Criticism Of Sunni Kalam (Short Intro)

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلي على محمد و ال هحمد 

 

 

This thread will serve as a criticism of sunni kalam, I will write my opinions under specific topics inside 3lm l kalam. 

 

This thread will not be complex, anyone will be able to understand it.

 

 

 

Choice ( Do humans have free will or not) ?

 

 Ashariyya'

 

The position of the Ashariyya' on this issue is that we do not have free will, rather Allah controls every single movement, thought, sincerity, hate, love, lust, a leaf falling , cotton burning, TV turning on, a bus moving, etc. There is no causality inside the theology of the Ashariyya', rather they say that both cause and effect are from Allah and that cause and effect are simply correlation and not actually causality. For example when cotton is being burned, it is not the fire that is burning the cotton, both the fire and the burning of the cotton is caused by Allah, rather Allah only causes the cotton to be burned when he causes fire to be present upon it and not that the fire itself is the cause.  With relation to humans the ashariyya say that we are caused to do things based upon what we deserve and thus we "acquire" actions from Allah. They say that Allah knew what was in our hearts so he has caused us to do the actions that we would of done if we would of had free will anyways.

 

Shia'

 

The shi'i position on this topic is that humans do not have absolute free will, nor are they under compulsion to do actions. The shi'i position is that of the middle path, some things are directly or indirectly caused by Allah and some things are left to us or cause and effect. We may only do an action if Allah allows us to do the action, not that he compels us to do so. Likewise we can only do a good deed when Allah allows us and gives us the opportunity to do them. Perhaps Allah compels an event to take place or for a person to do something by a direct or indirect cause, or perhaps Allah has not willed an event to take place but has allowed it, for example simple cause and effect; a ball being moved by air.

 

 

Criticism of the Sunni position

 

The Sunni position on this issue falls into a major issue, and that is it confers ugliness to Allah. This is because rape for example is not done by the human,  it is actually done by Allah with the human only acquiring the action and the liability and consequence of punishment. The shi'i position is that Allah has not caused the human to rape, but rather allowed him to do the action for which the raped female is compensated (her sins are removed or she is rewarded 1000 fold or 100000 fold) and the rapist is punished. 

 

Textual Extraction of the Attributes of Allah.

 

Ashariyya'

 

The ashariyya' are textual literalists when it comes to the attributes of Allah mentioned in the hadith literature and Qur'an, they differ however with the hanbali creed semantically.  This verse for example is treated by the ashariyya in the following way,  

 

“كُلّ شَيْء هَالِك إِلاَّ وَجْهه  

 

Everything perishes except his (Allah's) face. 28:28

 

 

The ashariyya will say - " Indeed we say that Allah has a face, but we do not say what the word "face" means. We leave both the meaning and the modality of face to Allah. " 

 

This creed from the ashariyya is called "tafweed l ma3na", or you could say "leaving the meaning to Allah". They affirm the text yet deny knowing the meaning or the howness of that specific attribute mentioned.

 

Hanbali

 

The hanbali madhab has more than one madhab on this specific issue, the first madhab from them is similar to the asharis, they are called athariyya. Another madhab from them on this issue is called the salafiyya, I will explain the salafi position regarding the attributes of Allah mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith literature but not the athariyya due to them being similar to the ashari position except that the ashariyya sometimes will allow actually giving meanings to the words.  

 

The Salafi position is that of blunt literalness, they claim that when the hands of Allah are mentioned this is to be taken literally with the modality of the hands completely only known to Allah.  Allah has literal hands, eyes, feet, fingers, arms, forgetfulness, shadow, running, however without their modality being known and in a way that befits the majesty of Allah.

 

Shia'

 

The Shia' position on the attributes of Allah mentioned in the Qur'an al kareem is the position of their imams (as). Thus if a specific nass is given by an imam (as) on that issue, the shia' will thus accept it. Regarding the verses of the Qur'an that mention attributes of Allah without any type of comments by the imams (3) then aql (intelligence) is thus used and the obvious meaning is taken from the context. 

 

 

Criticism of the sunni position

 

Before getting into the criticism I would like to mention some basic 3lm l usul principles regarding "words". Words are indicators to things in the world that are actual (real) or conceptual. The word apple that is made up of five letters and with a specific sound is an indicator to the fruit that is red with a specific shape and taste. Similarly with the word distance, distance itself is not an actual thing but a unit of measurement and thus a concept.

 

The Ashariyya fall into error by claiming that Allah has a face without the meaning being known because the word face is an indicator to the front of an animal head where the mouth, eyes, lips, etc are located. The word face can have many meanings (indications to things or concepts), for example it can mean in front of. The problem is all known meanings of the word face is unfitting to Allah SWT, thus to claim that he has a face without knowing the meaning is nonsensical, as all meanings are unfitting. When the shia' mention Allah SWT's face, we are using this word non-literally and as used by the Qur'an.

 

The salafiyya fall into a major mistake by claiming they know the meaning of hand, foot, eye, etc. When asked what the meaning of "yad Allah" is, they will tell you the meaning is a literal hand with it's modality unknown. However this answer is nonsensical as any object that can be called a hand is unfitting to Allah, as all hands by logically necessity must be instrumental or it cannot be called a hand. If an object is not a part, then it is impossible for it to be called a hand as the word hand itself is an indicator to a part. I remember when speaking to a salafi and asking him to explain the attributes of Allah to me, he explained it by saying that there are many types of hands. Hands of a dog, a clock, a door, and a human hand. All of these types of hands are called hands because they share an attribute and that is length and instrumentality, neither of which can be attributed to Allah. I will give a good example of this, let us say that we have the word clock, if we have an object that does not tell time, has no hands or numbers, uses no measurement, can it be called a clock? Can I claim that a clock exists with it's modality unknown and not having any of these attributes?

 

Continued.... 

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

Are the attributes a part of the essence of Allah?

 

'Ashariyya

 

The Ashariyya state that the attributes of Allah are not a part of the essence lest it would cause Allah SWT to be without attributes.

 

Mutazaliyya

 

The Mutazaliyya claim that Allah has no positive attributes, following closely to Aristotle who said that you cannot say that Allah is all-knowing, rather you can say that Allah is not ignorant of anything. The Mutazaliyya said that all the attributes of Allah are a part of his essence and not unique lest it would create parts.

 

Shia'

 

The Shia' position is that there are attributes of essence and attributes of action, the attributes of essence are indeed a part of the essence and not separate, however in contrast to the mutazaliyya, these attributes of the essence such as hearing, sight, knowledge, are all a part of the essence and are unique from each other and positive.

 

Criticism of the Sunni and Mutazalii position.

 

The Ashariyya claim that Allah's attributes are not a part of him are nonsensical as anything that is not a part of Allah cannot said to be "Allah". This is common sense and the Ashariyya have made the error into delving into the essence of Allah and creating reasons why the attributes cannot exist within his essence. The Ashariyya on this issue have done a retreat into paradox, if asked how could they hold such a view they would tell you that Allah's essence is a mystery. Of course this is known but if it was a mystery to them they wouldn't be making such claims and then retreating into paradox. The Mutazaliyya too have made an error into delving into the essence of Allah SWT, they claim that if the attributes are all a part of Allah which they obviously are, they cannot be said to be positive or unique. The Mutazaliyya are assuming that the essence of Allah cannot be without parts if it had unique attributes in Allah's essence and this is unproven without evidence.

 

continued....

Edited July 3, 2013 by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

Can Allah lie?

 

Before getting into the positions of the various schools of Islam it is important to first identify them so that we can read and understand who and what we are talking about. The majority of the Muslims for much of Islamic history were the Shia and Mutazaliyya, with the Imamiyya becoming the most predominant Shia madhab during the time of Abul hasan al Ashari (the founder of the ashari school) which was around 300 hijri. The proto sunni schools were made of dozens of schools in both theology and fiqh, however it was mostly the murjja and the mujassima/hashawiyya(as called by their opponents) or ashab l hadith as they called themselves, both of these schools often made claims that they were misguided or kuffar. The largest proto sunni school during the beginning of Islam were the murjia, with the hashawiyya less than them in number. Both of these proto schools were outnumbered by the Mutazaliyya with them being the largest madhab. Abu hanifa was often cursed and called a deviant by the other proto sunni schools, and likewise between the shafi'i school and hanbali school who at one point were actually at physical war in Iraq. When the seljuks took power and the Arabs became puppet states, the seljuks chose an Islam that was the best politically for their empire, a madhab that did not favor sciences of knowledge such as natural philosophy and logic , a madhab that did not believe in authority only going to the ahlul bayt (as) as they would never be followed, their choice were the proto-sunni schools, however not all of them. Their main choice was the hanafi strand, hence why the ottoman empire was largely hanafi and shaykh maturidi was actually from home area of seljuks. After this choice was made, the shafi'i and hanbali schools were united by the seljuks with the ahnaf under the name chosen by abul hassan al ashari "ahlus sunnah wa jama3" or Sunni for short. If one looks in the books of shafi'i, hanbal, abu hanifa, or malik, they will not find the word Sunni nor the phrase ahlus sunnah wa jama3. Ibn abbas (ra) however once mentioned the phrase "rijal as sunnah", but this phrase was not said in a sectarian sense but in the sense that he was referring to Muslims who follow the sunnah, like today we would say "ahlul qur'an" without meaning the Qur'an only group but rather Muslims who follow the Qur'an.

 

 

 

Salafiyya/Hanbaliyya/Athariyya

 

The position of the hanbali school is that if Allah chose to do so he could lie, but he would never choose to do so and thus impossible.

 

Ashariyya

 

The Ashariyya (mostly Shafi'i/Maliki) like the Salafiyya claim that it is not necessarily impossible for Allah to lie only contingently. 

 

Maturidiyya

 

The Maturidiyya (mostly Hanafi) say that it is both contingently impossible and necessarily impossible.

 

Mutazaliyya 

 

The Mutazaliyya claim the same as the Maturidiyya.

 

Shia

 

The Shia say that it is impossible for Allah SWT to lie absolutely in Allah cases. The concept of omnipotence does not play a role in things which have no logical basis, for example not being able to "hear a painting" has nothing to do with ability but rather with the question or challenge itself. The essence of Allah cannot contain ugliness nor can the will or actions of Allah contain ugliness. Thus like the Maturdiyya and Mutazaliyya, the question of Allah lying is nonsensical and has no meaning,  for a sentence with Allah's name and the word lie is not a logical nor compatible sentence. Thus it is contingently, textually, necessarily, and rationally impossible for Allah to do an action that is evil or ugly nor is it possible for his essence to contain an imperfection, subhanahu wa ta2la.

 

 

Criticism of the Sunni position

 

The majority of the Sunniya in the area of theology are the hanbali strands and the Ashariyya, both claiming that it is possible for Allah to lie if he chose to do so. This of course means that it is possible for Allah to have a defect, if it is possible for Allah to have a defect then he is not perfect, thus their claims are false.

 

Continued...

Edited July 5, 2013 by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

[Islamic Salvation]

Interesting read, looking forward to more, keep up the good work.