Asharism: What is it?

[Sameer Abdul Hadi]

Assalamu Alakium Wa Rahmatullah


I did some searches online, only to be disappointed. There apparently is not much on Google about Asharism. Anyways, now that we have some more learned brothers, I was hoping that someone could either A: Lay it out for me or B: Give me some places to Read about the history and the practices of Ashari followers.

InshAllah i would like to learn more about this Madhab.

Wasaalam

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Assalamu Alakium Wa Rahmatullah


I did some searches online, only to be disappointed. There apparently is not much on Google about Asharism. Anyways, now that we have some more learned brothers, I was hoping that someone could either A: Lay it out for me or B: Give me some places to Read about the history and the practices of Ashari followers.

InshAllah i would like to learn more about this Madhab.

Wasaalam

al-Salamu 'Alaikum,

Here to begin with: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/14.htm

wa-Salamu Alaikum

[Al-Boriqi]

Ths is a good read (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=4881&postcount=1)

[Al-Boriqi]

and this

http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showpost.php?p=99474&postcount=1

[shuaib]

The search for rational foundations in Islam may be regarded to have begun with the Prophet himself. His constant prayer was: ‘God! grant me knowledge of the ultimate nature of things!’5 The work of later mystics and non-mystic rationalists forms an exceedingly instructive chapter in the history of our culture, inasmuch as it reveals a longing for a coherent system of ideas, a spirit of whole-hearted devotion to truth, as well as the limitations of the age, which rendered the various theological movements in Islam less fruitful than they might have been in a different age.

As we all know, Greek philosophy has been a great cultural force in the history of Islam. Yet a careful study of the Qur’«n and the various schools of scholastic theology that arose under the inspiration of Greek thought disclose the remarkable fact that while Greek philosophy very much broadened the outlook of Muslim thinkers, it, on the whole, obscured their vision of the Qur’«n. Socrates concentrated his attention on the human world alone. To him the proper study of man was man and not the world of plants, insects, and stars. How unlike the spirit of the Qur’«n, which sees in the humble bee a recipient of Divine inspiration6 and constantly calls upon the reader to observe the perpetual change of the winds, the alternation of day and night, the clouds,7 the starry heavens,8 and the planets swimming through infinite space!9 As a true disciple of Socrates, Plato despised sense– perception which, in his view, yielded mere opinion and no real knowledge.10 How unlike the Qur’«n, which regards ‘hearing’ and ‘sight’ as the most valuable Divine gifts11 and declares them to be accountable to God for their activity in this world.12 This is what the earlier Muslim students of the Qur’«n completely missed under the spell of classical speculation. They read the Qur’«n in the light of Greek thought. It took them over two hundred years to perceive - though not quite clearly - that the spirit of the Qur’«n was essentially anti-classical,13 and the result of this perception was a kind of intellectual revolt, the full significance of which has not been realized even up to the present day. It was partly owing to this revolt and partly to his personal history that Ghaz«lâ based religion on philosophical scepticism - a rather unsafe basis for religion and not wholly justified by the spirit of the Qur’«n. Ghaz«lâ’s chief opponent, Ibn Rushd, who defended Greek philosophy against the rebels, was led, through Aristotle, to what is known as the doctrine of Immortality of Active Intellect,14 a doctrine which once wielded enormous influence on the intellectual life of France and Italy,15 but which, to my mind, is entirely opposed to the view that the Qur’«n takes of the value and destiny of the human ego.16 Thus Ibn Rushd lost sight of a great and fruitful idea in Islam and unwittingly helped the growth of that enervating philosophy of life which obscures man’s vision of himself, his God, and his world. The more constructive among the Ash‘arite thinkers were no doubt on the right path and anticipated some of the more modern forms of Idealism; yet, on the whole, the object of the Ash‘arite movement was simply to defend orthodox opinion with the weapons of Greek dialectic. The Mu‘tazilah, conceiving religion merely as a body of doctrines and ignoring it as a vital fact, took no notice of non-conceptual modes of approaching Reality and reduced religion to a mere system of logical concepts ending in a purely negative attitude. They failed to see that in the domain of knowledge - scientific or religious - complete independence of thought from concrete experience is not possible.

It cannot, however, be denied that Ghaz«lâ’s mission was almost apostolic like that of Kant in Germany of the eighteenth century. In Germany rationalism appeared as an ally of religion, but she soon realized that the dogmatic side of religion was incapable of demonstration. The only course open to her was to eliminate dogma from the sacred record. With the elimination of dogma came the utilitarian view of morality, and thus rationalism completed the reign of unbelief. Such was the state of theological thought in Germany when Kant appeared. His Critique of Pure Reason revealed the limitations of human reason and reduced the whole work of the rationalists to a heap of ruins. And justly has he been described as God’s greatest gift to his country. Ghaz«lâ’s philosophical scepticism which, however, went a little too far, virtually did the same kind of work in the world of Islam in breaking the back of that proud but shallow rationalism which moved in the same direction as pre-Kantian rationalism in Germany. There is, however, one important difference between Ghaz«lâ’s and Kant. Kant, consistently with his principles, could not affirm the possibility of a knowledge of God. Ghaz«lâ’s, finding no hope in analytic thought, moved to mystic experience, and there found an independent content for religion. In this way he succeeded in securing for religion the right to exist independently of science and metaphysics.

This is a really brief summary that is mentioned in "A reconstruction of religious thought in Islam," by Muhammad Iqbal. It's interesting to note that Asharites, Mu'tazalites, even kalaam in general including topics such as qadar, there was tremendous influence or impetus from Greek thought.

[Al-Boriqi]

This is a really brief summary that is mentioned in "A reconstruction of religious thought in Islam," by Muhammad Iqbal. It's interesting to note that Asharites, Mu'tazalites, even kalaam in general including topics such as qadar, there was tremendous influence or impetus from Greek thought.

i.e. Aristotlians; Socratiniyyah, Platobics

all kallamis bows down in allegience to their Hazrat Aristostle

[Sameer Abdul Hadi]

HEYYYY
you guys are not gonna jack my Thread. I asked for information..not a debate...stop now for the sake of a white man!

[newsX]

HEYYYY
you guys are not gonna jack my Thread. I asked for information..not a debate...stop now for the sake of a white man!

Shalom,

here are some recommendations:

Binyamin Abrahamov's Traditionalism and Rationalism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0748611037?ie=UTF8&tag=highecriti-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0748611037).

Ignaz Goldziher's Introduction to Islamic Theology (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691100993?ie=UTF8&tag=highecriti-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0691100993).

Sherman Jackson's translation of Imam al-Ghazali's On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam (Faysal al-Tafriqa) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195797914?ie=UTF8&tag=highecriti-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0195797914), in which the great Hujjat al-Islam (Proof of Islam) deconstructs the charge of heresy that is often leveled on fellow Muslims.

My advise is that you should strengthen your fundamentals in Islam first before studying this field. Leave it off until much later, because other knowledge domains, such as history, need to be mastered first. Without these, your study of theology would certainly be underscored by a lot of misrepresentations.

And then, go through a coherent syllabus instead of nit-picking sources of information. The field is vast, and no one book can have a final say on the matter. My personal opinion is that online resources are often the most unreliable, so do not just take your education from them. At bottom, however, I am more inclined toward Imam al-Ghazali's view that the field is off-limits for laymen. Hope this helps.

[Al-Boriqi]

HEYYYY
you guys are not gonna jack my Thread. I asked for information..not a debate...stop now for the sake of a white man!

ur funny man

how about for His sake.

anyway.

while knowing error is just as important as knowing the right way, i suggest (and this is my first suggestion i've ever made on this) you have a detailed study of Aqeedahtu-Waasityyah particuarly with a shaykh or at least read the sharh of Saalih al-Fawzaan, or Shaykhul-Islam ibn Uthaymeen.

Particularly since it (the wasityyah) is systematically the only creed of which all of the sunni world relies upon without dispute, and whom all advasaries had attested that "in it lies the creed of the salaf" and is, well I say so without pride or arrogance, flawless.


asalamu alaikum

[shuaib]

Sameer,

I don't think anyone is hijacking the thread, nor was anyone disagreeing with anyone else. Izaaree was in fact agreeing with me (in his own way).

Bottom line between the both of us that you can "take home" is that Mu'tazalites were born through adopting Greek thought and Asharites were born by using Greek thought against Mu'tazilites.

[Al-Boriqi]

Sameer,

I don't think anyone is hijacking the thread, nor was anyone disagreeing with anyone else. Izaaree was in fact agreeing with me (in his own way).

Bottom line between the both of us that you can "take home" is that Mu'tazalites were born through adopting Greek thought and Asharites were born by using Greek thought against Mu'tazilites.



exactly. I'll put it in the way Imaam as-Safareene said

"At the same time, there appeared those who sought to reconcile between the traditionalist and the rationalist movement(i.e. the ash'aris), and that was by championing the traditionalist cause, using the rationalist weaponry."

basically saying saying that the ash'aris were tryingto prove the haq of the salafi aqeedah using the fundamental principles of mutazilism i.e. aristotle's manhaj.

[Sameer Abdul Hadi]

Assalamu Alakium,

JazakAllah Khaire for the Info brothers.
Hopefully I'll come to understand the other areas such as Salafi ect.
InshAllah, I'll ask my questions when i have the time.

Allahafiz wa Salaam

[Sameer Abdul Hadi]

Never mind...A question has come to me!

Mu'tazilites...They seem to be like the complete opposite of Sufis...as in the way they think about Allah. Excuse me if this is a bad analogy....