it, and held that the ?ur'an, as e6pressed in 2ords and sounds, is, no doubt, temporal!hadath#7 but against the Mu 'ta5ilites they asserted that the ?ur'an in its meanings is unreated and eternal. 1he 3self subsisting meaning3 eternally inheres in the essene of God. 1hese meanings are e6pressed7 their e6pression in language is temporal and reated. &t is so beause the same mean8ing, 2hile remaining the same, might be e6pressed di9erently at di9erent times, in di9erent plaes by di9erent persons or nations. 1hey further maintained that this meaning is an attribute other than "no2ledge and 2ill and, as suh, inheres eternally in the essene of God and is, therefore, eternal. <> &n support of this ontention the Asharites advaned the follo2ing argu8ments <=>
!i# 1he ?ur'an is 3"no2ledge from God37 it is, therefore, inseparable from God's attribute of "no2ledge 2hih is eternal and unreated. Hene it is also eternal and unreated. !ii# God reated everything by His 2ord "un !be# and this 2ord, 2hih is in the ?ur'an, ould not have been a reated one, other2ise a reated 2ord 2ould be a reator, 2hih is absurd. Hene God's 2ord is unreated, i. e.. eternal. !iii# 1he ?ur'an ma"es a distintion bet2een reation!"hal4# and ommand !amr# 2hen &t says, 3Are not the reation and ommand His alone3 Hene God's Command, His 2ord or -alam, 2hih is de/nitely something other than reated things !ma"hlu4#, must be unereated and eternal.
!iv# (urther, God says to Moses, 3& have hosen thee over man"ind 2ith My apostolate and My 2ord.3 1his verse signi/es that God has speeh. Again, Moses is addressed by God 2ith the 2ords 3$o, & am thy $ord.3 *o2, if the 2ord 2hih addresses Moses is a reated thing, it 2ould mean that a reated thing asserts that it is Moses $ord !God#, 2hih is absurd. God's 2ord, there8fore, must be eternal. 1he Ash'arites further pointed out that all the di9erent arguments advaned by the Mu'ta5ilites !and in%harh i Ma2a4if as many as eight suh arguments have been mentioned#, in support of their vie2 that the ?ur'an is reated, 2ould apply only to the e6pressed ?ur'an and not to the real ?ur'an, the latter being the 3meanings of the ?ur'an.3 <B> F. 1he Problem of the :eati/ Sision n the 4uestion of the beati/ vision, the Asharites, true to their attitude of reoniliation, again tried to adopt a ourse lying mid2ay bet2een the e6treme anthropomorphi vie2 of the @ahi8rites and other orthodo6 Muslims on the one hand and the vie2 of the Mu'ta5i8lites and the 3philosophers3 on the other. 1he e6treme orthodo6 Muslims and the @ahirites, in partiular, held that it is possible to see God and the righteous persons 2ould atually have His vision as the hief re2ard for their good ations. 1hey further held that God is settled /rmly on His 1hrone, He e6ists in di9erent diretions, and is apable of being pointed out. 1he Mu'ta5ilites and the 3philosophers3 denied the possibility of seeing God 2ith eyes, as that 2ould imply His bodily e6istene, 2hih is absurd. 1he Ash'arites, as against the Mu'ta5ilites and the 3philosophers,3 and in agreement 2ith the orthodo6 lass, held that it is possible to see God7 <> but they ould not agree to their vie2 that God is e6tended and an be sho2n by pointing out. 1hey aepted the philosophial priniple that 2hatever is e6tended or spatial must be ontingent and temporal, and God is not an e6tended and temporal being. 1his admission landed them into a diQulty, for if God is not e6tended and only e6tended things an be seen, God annot be seen7 <E> but this onlusion on;its 2ith their position that beati/ vision is possible. %o, in order to get out of this diQulty, they asserted the possibility of seeing an obet even if it is not present before the pereiver. <F>1his 2as a very peuliar and untenable position, for it repudiated all the priniples of optis. &t is possible to see God even though our sense of vision does not reeive the orresponding 3impression3 of the obet on it. :esides, it is possible for God to reate in human beings the apaity to see Him 2ithout the neessary onditions of vision, suh as the presene, in onrete form, of the obet itself in spae and time, normal ondition of the appropriate sense organ, absene of hindrane or obstrution to pereption, and so on7 and though God is unOe6tended and does not e6ist in spae and time, 3yet He may ma"e Himself visible to His reature li"e the fall moon.3 1hey further ontended that the vision of God is possible 2ithout any impression on our sense organ for another reason. 1here is pratially no di9erene bet2een a 3sensation3 and an 3after 8image3 e6ept that the sensation possesses an additional 4uality over and above the ommon 4ualities present in both, and this
additional 4uality, i.e, impression on the sense organ produed by the e6ternal obet, does not ma"e any di9erene in the pereption of an obet. Hene, though this impression is missing in the ase of seeing God, it may still be alled 3seeing.3 1he 2ea"8ness of this argument is apparent to any student of psyhology, beause an after image is possible only 2hen it is preeded by an atual impression of the obet on the sense organ. 1he atual impression of the obet is, there8fore, a preondition of an after image in the ase of beati/ vision too. 1he Ash'arites 2ere faed 2ith another diQulty. 1he Mu'ta5ilites had pointed out that if seeing of God is possible, it must be possible under all irumstanes and at all times, for this possibility is due either to His essene or to an inseparable attribute in Him. &n either ase, it should be possible at all times. And if it is possible at all times, it must be possible no27 and if it is possible to see Him no2, 2e must see Him no2, for 2hen all the onditions of 3vision3 are present, the atual seeing must ta"e plae. 1he Asharites met this obetion in a very naive manner by saying, 3+e do not admit the neessity of atual seeing ta"ing plae, even 2hen all its eight onditions are present.3 1he Ash'arites supported their vie2s on the basis of revelation. Aording to the ?ur'an, Moses as"ed of God, 3, my $ord, sho2 1hyself to me so that & an see 1hee.3 Had seeing been impossible, Moses 2ould not have said so, for, other2ise, it must be assumed that either he "ne2 its impossibility or did not, and both the alternatives are absurd, beause an intelligent person li"e him ould not have been ignorant of this impossibility and ould not have as"ed for 2hat he "n e2 2as impossible. Again, aording to the ?ur'an, God said to Moses, 3&f the mountain remains /6ed in its plae, you an see Me,3 and if the anteedent is possible the onse4uent must be possible. Here, evidently, the anteedent, /6ity of the moun8tain, is in itself a possible thing. 1herefore, the onse4uent, the vision of God, must also be possible. %ome other verses also support the onlusion. <J> 1here are a fe2 more ontroversial problems of seondary importane, in 2hih the Asharites di9ered from the Mu'ta5ilites. 1hese are, for e6ample, promise of re2ard and threat of punishment by God7 2hether God an ma"e His reatures responsible for the ations for 2hih they have no ability7 2hether God's ations are bound to be based on rational onsiderations and on purpose7 2hether He is bound to do 2hat is best for His reatures7 and 2hether the "no2ledge of God or reognition of His e6istene is based on reason or revelation. 1hese theologial problems of seondary importane are more or less the orol8laries of the main priniples in 2hih the Ash'arites and Mu'ta5ilites di9ered. 1he Ash'arites held that God is the only real ause of everything7 He alone possesses real and e9etive po2er and this po2er is u nlimited7 His 2ill is absolutely free not determined by anything. +hatever po2er human beings apparently
possess is given by God. Man does not possess any real and e9etive po2er. God, being absolutely free in His ation, is not bound to at on rational purpose. He does not at teleologially for, other2ise, His ations 2ould be determined by something e6ternal to and other than Himself and He 2ould not remain absolutely free. )6ternal purpose 2ould put a limit to God's omnipotene. $i"e %pino5a, al Ash'ari held that there is no purpose in the mind of God 2hih 2ould determine His ativity. (rom thus anti teleologial vie2 it follo2s that as God's ation is not teleologial, He is not bound to do 2hat is best for His reatures. He does 2hatever He 2ills. :ut as He is an absolutely intelligent and ust being, His ations, as a matter of fat, are all full of 2isdom. <K> As against the Mu'ta5ilites, the Ash'arites held that God an ma"e us responsible for the ations 2hih 2e have no po2er to do. 1he Mu'ta5ilites held that God annot do so, beause that 2ould be an irrational and unust at on His part. &t is admitted by all shools of thought in &slam that po2er or ability of men to do a thing is given by God. :ut opinions di9er on the 4uestion 2hether this po2er or ability is really e9etive in produing any ation. 1he Muta5ilites and the ?adarites held that man's po2er is fully e9etive and an produe an ation. :ut the Ash'arites maintained that, being derivative, it an have no e9etive fore. %imilar are their respetive positions 2ith regard to the ability to at. 1his ability is no doubt given by God as an aident, but the Mu'ta5ilites, partiularly abu al Hudhail Allaf, held that this ability is given to man simultaneously2ith the performane of the at. :ut the Ash'arites maintained that it is given before the atual performane of the at7 <L> but being a mere aident in man, it h as only a momentary e6istene and is of no pratial use to man in performing the at. As a matter of fat, it eases to e6ist 2hen the atual ation ta"es plae. Man, therefore, does the at, pratially 2ithout having the po2er and the ability to do so. He is held responsible for his ations beause of hishoosing freely one of the t2o alternative ations andintending to do the ation so hosen. :ut neither his hoie nor his intention an produe the ation. &t is God 2horeates the ation and is thu s its e9etive and real ause .<I> 1here is an almost similar ontroversy over the 4uestion of God's promise of re2ard to the virtuous and His threat of punishment to the 2rong doer. 1his 2as one of the /ve main problems 2ith 2hih the Mu'ta5ilite movement started. 1he Mu'ta5ilites held that God is bound to ful/l His promises of re2ard and punishment. )very ation, good or bad, must ta"e its o2n ourse and be follo2ed by its logial and normal onse4uene. A right ation, thereOfore, must be follo2ed by its re2ard and a 2rong one by punishment. God has made promises in the ?ur'an and He, being a ust being, annot do other2ise, i.e., He ann otpunish the virtuous and forgive the 2rong doer. n the other hand, the Ash'arites maintained that, being all po2erful and absolutely free in His 2ill, God an punish His reatures even if th ey have not ommitted any sins or re2ard His reatures even though they h ave done no virtuous deeds. 1here is nothing binding on God7 His 2ill is not subet to
teleologial onsiderations. &t is by the inner neessity of His o2n nature that He ful/ls His promises of re2ard to the virtuous and does n ot do other2ise. And it is in His in/nite mery that He may forgive any 2rong8doer or viious person, in spite of the threats of punishment for his viious ats. 1his at of forgiveness 2ill also be in aordane 2ith His nature as the most generous and graious being. D A%H'AR&1) M)1APH%&C% Al Ash'ari's interest 2as purely theologial and his disussions did n ot on8tain muh metaphysis. :ut the subse4uent Ash'arites found it impossible to ahieve their main obet of defending the faith and harmoni5ing reason 2ith revelation 2ithout ma"ing referene to the ultimate nature of reality. Al Ash'ari's theologial system 2as, thus, onsidered to be inomplete 2ithout a support from metaphysis. 1he system 2as fully developed by the later Ash'arites, partiularly by ?adi abu :a"r Muhammad bin 1ayyyib al :a4illani 2ho 2as one of the greatest among them. He 2as a :asrite, but he made :aghdad his permanent residene and died there in E0==. He 2as a great original thin"er and 2rote many valuable boo"s on theology and various other subets. He made use of some purely metaphysial propositions in his theologial investigations, suh as substane is an individual unity, aident has only a momentary e6istene and annot e6ist in 4uality, and perfet vauum is possible, and thus gave the shool a metaphysial foundation. About him a +estern sholar has remar"ed 3&t is his glory to have ontributed most important elements to, and put into /6ed form 2hat is, perhaps, the most daring metaphysial sheme, and almost ertainly the most thorough theo8logial sheme, ever thought out. n the one hand, the $uretian atoms raining do2n through the empty void, the self developing monads and pre8O established harmony of $eibni57 and all the -antian 3things in themselves3 are lame and impotent in their onsisteny beside the parallel Ash'arite dotrines7 and, on the other, not even the rigours of Calvin7 as developed in Duth onfessions, an ompete 2ith the un;inhing e6atitude of the Muslim onlusions. 1he Ash'arites, being primarily interested in theologial problems, "ept their philosophial disussions mainly on/ned only to those 4uestions 2hih they thought had a diret or indiret bearing on these problems. +illingly or un2illingly, they had to philosophi5e 3in order to meet the ontemporary philosophers on their o2n ground.3 :ut 2hen they began philosophi5ing, they 2ere very earnest and beame great metaphysiians. &n dealing 2ith the most important basi priniples of &slam !i# the e6istene of God, as the reator of the universe, and His unity and oneness, and !ii# the belief in the prophethood of Muhammad, they had to use ertain proofs 2hih neessitated some metaphysial and epistemologial disussions. Hene they had to develop a theory of "no2ledge and a theory of reality, 2hih 2ere peuliarly their o2n. God,
the ultimate priniple, is, aording to the Ash'arites, a neessary e6istent7 His e6istene is idential 2ith His essene. &n proving God's e6istene the Ash'arites used three arguments. 1heir argument from the ontingent nature of motion is not of muh importane to our disussion. 1he other t2o are !i# All bodies, they argued, are ultimately one in so far as their essene is onerned. :ut, in spite of this basi unity, their harateristis are di9erent. Hene there must be an ultimate ause for these divergent harateristi, and that ultimate ause is God. !ii# 1he 2orld is ontingent. )very ontingent thing must have a ause7 therefore, the 2orld must have a ause, and as no ontingent thing an be the ause, that ause must be God. 1he maor premise !i.e., every event must have a ause# does not re4uire a proof. 1he minor premise the 2orld is on8tingent they proved in the follo2ing manner )verything that e6ists in the 2orld is either a substane or a 4uality. 1he ontingent harater of a 4uality is evident, and the ontingene of substane follo2s from the fat that no substane ould e6ist apart from 4ualities. 1he ontingene of 4uality nees8sitates the ontingene of substane7 other2ise, the eternity of substane 2ould neessitate the eternity of 4uality. 1he Ash'arites believed in mirales 2hih 2ere onsidered to be the basis of the proof of prophethood and, in order to defend this vie2, they had to deny the la2s of nature. 1hey also denied ausality in nature and made God the only ause of everything. *o2, in order to e6plain the full impliation of the above arguments, it 2as neessary for them to develop a theory of "no2ledge and a metaphysis. 1he 2orld onsists of things. *o2, the 4uestion arises +hat is meant by a thing, 2hat is its nature, and ho2 far do 2e "no2 it Al :a4illani de/ned "no2ledge as the ognition of a thing as it is in itself. A thing is de/ned by the Ash'arites as 3that 2hih is e6istent.3 )verything is an e6istent and every e6istent is a thing. %o, aording to the Ash' arites, e6istene, 2hether neessary or ontingent, is the thing or the essene of the thing in itself and not a 4uality in addition to it, as the Mu'ta5ilites held. Al ahi5, al ubba'i, and some other Mu'ta5ilites of the :asrite shool de/ned a 3thing3 as that 2hih is "no2n, and held that e6istene is a 4uality of it, added to its essene. 1he Ash'arites, as against these Mu'ta5ilites, ontended that if e6istene is an additional 4uality, the essene in itself 2ould be a nonOe6istent and hene a non entity and the subse4uent addition of the 4uality of 3e6istene3 to it 2ould involve a lear ontradition in so far as it 2ould ma"e the non e6istent e6istent. 1his is an absurdity. 1he thing in itself 2hih is the obet of "no2ledge aording to the Ash'arites, is, therefore, an e6istent thing or a body. )verything that e6ists in the 2orld has a ontingent e6istene and is either su bstane or 4uality. &n this sense God is not a thing.
1he Aristotelian ategories of thought 2ere subeted by the Ash'arites to a searhing ritiism. nly t2o of those ategories, substane and 4uality, 2ere retained by them. 1he other ategories, 4uality, plae, time, et., are nothing but relative harateristis !i'tibarat# that e6ist subetively in the mind of the "no2er, having no orresponding obetive reality. $i"e :er"eley, the &rish philosopher, they also did not ma"e any distintion bet2een the primary and seondary 4ualities of obets. 1he 2orld, therefore, onsists of substane, on 2hih the mind re;ets, and 4ualities, 2hih are not in the thing in itself but only in the mind of the "no2er. 1he 4ualities are mere aidents 2hih are ;eeting, transitory, and subetive relations, having only a momentary e6istene. A 4uality or aident annot e6ist in another aident but only in a substane. *o substane ould ever e6ist apart from a 4uality. 1he substane, being inseparable from its aidents, must also be transitory, having only a moment's duration, ust as the aidents are. )verything that e6ists, therefore, onsists of mere transitory units !subetive#, having only a moment's duration. 1he Ash'arites, thus, reeted the Aristotelian vie2 of matter as 3a permanent potentiality !hayula# of su9ering the impress of form !surah#,3 beause a possibility is neither an entity nor a non entity but purely a subetivity. +ith inert matter, the ative form and all auses must also go. 1hey, too, are mere subetivities. 1his led them straight to the atomists and, as a matter of fat, they did beome atomists after their o2n fashion. &n this onnetion 2e may observe that the obet of the Ash'arites 2as, li"e that of -ant, to /6 the relation of "no2ledge to the thing in itself7 and they sho2ed here a great originality in their thought. n this 4uestion they not only antiipated -ant but, in reahing the thing in itself, they 2ere muh more thorough than -ant. 3&n his e6amination of human "no2ledge regarded as a produt and not merely a proess, -ant stopped at the idea of TDing an sih’ , but the Ash'arite endeavoured to penetrate further, and maintained, against the ontemporary Agnosti Realism, that the so alled underlying essene e6isted only so far as it 2as brought in relation to the "no2ing subet.3 Ash'arite Atomism 1he substanes pereived by us are atoms 2hih ome into e6istene from vauity and drop out of e6istene again. 1he 2orld is made up of suh atoms. 1he Ash'arite atoms are fundamentally di9erent from those of Demoritus and $uretius. 1he Asharite atoms are not material7 they are not permanent7 they have only a momentary e6istene7 they are not eternal but every moment brought into being, and then allo2ed to go out of e6istene by the %upreme :eing, God, the only ause of everything in the universe. 1hese atoms are not only of spae but of time also. 1hey are non8material or ideal in harater. 1hey resemble the monads of $eibni5. :ut the Ash'arite monads di9er from those of $eibni5 in having no possibility of self development along ertain lines. )ah monad has ertain 4ualities but has e6tension neither in spae nor in time. 1hey have simply position, not bul", and are isolated from and independent of one another. 1here is absolute void bet2een any t2o monads. %pae and time are subetive. All
hanges in the 2orld are produed by their entering into e6istene and dropping out again, but not by any hange in themselves. 1he Ash'arite ontology neessitated the e6istene of God. 1heir monads must h ave a ause, 2ithout 2hih they ould not have ome into being, nor ould there be any harmony or onnetion bet2een them. 1his ause must be a ause sui7 other2ise there 2ould be an in/nite regress of the ausal ne6us. 1he Ash'arites found this ause in the free 2ill of God. &t reates and annihilates the atoms and their 4ualities and, thus, brings to pass all motion and hange in the 2orld. 1he Ash'arites 2ere, thus, thoroughgoing metaphysiians. :eing 2as all 8important in their ontology. 1he 2ill of that :eing or God must, therefore, be the ground of all things. Hene they did not /nd any diQulty, as $eibni5 did, in e6plaining the harmony and oherene among the isolated, 2indo2less, and independent monads, onstituting the one orderly 2orld. $eibni5 had to bring in, in his monadology, a Monad of monads or God, and fall ba" upon the 1heory of Pre established Harmony to bring his monads into harmonious and orderly relations 2ith one another, and this he ould do only at the ost of his monadology, and by abandoning his pluralisti,and individualisti meta8physis. :ut the Ash'arites, onsistently 2ith their ontology, fell straight ba" upon God, and found in His 2ill the ground of orderliness and harmony in the universe. 1hey 2ere, thus, more thorough and onsistent than $eibni5 in their theory of monads. 1he Ash'arite atomism approahes that of $ot5e's, 2ho in spite of his desire to save e6ternal reality, ended in its Complete redution to ideality. :ut, li"e $ot5e, they ould not believe their atoms to be the inner 2or"ing of the in/nite Primal :eing. 1he neessary onse4uene of their analysis is a thorough going idealism li"e that of :er"eley. 1heir theory of "no2ledge redued the universe to a mere sho2 of ordered subetivities 2hih, as they maintained li"e :er"eley, found their u ltimate e6planation in the 2ill of God. 1heir interest, as 2e have already pointed out, 2as mainly theologial. &nterest in pure monotheism 2as very strong 2ith them. 1heir metaphysial and epistemologial disussions 2ere atuated by a pious desire to defend the idea of divine reations, to drive men ba" to God and His revelation and ompel them to see in Him the one grand fat of the universe. 1he Ash'arites are here more onsistent than :er"eley. God, aording to them, is the only ause in the true sense of the term. *o reated thing, having reated po2er, ould be the ause of anything. 1he attitude of the Ash'arites to2ards the la2 of ausation 2as septial. 1hey denied obetive validity of ausality in nature. *o reated thing or being an be the ause of anything. 1hings or beings in nature do not possess any po2er or 4uality 2hih ould produe any e9et. 1he so alled po2er 2hih men and obets of nature seem to possess is not an e9etive po2er, for it is a derived po2er, not an original po2er 2hih alone an produe e9et. +hatever po2er the reatures might possess must have been given by God, 2ho alone possesses all real po2er.
:eing !God# is the only Nltimate Reality. 1he things of the 2orld are omposed of indivisible units monads 2hih, every moment, are reated and annihilated7 and it is God 2ho reates and annihilates them and their 4ualities, thereby bringing about all the motion and hange in the 2orld. 1here is, thus, no suh thing as a la2 of nature and the 2orld is sustained by a onstant, ever repeated ativity of God. 1here is no suh thing as a seondary ause7 2hen there is the appearane of suh a ause, it is only illusionary. God produes the appearane of the e9et as 2ell as the e9et. 1hings of the 2orld do not possess any permanent nature. (ire, for instane, does not possess the nature or 4uality of burning7 it does not burn. God reates in a substane 3a being burned3 2hen /re touhes it. 1he Ash'arites thus denied po2er in the ause as 2ell as the neessary onnetion bet2een the so alled ause and e9et. %hibli mentions that the Ash'arites reeted the idea of ausation 2ith a vie2 to defending the possibility of mirales on the manifestation of 2hih, aording to them, pro8phethood depended. 1he orthodo6 shool believed in mirales as 2ell as in the universal la2 of ausation7 but they also maintained that, at the time of manifesting a mirale, God suspends the operation of this la2 and thus brings about an e6eption. Ashaari, ho2ever, maintained that a ause must have al2ays the same e9et !i.e., the e9et of one and the ause ause ould not be di9erent at di9erent times#. Having aepted this priniple as formulated by their leader, the Ash'arites ould not agree to the orthodo6 vie2 and, therefore, to prove the possibility of mirales they reeted the la2 of ausation altogether, Aording to them, there is no po2er in the anteedent to produe the onse4uent. 3+e "no2 nothing but ;oating impressions, the phenomenal order of 2hih is determined by God.3 betion might be raised against the Ash'arite metaphysis that it es8tablishes in e9et a relationship bet2een God and the atoms, but relation8ships, aording to the Ash'arites, are subetive illusions. &n reply to this obetion it may be pointed out that all relationship applies only to ontingent beings or things pereived by the senses. &t 2ould not hold in the ase of the *eessary :eing, God, 2ho is suprasensible. And aording to their priniple ofmu"halafah, nothing 2hih is applied to reated things or beings an be applied to God in the s ame sense. God is not a natural ause but a free ause. 1his is the Ash'arite system as ompleted by ?adi abu :a"r al :a4illani. &t faed a strong opposition from the orthodo6, partiularly from the follo2ers of Abmad bin Hanbal. Al Ashari's opinions did not get muh reognition outside the %ha/'ite group to 2hih he belonged. 1he Hana/tes preferred the dotrines of his on8temporary al Maturidi 2ho di9ered from al Ash'ari in ertain minor ontro8versial. points. %hibli has mentioned nine suh points. &n %pain, ibn Ha5m !d. EFJ0=J# opposed the Ash'arite dotrines. 1he %alu4 %ultan 1ughril :eg, 2ho 2as an adherent of the Hanbalite shool, treated the Ash'arites very badly, but his suessor %ultan Alp Arsalan and espeially his famous vi5ier, *i5am al Mul" supported the Asharites and put an end to the perseution to 2hih they had been e6posed. *i5am al Mul"
founded the *i5amite Aademy at :aghdad in EFI0=JJ for the defene of Ash'arite dotrines. &t is under his patronage that abu al Ma'ali Abd al Mali" al u2aini got the hane of preahing the Ash'arite dotrine freely. 1he Ash'arite system ould not obtain 2idespread aeptane until it 2as populari5ed by a= u2aini and al Gha5ali in the )ast and by ibn 1umart in the +est. &t 2as al u2aini 2ho ould legitimately laim the redit of ma"ing the Ash'arites' dotrines popular. His vast learning and erudite sholarship brought him the title of Dia' al Din!the light of religion#. Al u2aini reeived his early eduation from his father, %hai"h abu Muhammad Abd Allah, and after the death of his father, he got further eduation from his teaher, abu &sha4 al &sfara'ini, a great Ash'arite sholar. Al u2aini, in ourse of time, 2as reogni5ed by the sholars of the time to be %hai"h al &slam!the hief leader of &slam# and &mam al Haramain !the religious leader of Ma""ah and Madinah#. (or thirty years, he ontinued teahing and preahing the Ash'arite dotrines. Al u2aini 2as the teaher of al Gha5ali. He 2rote many boo"s on various subets. %ome of these areal %hamil, on the priniples of religion7 al :urhan, on the priniples of urisprudene7 al A4idat al *i5amiyyah7 and&rshad, on theology. He 2as born in E=I0=BL and died at *ishapur in EKL0=LF.F :eing the %hai"h al &slam and the &mam of Ma""ah and Madinah, al u2aini's (ata2a!udgments on religious matters# used to be respeted by people in general throughout the Muslim 2orld7 and for this reason, his 2ritings got the 2idest irulation and, through these 2ritings, Ash'arite dotrines beame "no2n every2here. ne great theologial result of the Ash'arite system 2as that it he"ed the gro2th of free thought 2hih tended to dissolve the solidarity of the &slami %hari'ah. 1he Asharite mode of thought had its intelletual results also. &t led to an independent ritiism of Gree" philosophy and prepared the ground for philosophies propounded by men li"e al Gha5ali and (a"hr al Din al Ra5i. Al Gha5ali is generally inluded among the Ash'arites and it is he 2ho maybe said to have ompleted the Ash'arite metaphysis. &t 2as he 2ho, by giving a systemati refutation of Gree" philosophy in his famous 2or", 1ahafut al (alasifah,ompletely annihilated the dread of intelletualism 2hih had harateri5ed the minds of the orthodo6. &t 2as hie;y through his in;uene that people began to study dogma and metaphysis together. %tritly spea"8ing, al Gha5ali 2as not an Ash'arite, though he admitted that the Ash'arite mode of thought 2as e6ellent for the masses. 3He held that the seret of faith ould not be revealed to the masses7 for this reason he enouraged e6posi8tion of the Asharite theology, and too" are in persuading his disiples not to publish the results of h is private re;etion.3 AlOGha5ali made the Ash'arite theology so popular that it beame pratially the theology of the Muslim ommunity in general and has ontinued to remain so up to the present time.
