Introduction
The Mut’azilah and the Ash’ariyya are two of the most important theological schools in Islam. The Mu’tazilah originated in Baghdad and Basra in the 8th-10th centuries. The Ash’ariyya is a school of theological thought in Sunni Islam that was founded by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari. The latter is considered to be a response to the Mu’tazilah religious standpoint. While both the Mu’tazilites and the Ash’arites incorporate rationalist thought into their philosophy and share the ideas related to cosmology, they differ significantly in their treatment of the Quran, as well as in other crucial aspects.
The doctrine of Created Qur’an
The works of Aristotle served as a basis for developing the Mu’tazilah religious school of thought (Contradictions of the Mu’tazilah, n.d., para. 1). Thus, the principles of Greek rationalist thought were introduced. However, Hughes (2013) argues that the Mut’azilites should not be construed as philosophers, as they often used rationalist thinking to provide evidence for ideas that were established beforehand (p. 189).
The Mu’tazilah asserts that the Quran was created and cannot be considered eternal, as it would mean that it existed alongside Allaah (Mu’tazilah, n.d., para. 1). Such an approach might lead to believe there is another deity besides Allah. According to the Mu’tazilites, Qur’an should be seen as created, as such phenomenon since speech cannot be tied to Allah as an attribute because it would essentially constitute Allaah as a body, thereby questioning the creation of the universe (Contradictions of the Mu’tazilah, n.d., para. 1). This stance was the basis of the Mu’tazilah theology developed by Ahl al-Kalaam.
Therefore, the origin and creation of the Qur’an were to be determined. Thus, the Mu’tazilites postulate that Qu’ran can be seen as Allaah’s speech only in the same sense that a mosque can be seen as Allaah’s house.
Unlike the Mu’tazilites, the Ash’arites subscribe to a different theological standpoint, albeit derived from the same theoretical foundations. Following the ideas of Ibn-Kulaab, who developed the concept of kalaam nausea, the Ash’ariyya regard Qu’ran according to several major standpoints. Firstly, they deny the idea of Qu’ran’s creation in time. According to Hughes (2013), the Ash’arites postulate that allegorical interpretations cannot be employed concerning Qur’an (p. 193).
Therefore, the language describing Allaah has to be understood literally. Even though the words used to pertain to human beings, the description of God in the Qur’an has to signify Allaah to some extent. The Ash’arites admitted the problems caused by such an approach that uses human characteristics to talk about God. They claimed that the words used in Qur’an should be seen as signifying Allaah but as they refer to things seen in humans, their meaning cannot be fully understood (Hughes, 2013, p. 193).
Later on, a new approach was developed that employed philological means of interpretation to solve this problem of anthropomorphic language of description. It was established that the meanings of the second-order were to be found in Qur’an. Thus, in contrast with the Mu’tazilah, the eternal nature of the Qur’an was argued.
In contrast with the Ash’arites, the Mu’tazilites refused to approach the verses of the Qur’an in a literal manner. Anthropomorphic descriptions should, therefore, be treated as metaphors (Hughes, 2013, p. 190). Therefore, descriptions of God’s should be regarded as allegorical, i.e. Allaah’s face conveys the meaning of God’s essence, whereas the Ash’arites construed the language of the Qur’an in a far more literal way, albeit seeking a second-order meaning.
Anthropomorphism in Qur’an led the Mu’tazilites to employ rationalist methods of interpretation (Hughes, 2013, p. 189). Thus, the principal difference between the two religious schools lies in the extent to which rationalist methods are used. The Mu’tazilites postulate a far greater degree of rationalism to be employed, while the Ash’arites believe that God’s essence cannot be fully grasped by reason alone.
Unity of God
The Mut’abilities’ treatment of the Qur’an and metaphorical approach towards the description of God as a consequence of their concept of God’s unity. As mentioned above, the attributes employed in Qur’an are not to be treated in a literal manner but rather interpreted allegorically. Thus, according to this school of thought, the description of Allaah outlined in Qur’an constitutes a description of God’s uniform essence. The Mut’azilah thereby suggests that no plurality is possible when considering the nature of God. The concept of the unity of God is the framework of their theological stance. Meanwhile, multiple attributes employed to describe God in Qur’an are caused by the human limitations of our comprehension and intellectual capabilities (Robinson, n.d., para. 12).
However, the Mut’azilah approach was rejected by Al-Ash’ari, who considered it overly rational and excessively focused on human cognitive facilities. However, Robinson claims that his attitude seems like a “retreat into paradox” (n.d., para. 13), as he claimed that anthropomorphic attributes are neither the essence of God nor can be understood as identical with God. The Mut’azilite theology considered divine unity as transcendent to the world. Thus, negative theology was employed in this regard (Hughes, 2013, p. 190), as only negative descriptions cannot devoid the concept of God of its unity and absolute nature.
According to Mabrook (2013), the Ash’arites’ religious doctrine is largely dependent on the idea of absolutism (p. 291). In the Ash’ariyya school of thought, the concept of absolutism is essential since it provides a foundation for understanding all the subsequent Ash’ariyya notions. Mabrook (2013) claims that in this theological framework, the dominance of the divine absolute is crucial (p. 294). The relationship between God, humanity, and the world is a triangle that depends on God entirely. Without God, the world and humanity are essentially devoid of all meaning and value. Mabrook points out that this idea postulated by the Ash’arites is inconsistent with the common understanding of God’s creation of the world (2013, p. 294).
The notion of absolute dominance of the divine absolute is what prevented them to see that God created the world for self-knowledge but not at all to assert the absolute dominance of the divine (Mabrook, 2013, p. 295). Moreover, the divine attributes cannot be fully acknowledged but through seeing the futileness and passive nature of the human world.
The Ash’arites rejected the doctrine of Qur’an having been created at a defined point in time, postulated by the Mut’zalites. Therefore, their approach was based on the assumption that God knows the essence of everything even before its existence. Mabrook (2013) claims that this standpoint of God’s augmented knowledge implies that there is a change in the nature and knowledge of God, as the knowledge of things before their existence and after their existence cannot be considered identical (p. 300).
Thus, this approach is difficult to accord with the concept of absolute divinity. These inconsistencies amplify the differences between religious stances of the discussed theologies. The Mut’azilites affirm that it is necessary to exclude human acts from the realm of divine knowledge to avoid the temptation to eliminate the responsibility that human beings must bear for their actions (Mabrook, 2013, p. 303). This attitude leads to another crucial point of difference between the theological systems discussed, i.e. the concept of divine justice.
Divine Justice, Human Destiny, and Free Will
Alongside with God’s unity, the concept of divine justice is significant in the Mu’talizah theology. Greek rationalist thought, and Aristotle’s work, in particular, exerted a substantial influence on the development of these ideas (Hughes, 2013, p. 189). According to the Mu’talizah standpoint on this matter, divine justice must simultaneously equal God’s goodness. Thus, God is not capable of injustice and unfairness, nor can he encourage such behavior of such nature.
However, Hughes (2013) points out that this stance is often criticized on the grounds of human comprehension of these notions (p. 189). Critics claim that it is irrational to consider God’s actions in human terms that are limited by human perception of the world and the ideas of ‘goodness’ and ‘justice’. The Mu’tazilites affirm, however, that human beings are capable of discerning the good and evil as formulated by God’s divine justice (Robinson, n.d., para. 16) by employing rational reasoning methods.
Unlike the Mu’tazilah theology, the Ash’ariyya postulates the insufficiency of the human reasoning for a proper understanding of God’s justice. In this religious framework, grasping the idea of divine justice requires a great deal of faith in addition to the ratio. The latter does not suffice to distinguish the appropriate moral values imposed by God. The Ash’arites insist on the superiority of revelation over reasoning as a way of grasping the idea of divine justice (Robinson, n.d., para. 18).
Thus, the Ash’ariyya and the Mu’talizah differ in their comprehension of the concept of free will. According to the latter, human beings are capable of discerning good from evil, thereby behaving of their own accord and exercising their free will. Unlike the Mu’talizah, the Ash’arites do not subscribe to this idea. The latter maintain that human beings having free will is inconsistent with the dominance of absolute divinity (Robinson, n.d., para. 18). It is believed that the freedom of humans would limit the freedom of God and that human ability to behave in a certain way and choose a particular course of action are both predetermined by God.
Cosmology
The system of cosmology postulated by the Mu’tazilites did not raise significant objections. It was accepted by the Ash’ariyya and other theological schools of thought in Islam. This cosmology system describes all existing things as bodies of various qualities, i.e. animate and inanimate objects that can assume certain contradictory forms simultaneously while some objects cannot acquire certain qualities at all. The Mu’tazilah cosmology explains these phenomena.
It pertains to the structure of the bodies. According to this belief system developed by thinkers of early Basra School, all objects consist of either atom (ajza’) or elements of identical material quality (jawahir) (Robinson, n.d., para. 5). It was claimed that atoms are mathematical points that are inaccessible to a human sight that can combine with other atoms, move, or rest. While separate atoms are limited to the mentioned changes, the combination of atoms can receive many qualities, such as colors, sounds, tastes, etc.
Conclusion
While the Ash’ariyya and Mu’tazilah theological stances both subscribe to the same cosmology systems, they differ on the majority of the most significant aspects of Islam theology. Since the Ash’tarites’ religious system emerged as a response to the excessive rationalist character of the Mu’tazilah, the latter provide merely the basis of the theological stance of the former. As a result, the Ash’tariyya theological stance differs from the Mu’tazilah regarding the treatment of the Qur’an, the concepts of God’s unity, divine justice, human destiny, and free will.
References
Contradictions of the Mu’tazilah: Creation of the Qur’an and Creation of Man’s Actions. (n.d.). Web.
Hughes, A. W. (2013). Muslim identities: An introduction to Islam. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Mabrook, A. (2013). The Ash’arite dogma: the root of the Arab/Muslim absolutism. Indonesian Journal of Islam and Muslim Societies, 3(2), 291-328.
Mu’tazilah. (n.d.). Web.
Robinson, N. Ash’ariyya and Mu’tazila. (n.d.). Web.