BACKROUND INFORMATION FOR THE STUDY OF ISLAMIC

THEOLOGY
REASON, REVELATION, AND INSPIRATION

To better understand the theological differences between Muslims, it is necessary to understand

their different attitudes regarding three sources of knowledge: reason (aql), revelation (naql),
and inspiration (kashf).

Peripatetic Philosophers:
1. Reason: The exclusive source of all fundamental truth.
2. Revelation: Source of guidance for the uninitiated. Unnecessary for rational people and
unimportant to the philosopher.
3. Inspiration: No value whatsoever.

Al-Mu`tazilah:
1. Reason: Source of determining all fundamental truth.
2. Revelation: Confirms reason. If there is contradiction between the two, revelation must be re-
interpreted. All contradictions between the two are only apparent, actual contradiction between
reason and revelation being impossible. (Revelation, though, is the exclusive source for
knowing secondary religious matters such as the number of rak`ahs in the Afternoon
Prayer, and that fasting is in Ramadan, etc.)
3. Inspiration: Little or no value.

Al-Maturidiyyah:
1. Reason & Revelation: Fundamental truth is determined by reason, but only in harmony with
revelation. If there is contradiction between the two, reason must be re-evaluated. All
contradictions between the two are only apparent, actual contradiction between reason and
revelation being impossible.
2. Inspiration: Provides guidance in applying religious matters only on a very personal and
individual basis. If there is any conflict between revelation and inspiration, inspiration is to be
rejected.

Al-Asha`irah and Athariyyah al-Hanabilah:

1. Revelation: Source of all fundamental truth.
2. Reason: Provides the correct basis for understanding revelation in the proper context, but
only in accordance with the general framework set out by revelation. All contradictions between
the two are only apparent, actual contradiction between reason and revelation being impossible.
3. Inspiration: Provides guidance in applying religious matters only on a very personal and
individual basis. If there is any conflict between revelation and inspiration, inspiration is to be
rejected.

Extreme Gnostics:
1. Inspiration: Source of all fundamental truth and the exclusive domain of the saints.
2. Revelation: Source of guidance for the uninitiated. Truly understood only
by the Gnostics.
3. Reason: Little or no value.

Moderate Gnostics:
1. Revelation: Source of all fundamental knowledge. Subject to interpretation by inspiration.
2. Inspiration: Source of knowledge for the saints. Has the ability to clarify, interpret, and
qualify revelation.
3. Reason: Has limited utility in understanding revelation, not in appraising or moderating
inspiration.
Extreme Hashwiyyah:
1. Revelation: Exclusive source of all religious knowledge.
2. Reason: No value whatsoever.
3. Inspiration: No value whatsoever.

Moderate Hashwiyyah:
1. Revelation: Exclusive source of all religious knowledge.
2. Reason: Little or no utility in understanding revelation. Revelation is never to be understood,
re-interpreted or re-evaluated in light of reason, though theoretically all contradictions between
reason and revelation are only apparent, actual contradiction between the two being impossible.
3. Inspiration: Provides guidance in applying religious matters only on a very personal and
individual basis. If there is any conflict between revelation and inspiration, inspiration is to be
rejected.

The Maturidiyyah, the Asha`irah, and Athariyyah al-Hanabilah represent the spectrum of
thought found in Orthodox Islam. They are on the practice of the Salaf and include the rightly
guided Sufis on the path of Junayd and `Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. The only real difference
between the Athriyyah and the Asha’irah is that the former violently reject ta’wil and delving
into difficult theological matters, while the latter, to a greater or lesser extent, allow it. The
Athariyyah include Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bukhari, Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, and al-Dhahabi
(though a Shafi`i in fiqh) in his later days. The Maturidi approach is first seen in the person of
Abu Hanifa, then codified in the works of al-Maturidi and developed by scholars such as
al-Nasafi, al-Lamishi, and al-Taftazani. The Ash`ari approach is witnessed in the views of al-
Hasan al-Basri, crystalising in the ideas of al-Ash`ari and his contemporaries Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
and al-Tahawi (who, almost simultaneously, independently codified the same methodology). It
was then developed by scholars like al-Baqillani, al-Bayhaqi, Imam al-Haramayn, Ibn al-Jawzi,
and al-Ghazali.

The peripatetic philosophers are those who follow, to a greater or lesser degree, the teachings of
Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus. Their numbers include al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, and to a
lesser degree Ibn Rushd al-Hafid. The peripatetic philosophers are considered disbelievers with
the exception of Ibn Rushd and his followers, due to the fact that his views, though still false,
are more moderate.

The Mu`tazilah are known for their belief that the Qur’an is created, that man creates his own
evil deeds, that Allah is obligated to prescribe what is best for His creation, and that it is
impossible for Allah to ever be seen by man. Their numbers include many famous scholars such
as al-Jahiz, Al-Qadi `Abd al-Jabbar, Abu al-Husayn al-Basri, and al-Zamakhshari.

The extreme Gnostics include the Batiniyyah and the Sufi extremists who reject the guidance of
Islamic Law. They are the only other above-mentioned categories who are indisputably
disbelievers.

The moderate Gnostics are the Sufi extremists who give lip service to the authority of the
Qur’an and Sunnah but are prone to innovations and false ideologies. They unfortunately
include the majority of Sufis living today.

The extreme Hashwis include the Mushabbihah, the early Hanbali Mujassimah like Abu Ya’la
al-Farra’, Ibn Mandah, and Ibn Battah, and many of the contemporary Salafis.

The moderate Hashwis include Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ibn Abu al-`Izz, al-
Dhahabi in his early days, and some of the more moderate and better informed contemporary
Salafis.
THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ASH`ARI THOUGHT

It may seem surprising that I mentioned Ibn al-Jawzi among the most important Ash`ari
scholars, but when one understands the Ash`ari mindset, this becomes far less surprising. The
Ash`aris are the theological manifestation of the `aqidah of the hadith scholars, being the
forerunners in placing reason at the service of revelation, where as the Maturidis are the
theological expression of Ahl al-Ra’i. The Atharis, on the other hand, though adhering to the
views of Ahl al-Hadith, never developed a comprehensive theology, being averse to such an
enterprise. It is the closeness to the hadith while presenting a fully developed theology that
gives the Ash`aris their unique character.

The works of al-Baqillani, Imam al-Haramayn, and finally al-Ghazali, show the development of
the rational character of Ash`ari thought. Their works collectively form the rational pillar of
Ash`ari theology. Everyone that comes after them, like al-Razi, al-Iji, and al-Sanusi, only add
some finer details and carry out the role of tahqiq.

The writings of al-Bayhaqi and Ibn al-Jawzi are the works which give full expression to the
Ash`ari approach to hadith. Their respective works, Kitab al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat and Daf`
Shubah al-Tashbih, are the definitive sources for all later Ash`ari discussions of the
mutashabihat. Al-Bayhaqi’s work is by far the more extensive and is most authoritative in terms
of hadith methodology, wheras Ibn al-Jawzi’s work is the more aggressive and
combative, being written specifically as a refutation of the Hanbali mujassim Abu Ya’ala al-
Farra’. The two books taken together form the second indespensible pillar of Ash’ari thought.

Historically, we see that Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari (d. 330) had many students, among the most
important being al-Ta’i and al-Bahili. Among the students of al-Bahili were al-Isfarayini (d.
418), Ibn Furaq, and al-Baqillani (d. 402). Al-Baqillani was also a student of al-Ta’i; in fact,
al-Ta’i was his main teacher in matters of `aqidah, not al-Bahili. Ibn Furaq and al-Isfarayini
went to Khurasan (in Iran), where they spread the Ash`ari creed primarily to adherents of the
Shafi’i madhhab, forming the “Khurasani school” of Ash’ari thought which was characterised
by a strong partiality for textual evidence.

Al-Baqillani stayed in Iraq and was more inclined to the rational approach, probably due to the
influence of al-Ta’i, forming what we could call the “Iraqi school” of Ash`ari thought. His most
important `aqidah works are Kitab Tamhid al-Awa’il and al-Insaf. He was a Maliki in fiqh, and
was responsible for spreading the `Ash`ari creed among many Malikis and Hanbalis
in Iraq and as a consequence, in the rest of the Arab world. As the Ash`ari creed spread to Syria
and Egypt, it quickly won favour and acceptance with the Hanafis there who were already under
the influence of the nearly identical teachings of al-Tahawi, who hailed from Egypt.

In Khorasan, the scholarly tradition spread from generation to generation, producing many
eminent scholars, among them al-Bayhaqi (d. 458) and Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478). Al-
Bayhaqi’s book entitled al-I`tiqad wa al-Hidayah is probably the best `aqidah work of the
“Khorasani school” and is probably the most faithful representation of the ideological mindset
of the Khurasani Ash`aris. Imam al-Haramayn, however, departed from this approach, having
extensively studied the works of al-Baqillani. He brought the Khurasanis to Baqilani’s more
rational approach. His most important work in `aqidah is Kitab al-Irshad. Al-Ghazali (d. 505)
was his student and continued on this rational line in his own works such as al-Iqtisad fi al-
I`tiqad, Qawa’id al-Aqa’id (from the Ihya’), and Tahafut al-Falasafah. He returns to a more
“Khurasani” attitude in his Iljam al-`Awam an `Ilm al-Kalam, though such a tendency is already
evident in Qawa’id al-Aqa’id.
Historians have often puzzled over why the Ash`ari creed was never embraced by the Hanafi
denizens of Khorasan, but, was in fact often met with open hatred and hostility, whereas it had
been accepted by the Hanafis of the Arab world, who never developed a separate “Tahawi”
creed.

Many reasons are given for this. The first is that Imam al-Ash`ari concentrated his efforts on
attacking the Mu`tazilah and destroying their madh’hab. During his time, the majority of the
Hanafi scholars of Khurasan were in fact Mu`tazilis or at least sympathetic to their views. They,
consequently, had been ideologically at war with al-Ash`ari. Even after the Mu`tazili creed fell
out of favour and the majority of scholars began to distance themselves from Mu`tazili ideas
and embrace those of Ahl al-Sunnah, the hatred and animosity that existed for al-Ash`ari was
carried over, making it impossible for them to embrace an “Ash`ari” creed.

Al-Ash`ari was a Shafi’i, and the Ash`ari creed, after being swiftly and overwhelmingly
embraced by the Shafi`is of Khorasan, became specifically associated with them. (This did not
happen in the Arab world, as we have seen). To say the least, Shafi`i-Hanafi relations in
Khorasan were far from cordial. This is another possible reason why the Khorasani Hanafis
would want to look elsewhere for there `aqidah.

Al-Ashari openly declared his affiliation with Ahl al-Hadith, the scholars of hadith, and
specifically Ahmad b. Hanbal. Al-Ash`ari makes it quite clear in his writings that the creed of
Ahmad b. Hanbal is the true belief of Ahl al-Sunnah. This was no way for him to endear himself
to the Hanafis. On the fiqh level, Ahmad and the students of Abu Hanifa, though grudgingly
respecting each other, were ideologically polarised. After Ahmad’s death, the severe additude
and bad conduct of some Hanbalis widened the gap between them and the Hanafis. (Actually
these “Hanbalis” included the nascent Hanbali Mujassimah who carried out a fitnah in Iraq
almost as bad as the Mu`tazili mihnah of a generation before. No Hanafi or Shafi’i was spared
their wrath.) This is another reason why the Khurasani Hanafis would be cool towards al-
Ash`ari and his creed.

The Hanafis, instead, embraced the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah under a different guise, that of the
eminent and illustrious scholar of Transoxiana, al-Maturidi.

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MATURIDI THOUGHT

Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (d. 368) was a prominent Hanafi figure in Transoxiana. He was
instrumental in the development of Hanafi Usul al-Fiqh. He was a defender of the `aqidah of
Ahl al-Sunnah and a contemporary of al-Ash`ari. The ideological climate in Transoxiana was
different from that of al-Ash`ari’s Iraq. Transoxiana had been spared the brunt of the Mu`tazili
mihnah, and was consequently less polarised when it came to the relationship
between reason and revelation. The Hanafi fiqh, as well, was already more accepting of taking
recourse to reason than was the fiqh of the other three madhhabs.

This produced an approach to Sunni theology that was more rationally inclined and less
antagonistic to Mu`tazili thought. This would lead Hanafi scholars from the Arab world, like
Ibn al-Humam, to accuse their “brothers from across the river” of agreeing with the Mu`tazilah
on more than one occasion.

On the other hand, al-Kawthari sees this as their strength. He says, after mentioning what he
considers to be an imbalance in the thought of al-Ash`ari with respect to reason and revelation,
“This did not occur with his (al-Ash`ari’s) contemporary, the Imam of guidance, Abu Mansur
al-Maturidi, the Shaykh of the Sunnah in Transoxiana, due to the absolute preponderance
of the Sunnah in that region over the different innovative sects, a preponderance which
prevented any conflict from surfacing between them. This made it possible for al-Maturidi to
take a completely balanced course, giving both revelation and reason their just due.”
(Muqaddimah al-Kawthari ala al-Tabyin, 19) Actually, we have seen that both the Ash’aris and
Maturidis maintain this balanced course, it is just a minor question of degree.

Where we could say that the Ash’ari creed, after a series of independent scholarly works, came
to its culmination with the writings of al-Ghazali (d. 505), the Maturidi literature developed
mainly as a series of commentaries on Abu Hanifa’s al-Fiqh al-Akbar – a precedent set by al-
Maturidi himself – and occasionally on the Tahawiyyah.

The most significant development in the Maturidi literature came with al-Nasafi (d. 508), a
contemporary of al-Ghazali. He wrote many important works in theology including the superb
Tabsirah al-Adillah. He also wrote his famous al-Aqidah al-Nasafiyyah, which would
henceforth be the focus of most Maturidi scholarly efforts.

It might be said that Maturidi thought came to its culmination with al-Taftazani (753), who
wrote his landmark Sharh al-Maqasid, a heavily philosophical work corresponding to al-
Mawaqif of al-Iji in the Ash`ari literature. Al-Taftazani also wrote the authoritative commentary
on al-`Aqidah al-Nasafiyyah upon which numerous commentaries have been written.

Geographically, Maturidi influence first predominated in Central Asia, gaining favor among the
Hanafis of Khorasan as well for reasons previously discussed. The Maturidi creed spread from
Central Asia into India. It also traveled with the Turks to Anatolia (Modern Turkey) and Eastern
Europe. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the adherents of the Hanafi madhhab
are Maturidi. The other third, mainly in the Arab world, are Ash`ari.