There seems to be some misconceptions on /r/Islam regarding the Atharī/Ḥanbalī creed – namely, that the creed does not exist, or that it is the creed which the modern Salafī movement subscribe to and hence can be removed from the realms of orthodoxy. In reality, the Atharī creed stands alongside the Ash’arī and Māturīdī creed, and in its core beliefs, predates both of the latter schools.
Linguistically, it has been referred to as the Ḥanbalī creed (due to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’s famous rejection of Mu’tazilite positions and his arguments for traditional beliefs) and as the Atharī creed (from the Arabic, athar, meaning remnants). “In the wake of the tenth century Ash’arī synthesis, some Muslim theologians still maintained the strict details of the early Sunnī creed. [These theologians were the] followers of ‘Traditional’ (Atharī) theology” (1).
The early Sunnī creed can be summarised from the answer of Imām Mālik when he was asked regarding the verse “The Beneficent One, Who made (istiwā) over the Throne” [20:5].
جاء رجل إلى مالك بن أنس فقال: يا أبا عبد الله "الرحمن على العرش استوى" (طه) كيف استوى؟ فقال: الكيف غير معقول والاستواء منه غير مجهول والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة
A man came to Mālik ibn Anas and said: O Abā ‘Abd Allāh, “Ar-Raḥmān, Who made (istiwā) over the Throne”, how did He make istiwā? He (Mālik) replied, “The how (i.e. how Allāh performed it) is unknown, making istiwā over (something) is known, believing in it is wājib and asking about it is bid’ah”. (2) (3) (4). Regarding this, ad-Dhahabī said, “This statement is proven and affirmed to be said by Imām Mālik”.
The Atharī/Ḥanbalī creed being the earliest documented Sunnī creed is an accepted fact even amongst non-Muslim academics and historians. The likes of Ignaz Goldziher, Richard M. Frank, George Makdisi and Joseph van Ess have all acknowledged that the Atharī creed predates Ash’arism which gained prominence during the kalām debates (5).
The concept of accepting and believing without asking ‘how’ was the hallmark of the early Sunnī creed, and it is to this that the Atharī/Ḥanbalī have clung onto. The Ash’arī and Māturīdī rose to prominence as a response to the heresy of the Mu’tazila but “many Ḥanbalīs rejected ta’wīl of anthropomorphism in the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth and took a non-cognitive approach that affirmed God’s attributes without inquiring into their meaning or modality (bi-lā kayf)” (6). The author describing the Ḥanbalī position as non-cognitive is not a surprise as this is often seen in the works of Western commentators who regarded the Ḥanbalī position as being simplistic, relative to the Ash’arī position in particular.
The Atharī creed was not restricted within the Ḥanbalīs alone; rather there were traditionalists within the Shāfi’ī, Ḥanafī and Mālikī schools who held Atharī opinions. For instance, there are scholars who have been described as (shāfi’iyyat al-fiqh, ḥanbaliyyat al-uṣūl) ‘Shāfi’ī in law, Ḥanbalī in principles of religions’ (6).
Later Ḥanbalī scholars laid down the groundwork for the Atharī creed. The likes of Ibn Baṭṭa*, Abū Ya’lā ibn al-Farrā, ‘Abd Allāh al-Anṣārī, ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jilānī and Ibn al-Zāghūnī all wrote regarding the uncreated nature of the Qur’ān, that Allāh Speaks and Laughs, that the Believers will see Him on the Day of Judgement, that He descends each night to the lowest heaven (this is affirmed without asking how). Abū Ya’lā ibn al-Farrā (d. 458H) affirms that Allāh Laughs in such a way that His molars and uvula will be seen, as stated in the Ḥadīth. He stated that this should be taken literally but without interpreting or questioning further as to how Allāh Laughs or asking what His molars or uvula is like. Ibn al-Zāghūnī explains a similar concept regarding Allāh’s Eyes. He affirms that Allāh has Eyes but rejects them to be fleshy eyeballs like humans possess. The argument that the Atharī creed relies on anthropomorphism is false as the classical Ḥanbalī scholars held positions that were between corporealism and the ta’wīl of the Ash’arī.
Ibn Qudāmah, the Ḥanbalī jurist, Ṣūfī and student of three female Ḥadīth teachers, provides perhaps the most comprehensive breakdown of the Atharī creed in his Taḥrīm al-naẓar. He states that the corporeal depictions of Allāh in the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth must be accepted as true without going beyond that. Allāh is as how He has described Himself and the texts are passed over without imrār (comment) and without questioning the how (kayf) or the meaning (ma’nā).
The modern Salafī movement is rightfully criticised for a lot of things, but their adherence to the Atharī creed is not an issue. Some of the sub-sects of the Salafīs make ridiculous claims that the Ash’arīs and Māturīdīs are deviants and, in some cases, not Muslim. That is what the Salafīs should be criticised for (and a myriad of other things). However, there seem to be some almost neo-Ash’arīs on this sub who cannot accept that there are genuine opinions on ‘aqīdah apart from their own.
tl;dr: the Atharī creed is a legitimate and recognised school of thought within orthodox Sunnī Islam. It is mostly followed by the Ḥanbalīs although they do not have a monopoly over it. There is a plethora of classical Ḥanbalī scholars who have explained and defended the Atharī creed and to claim that this creed does not exist or is not part of orthodox belief is absurd. And this is coming from a Māliki-Ash’arī.
(1) – Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World: Dr Jonathan Brown
(2) – Al-Rad ‘Ala al-Jahmiyyah: al-Darāmī, (d. 280H)
(3) – Commentary on the Muqaddimah al-Risalah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 389H): Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Najmi (d. 1429H)
(4) – Commentary on the creed of At-Tahawi: Ibn Abi al-‘Izz (d. 789H)
(5) – On Salafi Islam: Dr Yasir Qadhi
(6) – Hanbali Theology: Jon Hoover
*al-Ibanah as-Sughra of ibn Batta - if anyone is interested in reading his explanations.
[link] [comments]
from Islam https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/8ddq27/in_defense_of_the_atharī_creed/
No comments:
Post a Comment