The Salafi Critique of Kalam

[jinnzaman]

Assalamu alaikum

I would like to know if the following is an accurate representation of the Salafi criticism of Kalam.

One of the most powerful accusations that Asharis have of Salafis is the charge of anthropomorphism. Such polemical propaganda obfuscates the true difference between the school of Ibn Taymiyyah and the schools of Kalam. The greatest concern of the classical Atharis was the seeping of Aristotlean terminology and logic into the Islamic sciences. The Asharis proclaimed victory over the Mu’tazila due to the diligence of Imam Ashari and later proclaimed victory over the Philosophers due to the diligence of Imam Ghazzali. However, as many Salafis have deftly pointed out, Imam Ghazzali’s use of logic in usul al-fiqh, instead of defeating logic, legitimated more than any Philosopher or Mu’tazili could have. What the Asharis refuted were the philosophical conclusions of the Aristotlean and Neo-platonic tradition, not philosophy itself; it was still tainted by philosophical reasoning and this resulted in particular conclusions that resulted in deviation from Orthodoxy. Thus, the dispute between the Salafis and Asharis is not only over the interpretation of texts, but over reasoning itself. The source of contention, then, is over epistemology.

The Salafi argument is rather convincing, yet simple: The terms that are used by the Asharis are not truly empirical, but rational imaginations that have no actual conclusive basis in reality. In other words, terms like ‘accidents’, ‘substances’ and other terms that were inherited by the Greek tradition, are human innovations that are used to describe created things. These terms are not in and of themselves do not have any existence outside of objects which inhabit them. Space, time, color, sound, shape, direction, are attributes of created things, but are not created in and of themselves. They are merely human attempts to describe creation. The Asharis then, using syllogistic reasoning, draw generalized principles from particular objects. Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out that syllogistic reasoning is, in essence, a circular argument. The principle “The whole shares the properties of the parts” is a tautology that is not true.

More importantly, the terms that are used by Allah (subhana wa t’ala) to describe His essence, attributes, and actions are defined by Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) alone, since He has intimate knowledge of His own nature and in His infinite knowledge and wisdom, He related certain aspects of this knowledge to humanity through Divine Revelation.

Salafis argue that the properties of the creation do not inherently imply createdness on the grounds that the reasoning used to justify such a claim is faulty. Furthermore, the properties which are shared by both the creation and the Creator are merely linguistically similar, but not metaphysically or physically simlar. The Salafis assign the howness to Allah (subhana wa ta’ala). Thus, the charges of anthropomorphism are not only exaggerated, but illogical according to the very logic of the Mu'takallimoon themselves!

[NAveed]

Does that help though.

Because human language is dependant on words meaning things.

For example.A christian says God can become Human- We understand humans as occupying time and space.
But That is just our understanding of time and space.
It may be that on a higher level, there may be time and space dissimilar to that which we know of-(a 2d object knows nothing of the 3rd dimension etc).

But we would say that the very definition of a human is that which is understood in human language.
Just as the very word chair has a definition.

Otherwise what the christians are saying is God who is not "God" became a human that is not "human"

Similarly the salafis say Allah who has a "direction" sits on a "chair" thats not a chair

[jinnzaman]

Does that help though.

Because human language is dependant on words meaning things.

For example.A christian says God can become Human- We understand humans as occupying time and space.
But That is just our understanding of time and space.
It may be that on a higher level, there may be time and space dissimilar to that which we know of-(a 2d object knows nothing of the 3rd dimension etc).

But we would say that the very definition of a human is that which is understood in human language.
Just as the very word chair has a definition.

Otherwise what the christians are saying is God who is not "God" became a human that is not "human"

Similarly the salafis say Allah who has a "direction" sits on a "chair" thats not a chair

Time and Space are properties that are invented by the human mind in order to understand created things. One cannot draw a generalized inference from a generalized inference. In other words, what we know about Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is through the texts since we lack experiental knowledge of Him. We cannot use our understanding of this universe and apply it to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) since Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is absolutely dissimilar to His creation. We accept the texts without delving into its meaning.

Their is no proof that all created things exist in time/space. The mere absence of a proof is not proof that something does not exist. It is possible that their created things which do not exist in time or space or in a manner that we understand. Time and space are mere properties of created things that we know and have experienced.

The only way we know of the properties of the Creator are as He describes them. Thus, if He states He has a yadd, ayn, wajh, etc, these are the terms that He in his infinite knowledge and wisdom has chosen to describe Himself with. Merely because in this realm those attributes have another meaning is irrelevant since the Creator is absolutely dissimilar to the Creation.

The properties themselves are not proof of createdness, they are merely human descriptions of the creation. The description of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are as He describes, not as we understand. The "how" is impossible to comprehend by a human mind imbedded within creation and rationalistic conclusions cannot be used without first proving that universal conclusions can be drawn from particular instances.

Thats the Salafi argument anyway and its up to the Asharis to prove that universal conclusions can be drawn from particular instances.

[NAveed]

The only way we know of the properties of the Creator are as He describes them. Thus, if He states He has a yadd, ayn, wajh, etc, these are the terms that He in his infinite knowledge and wisdom has chosen to describe Himself with. Merely because in this realm those attributes have another meaning is irrelevant since the Creator is absolutely dissimilar to the Creation.

The properties themselves are not proof of createdness, they are merely human descriptions of the creation..


But you said they have ANOTHER MEANING in this realm..which means you accept that their meaning is different?

Also, when you say the Merciful Mounted the Throne.
The human mind would understand this as an event of motion in time and space.
Once you negate time and space....you cannot claim that your translation of this has any meaning.
Because motion is traversing space in time.
Once you remove that -the meaning alters to something that is not comprehensible.

But it maybe I have misunderstood what you have said

[NAveed]

Maybe You could say with footnotes

He "mounted" the "throne"
and then say mounted doesnt mean mounted as we understand it in this created world.
Throne doesnt mean throne as we understand it in this created world

[jinnzaman]

But you said they have ANOTHER MEANING in this realm..which means you accept that their meaning is different?

Also, when you say the Merciful Mounted the Throne.
The human mind would understand this as an event of motion in time and space.
Once you negate time and space....you cannot claim that your translation of this has any meaning.
Because motion is traversing space in time.
Once you remove that -the meaning alters to something that is not comprehensible.

But it maybe I have misunderstood what you have said

motion is not traversing space in time since neither space nor time are tangible entities, but merely linguistic terms invented to describe created things.

They are properties not beings. Space/Time is not created, it is merely a term invented to describ created things. What we know about created things are empirical conclusions derived from our sense. Merely because we perceive something doesn't make it created, otherwise the beholding of the vision of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in the akhirah would be "impossible" or the speech of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to Musa (alayhi sallam) would've been "impossible" i.e. illogical.

The properties of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are neither based on logic nor perception, but upon what He states in various texts. If Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) says He has a yadd, He uses it as a property that is self-contained and requires neither logical exposition nor sensory position, since neither logic nor sensory perception can comprehend it.

At least, this is Ibn Rushd's and Ibn Taymiyyah's argument.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

I posted this two days ago, but I think it fits in with this subject. It's not exactly the Salafi opinion in kalam, but it's close. It's the opinion of the great muhadith and Sufi reformer, Sidi Ahmad ibn Idris:

The people of this persuasion believe in God according to what they understand, while the people of God are people who believe in God inasmuch as He makes Himself known to them. And what a great difference between the two persuasions, because he who believes inasmuch as God makes Himself known to him places his intellect behind his belief, so that he believes whether his intellect accepts it or not. And he who has this kind of belief, God informs him of what he did not know before by means of revelation, not through the intellect. He who only believes in what he understands, he goes no further than "The letters." This is the reason why they have contrived the science of kalaam for which there is no guidance from the Book of God and the Sunna and no companion who has ever followed it.

Thus, they have written works enumerating the attributes (of God). God is greatly exalted above this. Indeed, this is a matter from which God Most High Himself refrained, as in His statement, "Glory be to thy Lord, the Lord of Glory, above what they describe (37:180)". Indeed, they describe God in a way such as God had not described Himself. This is of the utmost danger and ruination. They think they are good craftsmen and think that what they are doing is a science and consider that the practicioners of this "science" are those described by the Tradition, "The ulama are the heirs of the prophets". But they are in greater danger than those who sin and know and confess their sin. One of the pious people saw the Messenger of God, may God bless and grant him peace, and asked him about Ibn Sina and al Fakhr al-Razi. The Prophet said to him, "As for Ibn Sina, he wanted to approach us through a door other than ours, but we rejected him; as for al-Fakhr al-Razi, he is a blameworthy man." Although al-Fakhr al-Razi later left this path and repented of it, saying,

The result of using the intellect is a hobbling rope;
The result of the endeavors of the ulama is error;
The fruit of all the learning of our life is "He said" and "He replied".

- Ahmad ibn Idris, al-iqd al-nafis, 172-3.

[NAveed]

OK
that sounds a bit like Kants position

That space and time are mere intuitions from the mind.

And that we are unable to pierce beyond that to the noumena due
to the inherent limitations of the mind.
But the salafis would presumably says that we cannot,yes,but God can reveal knowledge of the noumena through wahy -and our minds are limited in being able to discern the understanding of that.

?

[NAveed]

Even still-though we see the world in 3d space- we have as humans a unique gift of abstract thought.the capacity of imagining how curved space-time is etc near black holes.

What is wrong with using this abstract thought to negate the anthopomorphic thoughts that enter our limited times when reading the texts ?

[abudurrah]

One of the pious people saw the Messenger of God, may God bless and grant him peace, and asked him about Ibn Sina and al Fakhr al-Razi. The Prophet said to him, "As for Ibn Sina, he wanted to approach us through a door other than ours, but we rejected him; as for al-Fakhr al-Razi, he is a blameworthy man." Although al-Fakhr al-Razi later left this path and repented of it, saying,
.

i dont get this quote by tawheedullah where it says that the prophet (saw) talked about ibn sina, this sounds made up
it dont sound right..........could u comment please

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

i dont get this quote by tawheedullah where it says that the prophet (saw) talked about ibn sina, this sounds made up
it dont sound right..........could u comment please

It's a reference to seeing the Prophet (SAWS) in a dream (I think).

[NAveed]

Jinnzaman.You said the human mind cannot imagine objects where time does not exist.Who said that .Subhanallah...You are stuck in the newtonian era.

Shaykh Abdal hakeem murad once explained. About the hajj. Our universe is in the shape of a spiral.
If you look at the hajj from a vertical height you see people circumambulating the house Of God in a spiral and the black stone is there.

The universe is in a spiral shape.
And the black stone is like the black hole.As we journed via the spiral to the centeer...we are on the journey to Allah.

In black holes..time collapses.
Why doesn't time exist at the center of a black hole? A black hole singularity is where matter is compressed into zero volume. Matter without volume suggests infinite density, but Nature abhors infinites. At the singularity, something called quantum gravity takes over, rips space and time apart, and leaves only a timeless remnant of space called quantum foam. (For more detailed information, see Thorne, Kip. Black Holes & Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. New York: Norton, 1994.)

[jinnzaman]

No, I said the human mind cannot comprehend time independent of what the human mind has experienced directly. In other words, time and space have no physical being independent of the objects in which they inhabit.

With regards to black holes, firstly, there is no experiental knowledge of whether time ceases in a blackhole, this conclusion is theoretical, just like the conclusion that time is solely a property of created things.

Time is a human construction to define reality; even if black holes didn't exist in time (which hasn't been proven), this would show how faulty the concept of time itself as a concept. Doesn't this reinforce the Salafi argument that God has certain actions that appear to be in space/time but are beyond our comprehension.

Not sure how the spiral stuff is relevant.

[NAveed]

I never said it was derived experientially..rather rationally based on mathematical models.#

I don't think the salafi argument is at all strong .
The argument now is ashari/maturidi versus the quantum physicists and logical positivists on a scientific level.

Against the liberal democratists on a political level

And against the secularists on a global level.

The whole sufi/salafi thing is becoming irrelevant in the wider global context

[abootalha]

here please read this link Jinzaman and others http://www.jaafaridris.com/English/Books/Attributes.htm

[Abuz Zubair]

sorry naveed,

Ash'arism has very little to do with science. it was valued when there was no science but only philosophy. now science has confirmed many of the philosophical principles and falsified Ash'ari ones.

Ash'arite atomism is now an obsolete concept, ironically , the vital premise on which they proved God's existence.

It seems Ibn Taymiyya was right in his anti-atomism

[NAveed]

Umm..Akhi....

Au contraire.

As a defense of Ghazzalian occasionalism...isnt it a strong argument
that it is God that collapses the wave-particle function at every instant?

[jinnzaman]

The differences between the Salafis and the Asharis are broken down into the following:

1. How are the properties of created things known?

2. How are the properties of the Creator known?

3. Is it possible for the Creator to share a property with the creation that is at least linguistically similar, but not physically or metaphysically?

[Abuz Zubair]

One of the most powerful accusations that Asharis have of Salafis is the charge of anthropomorphism. Such polemical propaganda obfuscates the true difference between the school of Ibn Taymiyyah and the schools of Kalam.

You are absolutely right here. However, I would refrain from dubbing it as IT's school. Technically speaking, the Salaf, including Imam Ahmad, explicitly held beliefs, while negating resemblance, which the Ash'aris consider anthropomorphic. The history of this feud didn't start with Ibn Taymiyya. In fact, not even the Ash'aris. But the Jahmiyya, and then the Mu'tazila. They were the first ones to use Aristotle's categorisation in Islamic theology, ironically, to defend Islam against Christian attacks (Church Fathers in particular). This started in Damascus.

The Asharis proclaimed victory over the Mu’tazila due to the diligence of Imam Ashari and later proclaimed victory over the Philosophers due to the diligence of Imam Ghazzali.

Well, this is what the Ash'aris like to think and want others to believe, but anyone slightly aware of the history of the entire mihna would recognise this to be distortion of history.

The Mu'tazila always remained a fringe group, until they were given prominence and platform by the Abbasids. Before that they were too unimportant to waste time and energy on. Precisely for this reason the early Imams including the three jurists never gave much attention to the Mu'tazila and refuted them very briefly.

It was because they gained strength at the time of Imam Ahmad, that he became a leading figure of Ahl al-Sunnah, such that he was titled: Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, and it was at his hands that the Mu'tazila were defeated and humiliated thereafter. At this time in history, there were only two dominant camps; the traditionist camp of Imam Ahmad and the rationalist camp of the mu'tazila. There were a few rationalist voices that tried to merge the rationalist and the traditionist thought, but the power of the traditionlist movement nipped them in the bud. Ibn Kullab was declared a heretic by Imam Ahmad, and al-Muhasibi died in exile. This only indicates the victory and strength of the traditionalist movement, and the fact that they clearly had an upper hand over the mu'tazila - LONG before Ash'ari was even born!

As far as Ash'ari is concerned, then he was born and brought up at a time when the mu'tazila were rapidly losing ground and their main figureheads were leaving mu'tazilism for either Shi'ism, Sunnism or something else. Ash'ari was a product of mu'tazili demise. For forty years of his life he was nourished by a leading mu'tazili theologian. The reasons for which al-Ash'ari suddenly changed sides, to this day, remain a mystery.

Even then, we see al-Ash'ari trying his best to save his career by petitioning al-Barbahari al-Hanbali to accept him as a traditionist, only to fail. And then according to Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Ash'ari, too, lives in exile in fear of his death.

How can then the Ash'aris claim victory over the mu'tazila, who were destroyed anyway, when they themselves had to strive hard to be accepted by Ahl al-Sunnah?

As far as the philosophers were concerned, then even they hardly had any influence amongst the Muslims at all, such that they were hardly a threat. The last of the philosophers who al-Ghazzali refuted was Ibn Rushd, and even he died in his house abandoned in his own city, taunted by his own people as a zindiq.

What kind of victory is it to defeat the defeated?

However, as many Salafis have deftly pointed out, Imam Ghazzali’s use of logic in usul al-fiqh, instead of defeating logic, legitimated more than any Philosopher or Mu’tazili could have. What the Asharis refuted were the philosophical conclusions of the Aristotlean and Neo-platonic tradition, not philosophy itself; it was still tainted by philosophical reasoning and this resulted in particular conclusions that resulted in deviation from Orthodoxy.

Very well put. And from the early sources that confirm your conclusion is the Shafi'i Imam al-Sijzi who wrote in the 5th Islamic century that although, al-Ash'ari disagreed with the mu'tazila in many of their conclusions, he still agreed with them in principle, which is why he arrived at his conclusion that Allah's Speech must be without letters and sound.

Thus, the dispute between the Salafis and Asharis is not only over the interpretation of texts, but over reasoning itself. The source of contention, then, is over epistemology.

Precisely. Interpretation of texts with respect to dhahir, ta'wil, etc, is all secondary, to which the Ash'aris resort, in order to reconcile sacred texts with what they consider to be absolute rational arguments based on Greek philosophy.

The Salafi argument is rather convincing, yet simple: The terms that are used by the Asharis are not truly empirical, but rational imaginations that have no actual conclusive basis in reality. In other words, terms like ‘accidents’, ‘substances’ and other terms that were inherited by the Greek tradition, are human innovations that are used to describe created things. These terms are not in and of themselves do not have any existence outside of objects which inhabit them. Space, time, color, sound, shape, direction, are attributes of created things, but are not created in and of themselves. They are merely human attempts to describe creation. The Asharis then, using syllogistic reasoning, draw generalized principles from particular objects. Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out that syllogistic reasoning is, in essence, a circular argument. The principle “The whole shares the properties of the parts” is a tautology that is not true.

Yes, but there is more to it. Not only that concepts such as substances and accidents is how some of us would like to view the creation as, but also that the philosophers as well as the advocates of Kalam greatly differ as to the definition of these terms. For instance, the term 'body' is defined in more than five different ways. One of the definitions of 'body' is that which exists independently of anything else. According to this definition, God can easily be described as a body.

Others would object to that, but their objection would be limited to the definition of a body, which is relative to us all and human intellects are bound to differ, precisely because there is no hard and fast rule to help us define exactly what a body is.

More importantly, the terms that are used by Allah (subhana wa t’ala) to describe His essence, attributes, and actions are defined by Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) alone, since He has intimate knowledge of His own nature and in His infinite knowledge and wisdom, He related certain aspects of this knowledge to humanity through Divine Revelation.

Correct. In fact, not only the knowledge of Allah's attributes, but all matters of the unseen, be it the Jinns, the angels, the nature and the events of the day of judgement, punishment of the grave, the nature of resurrection, the nature of balancing between our deeds, the bridge, the fire, etc, etc.

As far as resemblance is concerned, then we know the names of the fruits in paradise, and we surely recognise the fruits by knowing their names in the language we all understand. However, the fruits in paradise will not be like the fruits in this world. The only thing common between the two would be the name. If this is rationally possible between two creations (fruits in this world and the next), then it should also be rationally possible between the Creator and the creation, with much greater dissimilarity between the two, for there is none like unto Him.

Furthermore, the properties which are shared by both the creation and the Creator are merely linguistically similar, but not metaphysically or physically simlar. The Salafis assign the howness to Allah (subhana wa ta’ala). Thus, the charges of anthropomorphism are not only exaggerated, but illogical according to the very logic of the Mu'takallimoon themselves!

Very accurate and fair statement... JK

[Abuz Zubair]

Umm..Akhi....

Au contraire.

As a defense of Ghazzalian occasionalism...isnt it a strong argument
that it is God that collapses the wave-particle function at every instant?
Sorry, I am discussing facts (divisibility of atoms) and you are challenging that by theoretical physics, where all absurdities are possible?

Occasionalism is just one of such rational absurdities, resulting from Ash'arite atomism, which lead the Ash'aris to deny any effective cause. Hence, whoever says the fire burns, or knife cuts, and not Allah, then he is a Mushrik.

Besides, this does not answer the initial question. If you subscribe to the Ash'arite philosophy, do you still hold atomism to be true in the 21st century? I.e. you do not believe in electrons, neutrons, protons and quads, etc, because it is kufr?

Besides, two of the main Ash'ari scholars changed their mind on this. al-Juwayni and al-Razi. The latter even believed that accidents may endure two instances of time.