Not Fit For Pastime

I read this interesting article in Al-Jumuah Magazine on Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari. For two issues the magazine had covered his biography, and in this issue, Dhul Hijjah 1428, the author gave some background over his biggest and major works.

At the end of the article, there was a mini-part explaining the difference between the Sunni methodologies of Islamic belief of the “Asharites” and the “Hanbalites”, and the ending of it caught my eye as something that can be said for a lot of people we find interested in this subject.

The nature of Hanbalite-Ash’arite controversy among the Sunnis
By Uwaymir Anjum
Al-Jumuah Magazine Vol 19 Issue 12

Both sides of the Sunni doctrine, the Hanbalites and the Ash’arites, have historically agreed on the obligation to avoid tashbih (likening God to humans) on the one hand, and to maintain the integrity of the Scripture, the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah, on the other. But since the Scripture contains references that are on the one hand prone to tashbih (such as references to God’s hands, eyes, love, hatred, etc.) and at the same time there is emphasis on tanzih (transcendence, such as in the verse: “there is nothing like unto Him; and He is all-hearing all-Seeing”) - the two groups have tried to balance this tension in two different ways.

The Ash’arites have emphasized the concern for God’s transcendence (tanzih) on the basis on intellectual coherence (as they see it) and are willing to use linguistic such as metaphor (majaz) to explain the language of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The Hanbalites, on the other hand, are concerned about the primacy and integrity of the Scripture, and wish to avoid tashbih (anthropomorphism) by pointing out that language is always understood in context, and even while asserting God’s attributes such as love, seeing, hearing, hands, eyes, etc., one must not understand them in an anthropomorphic sense, thus protecting both the integrity of the Scripture and divine transcendence.

Even though this is considered a theological controversy and any extreme position can certainly have implications for the religious life of Muslims, the difference is more about the nature of language, categories of human understanding (metaphysics) and more generally about the validity of certain systems of reasoning, and less about the nature of God Himself, suhanahu wa ta’ala.

This article is neither an attempt to privilege one position or the other, nor to say that both versions of the doctrine are equally valid on all points. Firstly, all Sunnis who avoid extremes have agreed on the need for both: avoiding tashbih (anthropomorphism) on the one hand and ta’teel (suspension of God’s attributes or equating God to an abstract philosophical principle without attributes) on the other; the difference lies in the way in which the two different groups of scholars handle this tension. Secondly, the issues involved are far from simple, and require vast knowledge of the tradition and theoretical sciences (such as language, epistemology, etc.); they are certainly not fit for pastime or ‘internet wars’ among uneducated followers to either side. Wa’llahu a’lam.