In Search of the Moderate Muslim

Hamzad: ``I just cannot think of a term Atheist would use because if The One is not there then The Other should also not exist.I guess for them there is no such thing as good or evil-----just relativism.``

Me:

There is no Other, there is only the One. and the One is the source of everything: good and evil. There would be no evil in the world if the One did not will it. The One produces good but he also creates evil. The One is weird, because he is beyond our comprehension. The One is the weirdest because there can be no limits when it comes to the One. Am I making sense ? Its like yin and yang, a balance, the karmic cycle, zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance... think about it in private.

Hamzad: ``And that precisely is the idea.To bring up the subject & keep it alive & let one continue to analyse & interpret....in private.

The Question is the Answer!

Thanks Again``

Me:

No, no Hamzad, let me thank you for sharing your daring ideas in public, so that we may ponder over them in private. To keep them alive though you may have to do more than that i.e. interact in public :)

Zafar # 479

And you thaught 1500 years Islam just did Namaz.What more proof you want of INTROCPECTION,didactics,debate,in Islam.You have had only dose of dvaita & Advaitya as only example of intellect.

The Arts of Disputation and Polemics

Case Study We will read selections from two practioners of the kalam: al-Ashari (d. 935), who was originally Mutazilite in his sympathies and



then rejected the Mutazilite position and articulated the Sunni response to the claims of the Mutazilites;

and Saadiah Gaon, (d. 942) Egyptian born head of the Rabbinic academy at Sura who adopted the techniques of kalam to articulate Jewish Rabbinic idenitity.

al-Ashari The two texts we`ll read deal respectively with the problem of the Vision of God, which the Mutazilites rejected, and the problem of anthropomorphism. As you read the two discussions please keep the following questions in mind:

What is at issue on the question of visibility, how is the Quran 6:103 approached by the two sides?

In the second passage, it is the Jahmiyya, who were a movement related to the Mutazilites, are under attack. What is their position? Why is it related to Christianity? ta`til is a technical term for the denial of all attributes.

How does Ashari treat the authority of the Quran and ijma` in determining the interpretation of the questions of God`s hands?

Kalam proceeds through a series of questions and responses and is usually seen as the origin of the Scholastic mode of argumentation that dominates medieval Christianity. How would you characterize the march of the argument about God`s visibility and His hands?

Saadiah Gaon Saadiah`s great work on Beliefs and Opinions is a systematic presentation of Jewish theology. The two sections you`ll read deal respectively with the role of doubt and disagreement in the religious community and with the doctrine of God and his attributes. We`ll discuss the following questions:

Why is doubt such a central feature of Saadiah`s age and how is it resolved?

Why do you think Saadiah treats Islam as a version of Christian trinitarianism?

How would compare Saadiah and al-Ashari on the problem of anthropomorphism?

How does Saadiah differ in his treatment of the notions of quantity and quality with respect of God?

References

W. Montogomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, 1973

Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, 1976

re: dost-mittar # 488

Very well said. That is the most important single consideration for anything to be considered good. The rest is all fraud and evil.

Sadna,

Certainly. Denial of a problem doesn`t help. Also, as you correctly point out, we may not have here a strictly religious problem. So, we need to frame it correctly.

Eklavya:

Why should India be concerned for Bangladeshi Hindus? It`s an internal affair of Bangladesh. Are the Hindus of any country our responsibility? If they are, then the Muslims of any country are our responsibility too, right?

Naqshbandi writes: ``It should read:

As for the blessed period of the Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam during the Islamic State in Madina it is unique as Allah`s Messenger was at the same time the Beloved (and still IS) of The Divine and also The Lawgiver as well as being the political head of the Muslims all in one.

(The ``was`` in capitals could have been interpreted to mean that i meant that Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam no longer held those unique positions and I ask Allah`s forgiveness for writing something which could have even suggested that. AStaghfirullah!)``

Me:

Sarcasm begins: I think you deserve to die for this blasphemy. What sharia court do you prefer ? or do you prefer that some Muslim cleric declare a fatwa against you and some of the more zealous followers take matters into their own hands ?

audio-video-radio:

you are wrong about farid zakaria: he and his brother, arshad, are sons of Rafiq and Fatma Zakaria. Whether Farid considers himself Muslim or not, he comes from a Muslim background, not a Parsi background.

RE Asif N`s incomprehensible correxion [sic]:

the man above has told me to assure you that he has noted your correction and not to worry, your quota of pleasures awaiting you in the afterlife will not be cut.

Eklavya #484
``Let`s work with decent Bangladeshis to solve a real problem that has arisen recently``

We have to begin by refraining from denials that a problem exists. Next, its not `religious affiliation` that is the driving factor here, its real live immigrants crossing over, reportedly even Awami League`rs.

Zafar Al Talib # 479

Read about the Mutazila many years ago and the

information may be sketchy at best.During the last

days of the Omayyads, religious schism had started

creeping into Islam.At this point of time the

Kharejites had become a political and religious

force(they were the original Shiaan-e-Ali) who

lateron rebelled against Ali and his family.At this time(8th century) we come across the Mutazila who were a rival to the Kharejites.The muslim world was coming in contact with the outside world and by the start of 9th century AD Greek philosophy had found a place under the Abbasids.

Mamun ur Rashid (s/o. Harun Rashid) took over in 819 AD and established his famous ``School of Translation``wherein all kind of scientific, social,religious, and medical works were translated from Latin into Arabic.The interaction with Greek thoughts and philosophy gave rise to logical reasoning of all problems by the scholars of the time and they found the rigid sharia to be incompatible with the Divine Predestination for the human and his actions.

All questions were solved through logic and the rest was discounted. Mamun himself became a convert to Mutazilite School of thought.Mutazila prospered under his rule and continued to receive state patronage till the end of Abbasid period.

However,by the 10th century their power waned against a new challenger Ali Al Ash`ari (873-935),

who founded the Asharite School of thought which

rejected logic from faith and Sharia and followed the four school:Hanafi,Maalki,Shafei and Hambali.

The Asharites went on to become the spokesperson of the Sunni Islam thereafter.The Mutazilite were

persecuted and the school died in a short time.

I hope this little information helps,however,if

there is any error,the fault lies squarely at my

shoulders.

Regards.

correxion: in my post 465 I wrote:

[As for the blessed period of the Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam during the Islamic State in Madina it is unique as Allah`s Messenger WAS the Beloved of The Divine and also The Lawgiver as well as being the political head of the Muslims all in one.]

It should read:

As for the blessed period of the Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam during the Islamic State in Madina it is unique as Allah`s Messenger was at the same time the Beloved (and still IS) of The Divine and also The Lawgiver as well as being the political head of the Muslims all in one.

(The ``was`` in capitals could have been interpreted to mean that i meant that Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam no longer held those unique positions and I ask Allah`s forgiveness for writing something which could have even suggested that. AStaghfirullah!)

Re: rushdie

``I think there is no more sad case than Rushdie.He could have been all that & more without going through the ardous route making unnecessary enemies.``

dude, give it a rest...he doesn`t like many aspects of Islam and that`s his right...it probably puts a thorn in your side because you know he`s right

Sigalph235 #477:

Just to add - the presence of Communist parties in power in West Bengal and Kerala does not make these states/India Communist either.

One correction to your post: RSS is not a political party. It has zero parliamentary seats. Probably you were referring to the BJP...

Zafar,

The following is from Beliefnet. I am actually amazed at the history of these folks....

Mutazila (moo-uh-ta`zi-luh; Arab)

A rational school of theology in Islam. It was first connected with the names of Wasil ibn Ata (d. 748) and Amr ibn Ubayd (d. 761), who taught in the city of Basra, Iraq. A second group of Mutazilites flourished in Baghdad. Each group had its successive disciples and distinctive, subtle differences on points of doctrine. The controversial issue that led them to isolate themselves (Arab. itazala; hence the name Mutazila) from other theologians was whether the grave sinner was to be considered a believer or an unbeliever? Wasil`s answer was that the grave sinner was neither a believer nor an unbeliever but was in an intermediate position: a reprobate. By ca. 900, the Mutazila--who referred to themselves as ``The People of Justice and Unicity``--had come to express their doctrine in five fundamental principles, affirming (1) the unicity of God, (2) God`s justice, (3) God`s commitment to carrying out His threats of punishment to the wicked and promises of reward to the faithful, (4) that the grave sinner is neither a believer nor an unbeliever, but in ``an intermediate position,`` and (5) commanding the good and forbidding the evil.

Discussion of the first principle logically led the Mutazilites to deny that God has essential attributes and affirm that God is living, all-knowing, all-powerful, willing, speaking, etc., in virtue of his essence. Consequently, the Qur`an is not uncreated, as mainline theologians held, but created. The principle of God`s justice led them to reject the doctrine of predestination and affirm human free will and an individual`s power over one`s actions. Furthermore, the adherence of the Mutazila to human free will and personal responsibility and accountability, and to the fifth principle (above) led them to espouse the political view that a sinful caliph should be deposed, and if he resists then rebellion against him is lawful and so is killing him.

The Mutazilite doctrine of the created Qur`an was upheld by three Abbasid caliphs: al-Mamun, al-Mutasim, and al-Wathiq (who ruled in succession from 813 to 847). They attempted to enforce Mutazilite doctrine on society by compelling the leading religious thinkers to subscribe to it. Resistance led to an inquisition, which caused many uncompromising scholars suffering and imprisonment. The most famous example is Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855). This episode ended when al-Mutawakkil succeeded to the caliphate in 847; persecution then was reversed and traditionalism restored. The Mutazila were weakened but continued to produce great scholars such as Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025) and al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144). Although Mutazilism seemed to collapse by the time the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, Mutazilite doctrines (with the exception of their doctrine regarding the caliphate/imamate) were adopted by the Zaydiyya branch of the Shia, which flourished in Yemen, where it still survives. Although the Mutazilites are often characterized as heterodox thinkers, their attempt to place Islamic religious belief on a rational basis in conjunction with revelation has found some support among twentieth-century Muslim intellectuals.

Shima,

I fully sympathise with people who have suffered after recent Bangladeshi elections. I do not minimize their trauma at all. I hope and pray what has happened to them never happens to me or to my dear ones, Hindu or Muslim. And I perhaps was a bit rude to Babu in accusing him of sensanationalism.

I also accept the fact that to some extent Islamists have increased their strength in Bangladesh, and that should be a major cause for worry for all right thinking men and women in Bangladesh itself.

But please rest assured, Shima, it is not saintliness that guides me (at least not most of the time :)); it is hard headed realism and logic as I see it. If I frame the situation a bit differently, you may see what I mean.

Consider the welfare of muslim Indians. You said that I advocate their cause. I surely do. And that is why I worry whenever I see nationals from other countries becoming too aggessively ``concerned`` with the welfare of Muslim Indians. I worry that this kind of involvement, well-intended or not, can easily lead to the sharpening of divisions between Muslim Indians and non Muslim Indians. Should that happen, Muslim Indians will suffer greatly, as will all other Indians. The only people who will NOT suffer are outsiders.

I apply the same logic to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has still not gone the theocratic, fundamentalist way. There is a fight there, as everywhere else, between obscurantist, violent, and divisive forces on the one hand, and the people who would like to follow progressive and humanistic ideals like the rest of us. In this situation, India should, IMO, follow two objectives.

One, we should do all we can, short of directly interfering in the affairs of Bangladesh, to strengthen those forces that are forward looking, tolerant, and have a modern vision. These people are not confined to any one political party, and we should not walk into the trap of supporting or appearing to support one party to the exclusion of others. One effective way of doing this is to assure Bangladeshis of all hues, except the most rabid religious ones (I do not believe that one can hold a dialogue or reach an understanding with religious fanatics of any faith), that India is a genuine friend. It doesnt mean we surrender our interests, but it means being more sensitive to some of their concerns whatever they may be, building bridges with them.

The second thing that India can and should do is to work behind the scenes with the powers that be in Bangladesh to make sure Bangladeshis themselves take the protection of their minorities more seriously, which they will. No fundamentalist, whether in Indian, Pakistan, or Bangladesh will ever listen to reason, but secularist, progressive, and enlightened people will, if they feel strong enough. One of the most frustrating things I find about Pakistan for instance is that their #@ *$ ``silent majority`` has the backbone of a two-year old. Why? Because for the last fifty plus years, it has not felt strong enough to take on the Mulla Military minority that rules over them. If we do things that sharpen Hindu-Muslim divide in Bangladesh, that will weaken the forces of reason and moderation in that country too. That will be a prescription for disaster for Bangladeshis themselves and for everone else.

Again, Shima, please don`t think I am indifferent to the problems Hindus have faced in Bangladesh. I am not. As I have argued on Chowk before, a certain feeling of kinship exists along religious lines, which we should explicitly acknowledge for everybody. But we should be very very careful about how we utilize this feeling of kinship. I don`t think it is wise for us to do in Bangladesh what we don`t want, say, Pakistanis to do in India - poke our nose too deeply and too visibly into the affairs of another country. I fear that that can be counterproductive. Let`s work with decent Bangladeshis to solve a real problem that has arisen recently. If we are smart about it, the problem will go away or at least abate. If we give in to our emotions (which you and I may feel are perfectly justified), we may end up harming the very causes we hold dear.

I look forward to hearing your views.

Regards.

EK

hamzad,

I am happy to know that there is one more person who knows that the crap from the pak.com history is total nonsense. If the YLH of the world knew about the hsistory of muslims in india, they wont be writing about sher sha suri and his tomb.

What annoys me about the pakistanis is thei limited understanding and the know all attitude about islam, and their belief that they are the custodians of islam in india.

Education do not seem to make an iota of difference to the pak thinking. Talk of blasphemy laws, they feel so what , it is thei country, but are incensed by babri masjid. The idea of ummah seem to be ingrained more than the k for kafir. May be there is U for ummah.

regards

jay

Zafar....479

I hope this helps.I just breezed through it myself.Details later.

Haroon had declared it the official doctrine but later reverted.Maamoon,his son,buried Imam Raza next to him(Haroon) to show his respect & allegiance to the Imam but who would have known that few will remember that where Haroon is buried.

Among the Mu`tezilis no subject was beyond enquiry and scrutiny including the existence or absence of a God.But it must be remembered that it was for learning & not for blasphemy and all the brotherhood was very serious in the debate.Islam allows for serious inquiry,nay encourages it but the intent is the key---just like other matters in life.It is like discussing anatomy for clinical reasons or for pornography.

Niaz Fatehpuri of Nigaar & Shevanyaat fame, & some others were ardent mu`tazilis--perhaps even Josh Malihabaadi.



THEOLOGICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN MU‘TAZILA AND SUNNI:

A STUDY OF AL-JAHIZ’S REFUTATION AGAINST ANTHROPOMORPHISTS

By: Masdar Hilmy



Introduction

The problem of anthropomorphism is one of the most sensitive one within a certain religion, such as in Judaism, Christian, Islam, and so forth. There have usually been, at least, two polarized sides within a certain religion fighting to each other in defending their own standing points of anthropomorphism. It is usually between orthodoxy and modern sect which going through polemical argumentation on such a matter. In Islam, for example, the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an has been a great theological problem throughout the history of Islam. This discourse has invited Muslims to dispute to each other at the level of intellectual circles, even this prompted to further emotional conflict leading to an inevitable political contention between these two factions.

The history of Islam can be served as a mirror in looking at this theological polemics. The most famous one is the conflict between the orthodoxy (as represented by Sunni Islam, with special reference to Ash‘ari and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) and the so-called adored to rational sect, Mu‘tazila. Among big issues disputed by the two sects is the problem of the different interpretation of Anthropomorphic expressions (ayat al-tashbih/tajsim) in the Qur’an. The orthodox Sunni tried to be consistent in interpreting them; they interpret them as they are, because they do not want to go further beyond the meaning of them. On the other hand, Mu‘tazila tried to make a contradictory interpretation to Sunni’s interpretation on the anthropomorphic ayat in the Qur’an which is going in line with the logic. By using their intellectual strength, Mu‘tazila always put every single theological matter in the context of whether or not it is compatible with the regulation of logic.

Judging from this theological position held by each of them, they, indeed, refute to each other in interpreting the anthropomorphic expressions of the Qur’an. When they some to speak of anthropomorphist questions, the Sunni heap all their scorn on the rationalists (Mu‘tazila) who seek figurative explanations for the concrete terms of the holy scripture. As an orthodox sect, the Sunni would not agree but a literal understanding of the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur‘an and the traditional texts. On the other side, the Mu‘tazila could not accept the literal interpretation of anthropomorphic expression given by the Sunni. Regarding the concept of God, they gave metaphorical interpretation and spiritual sense to every anthropomorphic expression in the sacred writings. Out of such endeavors a new method of Qur’anic exegesis arose, which was called by the old term ta’wil (in the sense of figurative interpretation).



Al-Jahiz: His Significance to the Mu‘tazila

Al-Jahiz (his complete name is Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr b. Bahr al-Jahiz) was born in Basra in 160 A.H. (776 A.D.) and died in the same place in 255 A.H. (869 A.D.). He was called ``al-Jahiz`` on account of his ``goggled-eyes``. Some sources say that he was a Negro, probably of Abyssinian, but because of his remarkable talents he became the most genial writer of the age in Arabic literature. According to his own estimation, however, al-Jahiz was very much a member of the Arab community, and standing as he did in the relationship of client to the Banu Furqaim, a branch of the Kinana, he was always strong in its defense.

He studied Arabic philology and poetry under the leading teachers in Basra, and was admitted to the Mu‘tazilite discussions of Kalam. Among the personalities responsible for laying the foundations of his Arabic education, three famous names of the period stand out: Abu ‘Ubaida, al-Asma’ and Abu Zayd al-Ansari. All three were philologists and scholars who made a fundamental contribution to the development of Arabic culture. It is said that he also studied grammar under Abu al-Hasan al-Akhfash, Hadith under Abu Yusuf al-Qadi and others, and theology under Thumama b. Ashras and more especially al-Nazzam. But it was a little later, in Baghdad, that the influence of the two latter, who were compatriots of him, became predominant. Al-Jahiz was the master of the culture of his time to such a degree that one modern scholar has referred to the period as ``the age of al-Jahiz``.

Al-Jahiz has made a great contribution to the Mu‘tazila. He has written a great deal of books, both on account of Mu‘tazili doctrine (theology and philosophy) and Arabic literature. He was also in touch with the significant political, religious and cultural tendencies of his time. Al-Jahiz had a special relationship with the ‘Abbasi government. This relationship to the concerns of government is clearly to be seen in his books on the Imamah about which he reports in al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin. He claimed that the Khalifah al-Ma’mun himself had read these books and been pleased with them because they were in accordance with his policy. Al-Jahiz had a close contact with the great wazir Ibn al-Zayyat who was the wazir of al-Mu‘tasim and then al-Wathiq. In his writings, therefore, one can see a reflection of the political currents of the age. He was, however, in favor of the ‘Abbasi regime. But in theology, al-Jahiz shows himself a resolute Mu‘tazili, that is an apologist of the Abbasids against the pro-Umayyad movement of Nabita, the Shu‘ubis and the Shi‘a.

In the context of religion, there was a considerable liberty during the age of al-Jahiz. The subjects of concern to the Mu‘tazili school, to which al-Jahiz belonged, evidence the existence of many controversies among different sects, both Muslim and non-Muslim. One controversy arose between the mutakallimun with their rational attitude and the Sunni orthodoxy with their traditional views. Among the mutakallimun still another kind of dispute emerged, as reflected in the controversies between Mu‘tazila and Rafida. Religious controversies spread on a large scale among the mutakallimun, the Manawiyah, the Dahriyyah and followers of other religious doctrines. Al-Jahiz lived in the midst of all these currents and controversies that were derived from them. In his writings, with particular to his book Kitab al-Hayawan, such controversies and religious discussions could be found.

Due to the mixture of nations which formed the population of Iraq (as a center of ‘Abbasi government), there was a mingling of cultures in the new Islamic civilization which took shape in the ‘Abbasi era. The constituent elements were in the Arabic, Persian and Greek. During this period, translation of Persian and Greek was greatly accelerated.



C. Mu‘tazila’s Attitude towards Anthropomorphists

The different point of view in interpreting the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an is one of the most obvious sources of theological conflict between Mu‘tazila and Sunni anthropomorphists. The heart of difficulty here, as Watt says, was that the Qur’an itself used anthropomorphic terms. No one could deny that the Qur’an contains an abundance of imagery and description of God’s way and nature that reflects attributes of His creatures. For example, the ``throne`` of God is mentioned, which suggests that He sits on it as a cosmic ruler (2:255). In other places the Qur’an speaks of God’s hand (3:73; 36:71), His eyes (11:37), His face (2:115), and His speaking, hearing and seeing, these last three were frequently reiterated. The Sunni theologian and the former Mu‘tazili, al-Ash‘ari (d. 935) no doubt recorded faithfully essential elements of his erstwhile colleagues’ creed when he wrote:

The Mu‘tazila agree that God is one; there is no thing like him; hearing, seeing; he is not a body, not a form, not flesh and blood, not an individual, not substance nor attribute; he has no color, taste, smell, feel, no heat, cold, moisture, nor dryness, no length, breadth nor depth, no joining together nor separation, no movement, rest nor division … no place comprehends him, no time passes over him … not begetting nor begotten … he is not comparable with men and does not resemble creatures in any respect … he is unlike whatever occurs to the mind or is pictured in the imagination … he is ceaselessly knowing, powerful, living, and will not cease to be so; eyes do not see him, sight does not attain him, imagination does not comprehend him; he is heard by hearing; (he is) a thing not as things, knowing, powerful, living, not as (men are) knowing, powerful, living; he is eternal alone, and there is no eternal except him, no deity apart from him; he has no partner in his rule, no vizier (sharing) in his authority, no assistant in producing what he produced and creating what he created … he may not experience benefit or harm, joy or gladness, hurt or pain … he may not cease to exist nor become weak or lacking; he is too holy to be touched by women or to have consort or children.



In this context, Sunni, with special reference to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, demanded the literal meaning of the text; they interpreted the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an as they are, and without asking how (bila kayfa). The Hanbali school fought against the anthropomorphic concept forwarded by the Mu‘tazila, which they considered sunna. At best, these most conservative believers were willing to admit that while they demanded a literal understanding of the words of the text, they could not precisely say how one was to envision the reality to which such conceptions corresponded. They, therefore, argued that God is ``flesh and blood``, with limbs, so long as one added that these may not at all be thought of as resembling those of man, following the Qur’an verse; ``Nothing is like him; He is the one who hears and sees`` (42:11). But, in their view, one could not think of anything as really existing that is not substance. The conception of God as a purely spiritual being is for these people tantamount to atheism.

On the other hand, Mu‘tazila tried to seek the ``inward`` meaning of the anthropomorphic expressions of the Qur’an. They used ta’wil (metaphoric interpretation) in interpreting who God is as depicted in the Qur’an. More precisely this meant that they claimed they were justified in interpreting single words in a Qur’anic text with the basis of a secondary or metaphorical meaning found elsewhere in the Qur’an or in pre-Islamic poetry. Thus in the phrase (38.75) about God ``creating with his hands`` they argued that hands meant ``grace`` (ni‘ma), and justified this by a usage roughly parallel to our colloquial phrase ``I’ll give you a hand``. Likewise, wajh (face), was said to mean ``essence``. Verses which spoke of God being seen in the hereafter were, therefore, interpreted by Mu‘tazila in the light of other verses where ``see`` did not mean physical sight.

The Mu‘tazila recognized well the ``otherness`` and transcendence of God so that they maintained that all creatures must be different from God. In this case, those who differed from the Mu‘tazila were accused of holding the false doctrines of tashbih, anthropomorphism, and tajsim, and were called Mushabbiha and Mujassima. The Mujassima was applied to men who held that God was a jism, ``body``, and according to Ash‘ari these included Hisham ibn al-Hakam, Hisham al-Jawaliqi, Muqatil ibn Sulayman and others. In some ways this method of interpretation is artificial; but, in Watt’s opinion, at least it keeps thinkers at the grass roots of religious experience and away from an abstract academic discussion of the relations between attributes and essence.





Al-Jahiz’s Refutation Against Anthropomorphists

As mentioned above, the God of the Mu‘tazila is uncircumscrible, not deportable in human terms; the Qur’anic anthropomorphism, therefore, can only be interpreted metaphorically. The Qur’anic anthropomorphism translated for the believer ``the awesomely distant loving-kindness of God into the reassuring precision of a human face``. It is also to be emphasized again that the Mu‘tazila aroused the popular ire due primarily to their hostility to anthropomorphists. The sometime polemicist of the Mu‘tazila, the scathing essayist al-Jahiz, appears to have directed more of his fire against anthropomorphists. For al-Jahiz, anthropomorphism, despite ``its adherents of great numbers and manifest power``, constituted ``the great sin, the monstrous falsehood``.

Al-Jahiz’s strong refutation against anthropomorphists can be traced from his risala (letter) addressed to Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, tells him of the writing of a book against anthropomorphists. The author expresses various views on the common people, complains the treatment meted out to the mutakallimun, who have now, thanks to Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, been brought under the protection of the authorities, and comes to the point of his letter. The risala says as follows:

``… You know that although the supporters of anthropomorphism have been crushed, reduced and subjected to the inquisition, their numbers have not decreased, the majority have not changed their views, and only a tiny minority are dead. There is no advantage to be gained from the hypocrites among them, nor can we count on the suspects or put any trust in the waverers. Though their arrogance is less, their hearts are more tainted than ever. Time was when they relied on power, strength, numbers and good fortune, on the allegiance of ruffians and the dregs of the populace; today, having failed to maintain their powerful position with the support of the rabble and of labourers, merchants and disaffected officials, they have become more amenable and open to argument; their hearts are full and their souls troubled. This is a situation in which cunning and persuasion are called for, since force and violence are ineffectual …

My reason for wishing to move against them is that they have started to debate with us and challenge our friends, after insulting us, to pay great defence to us after forbidding us to speak, to sit with us after turning us a deaf ear, to listen to us after abusing us …

I have therefore written a book in refutation of the anthropomorphists which will be neither beneath the notice of scholars and educated men nor above the heads of tyros.



From the text above, we can see how al-Jahiz angrily scorned the vast crowd of believers who were largely anthropomorphists. The political hostility between Mu‘tazila and anthropomorphists, especially during al-Ma’mun’s caliphate, reached its peak and became an official agenda at that time. Al-Ma’mun himself was a foremost proponent of Mu‘tazili movement and patronized all theological creed of the Mu‘tazila, including al-Jahiz’s refutation against anthropomorphists. Al-Ma’mun’s attitude towards anthropomorphists is reflected by his scorn as follows:

The Commander of the Faithful knows that the great multitude, the vast majority of the vulgar herd, the riffraff of common folk, who are without insight, reflection and reasoning pointing to God and His guidance and [without] illumination through knowledge and its proof, are, in all lands and regions, a people ignorant of God, blind to Him, lost to the reality of His religion … and, because of the weakness of their judgement, the deficiency of their intelligence and their antipathy toward thought and reflection, are [unable] to distinguish between Him and His creation …



Sourdel, however, has observed that the fury of al-Ma’mun’s attack upon the traditionist leaders and the vast believers who clung to them was exceeded only by al-Jahiz in his epistle, written during the reign of al-Mu‘tasim (833-842), refuting the anthropomorphism dear to these leaders and to the great majority of the faithful. Al-Jahiz attributed the abiding strength of anthropomorphism ``to the adherence of the masses and to the proclivity of the mean and base. Even though al-Jahiz wrote during the era of the Mihna, he could nonetheless lament that ``the elite have no authority over the masses nor the prominent over the lowly.`` To be sure, the ``partisans [of anthropomorphism] are suppressed and put to the Mihna … [but] the conscience of most of them remains where it was … and we have profited nothing from the hypocrite….``

Of the Mihna, that mini-inquisition launched by al-Ma’mun shortly before his death in 833 and upheld by his successors until 848, most of the religious and lay notables subjected to the ``test`` signalled quickly their credence in a Qur’an created and impervious to anthropomorphic interpretation. When the Mihna was applied to ‘Ali ibn Abi Muqatil, he soon capitulated with these words: ``… should the Commander of the Faithful command us, we will hear and obey him``.

From the basis of the explanation above, it is obvious that al-Ma’mun, one of ‘Abbasi caliph, rejected the idea of anthropomorphism forwarded largely by traditionalists (Sunni Islam), due to the fact that he is the foremost advocate of Mu‘tazili theological creeds. Consequently, Al-Jahiz, as a concerned proponent of Mu‘tazila, was politically buttressed by al-Ma’mun’s regime. Through his patronage, al-Jahiz even refuted more bitterly against the anthropomorphists than al-Ma’mun did. The political hostility between the Mu‘tazila, in particular al-Jahiz, and the traditionalists which was represented by the anthropomorphists, was not simply as a difference of academic point of view, but also inevitably led to more serious political conflict between them. As a ruling power which was administered officially by caliphate, the Mu‘tazila had a strong legitimacy to wage contention against the anthropomorphists. They tried to wipe out the advocate of anthropomorphists through an institution established by al-Ma’mun, called the Mihna, by torturing or with threatening with death whoever propounded the idea of anthropomorphism.







Conclusion

To conclude the explanation above, we can safely suggest that al-Jahiz was, beside a remarkable adib (man of literature), he was also a great Mu‘tazili theologian at the time of al-Ma’mun period. As an adib, he has written many collections of literature. Even though he was not an original Arab, he became a talented expert in Arabic literature. And as a theologian, he has done many things in favor of the Mu‘tazila. In the case of the latter, he refuted all traditionalist theological creeds, including their anthropomorphic creed. Through his writings and his epistles (risala) addressed to some Islamic authorities, al-Jahiz defended the Mu‘tazili theological stand point of anthropomorphism and fought bitterly against the anthropomorphists.

The Mu‘tazila’s theological foundation of anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an is based on their strength of rationality. Al-Jahiz, as one of the Mu‘tazili advocate, based his anthropomorphic interpretation on the strength of rational interpretation (ta’wil). According to him, it is a great sin to interpret anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an with the traditional way, i.e. by adopting the literal meaning of the text without asking how (bi-la kayfa). But one should, he argued, uses the metaphorical interpretation of the text in order to avoid the compromising God’s unity with His creatures (human). By this method, he contended, one would be safe from the greatest sin of mushrik, i.e. assimilating God’s attributes with human being.



The writer is a graduate of Tarbiyah Faculty of IAIN Sunan Ampel

and at present in accomplishment of his study of Masters degree

at McGill University of Canada