Theological Debate Between the Mu'tazilites and the Ash'arites on the Relation of God to Time and Space

The Mu’tazilites said that God is above time and space. First part of this statement seems to have direct support from the Holy Quran. It says that “He is the First and the Last”, which means that He should not be construed in time-relating understanding. The second part, i.e. that God is above space, does not have the same degree of support from the Holy Quran.
Holding this in mind, the Mu’tazilites have to interpret some verses of the Holy Quran that is seemingly contradictory to what they hold. For example, they interpret istawa ‘ala al-Arsh (literally meaning ‘established on the Throne’), the famous phrase taken from surah Tha Ha, to mean istawla ‘ala al-Arsh which means to get mastery over the Throne which is understood as His Kingdom. If they do not do so, that is to explain the verse metaphorically, it will reduce the Deity to material being and, consequently, created being.
Since the Mu’tazilites insist to interpret istawa as istawla, it makes them involved in the problem of the whereabouts of God, which the Mu’tazilites themselves have different perspectives about this. Abu al-Hudhail al-Allaf and the majority of the Mu’tazilites hold that God is everywhere, that is, He is the Ruler of every place or His Rule governs eveery place. Another Mu’tazilites, such as Hisham al-Fuati and Abu Zufar, maintain that He is everywhere He is. In this two cases, the Mu’tazilites exhort to avoid physical, anthropological interpretation. The emphasize of the absoluteness of God is the central concern of Mu’tazilites.


This opinion that God is above space and metaphorical intrepretation of seemingly anthropomorphic verses contained in the Holy Quran are countered by al-Ash’ari. In the book which is said to have been written by him, al-Ibanah ‘an Ushul al-Diyanah*, istawa ‘ala al-arsh is interpreted as He has seated Himself on the Throne which is located above the seventh, i.e., in the highest place. To support this, he has utilized various proofs from the Holy Quran, the Prophet’s Tradition, the Ijma’ (Muslims consensus), philological proof, logical proof, and philosophical proof.
From surah Ghafir verses 36 and 37 “And Pharaoh said : O Haman! Build for me a tower that haply I may reach the roadx, the roads of the heavens, and may look upon the God of Moses though verily I think Him a liar”. Here, Pharaoh refutes that God is verily above the the heavens. From surah al-Mulk verse 16 “Have ye taken security from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not cause the earth to swallow you”. The heaven in this verse is interpreted to be the Throne of God which is above the seventh heaven.
Several Traditions is used to prove that God is on the throne which is above the heaven. Here are some of them: reported by Muslim that the Prophet has said: “God, may He be Exalted and High, descends every night to the lowest heaven, and then says: ‘Is there any body to seek favour from Me that I may give it and is there any body to beg pardon of me that I may pardon him’ and so on until the day dawns”; Abdullah son of al-Abbas is reported to have said: “Reflect on the creation of God and not on Him. For, there is between His Throne and the heaven a distance of one thousand years journey and God, may He be Exalted and High, is above that”; when a man came to the Prophet with a negress and said: “O Apostle of God! Verily I desire to liberate her by way of an atonement. Is it permissible for me to do so?” The Prophet of God said to her: “Where is God?”, she answered: “In the heaven”, the Prophet asked her again: “Who am I?”, she replied: “Thou art the apostle of God”. Then the Prophet of God said: “Set her free, for she is a believer”.
The consensus among Muslims that Jesus has been raised to the heaven and that it is allowed for them to raise their hands towards heaven while praying shows that God, the Exalted and the High, has seated Himself on the Throne which is above the seventh heaven. It is also a consensus among them to pray to God by saying “O! Dweller on the Throne”. And when they swear, they say: “By Him who screens Himself with the seven heavens”. From philological perspective, it is not acceptable to interpret istawa as to get mastery over the Throne. For, it will mean that He, the Exalted and the High, has also got mastery over the latrines insofar as He has got mastery over every thing, which no Muslim will consider it to be a valid statement. Istawa should not mean to get mastery, which can be used for anything, but must mean sitting, which is applied particularly to the Divine Throne.
Logically, if God is in every place, as held by the Mu’tazilites, then He, the Exalted and the High, will be in the womb of the Virgin Mary and the latrines, since both are places. But this, as it is clear, is no single Muslim would accept. Astronomically, by maintaining God’s transendence without seeing His imanence, the Mu’tazilites has reduced Him to mere an abstraction.
In response to these refutations, the Mu’tazilites said that God’s descending as quoted in some Prophet’s Tradition is not in conflict with what the Mu’tazilites hold. For, it is descending of the angels sent by God and not of God Himself. And so is the case with the fact that Jesus has been raised to the heaven, since for the Mu’tazilites the heaven is as much near to God as the earth or any other place. Concerning another Ijma’ of Muslims’ prayer, it is resulted from common notion to speak one greater in rank as one higher in place. Therefore, for Muslims, He has been metaphorically conceived as being in the highest place.
The followers of al-Ash’ari are not in agreement with so-called al-Ash’ari’s opinion explained above. One of the eminent Ash’arites, Imam al-Haramain, informed us as to al-Ash’ari’s thought concerning the meaning of istawa, saying that al-Ash’ari has said: “God was while there was no space. He then created the Throne and the Chair. And He was not in need of space. After the creation of space He remained exactly as He was before. And al-Istiwa’ is an attribute of God like His other attributes, and is also an action of His which He has done in relation to His Throne.”
Imam Haramain interpreted istawa as qahara wa ghalaba ‘ala meaning to get the upper hand or mastery over, not as istaqarra ‘ala meaning settling on. This second interpretation will reduce the Deity to the physical thing. To prove his statement, he has utilized several proofs. From the Holy Quran surah al-Hadid verse 4 “And He is with you wheresoever ye may be” and surah Ali Imran verse 33 “Is He Who is aware of the deserts of every soul?”, Imam Haramain inferred that God’s presence stated in the above verses can only understood as His knowledge and comprehension, for it is absurd to understand it as physical presence. Therefore, it is valid to interpret istawa as to get mastery over (al-qahru wa al-ghalabah). In Arabic literary, we can find word istawa which means to get mastery over the kingdom (ihtiwa’ ‘ala maqalid al-mulk and isti’la’ ‘ala al-riqab). All Muslims are united in belief that God is above direction, and the common conception that the Throne is the biggest thing in the realm of God is to emphasize God’s mastery over all things, big or small ones, by stating His control over the Biggest one. With regard to Prophet’s Traditions reporting God’s descending, it is His angels descending. For other Traditions which is ahad, i.e., not reported by many people, Imam Haramain considers those not sufficient in explaining the creed problems.
Another Ash’arites, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, insists that the anthropormist’s belief that God is sitting in His Throne is wrong according to reason and authority. Philosophically, God, the Exalted and the High, existed when there was no the Throne nor space, and He is independent of His creatures as He was. And also the sitter on the Throne necessitates two sides, suggesting that he is compound substance, and this is absolutely absurd with reference to the Deity.
The sitter on the Throne can move of cannot. If the first is the case, then He is like His creatures who have movements. If the latter, He becomes like a person with disability. Far be both from Him! God according to anthropomorphist either exists in every place of some particular places. If the former, then He will be also in the places of dirt, which is unacceptable. If the second alternative, there should be a reason in choosing one place to another. The settlers in a particular place cannot be god, for they must be subject to motion.
Al-Fakhr al-Razi also gives Quranic proofs to demonstrate the mistake of the anthropomorphist. Quoting the famous verse of God’s transendency “Naught is as His likeness”, he says that if sitting is excepted from this verse, it will mean that this verse is not absolute but relative and also sitting, which needs a body to sit, must be similar to that of His creature. Another verse which seems to justify anthropomorphic interpretation is “And eight will uphold the throne of their Lord that day above them”. If taken literally, this would that God needs His creatures, which the contrary is the truth, i.e., the creatures is in absolute need of Him. Prophet Abraham’s expression, as cited in the Holy Quran “He said: I love not things that set”, shows that He is not body. For, if He is so, what Abraham said will also be applcable to Him, since He is always invisible to our bare eyes.
Astronomically, considering globular nature of our earth, the above for us will be the beneath for those living in the antipode. And if He has direction, He will be above for some and beneath for others, which is not an acceptable statement. All Muslim is in one agreement that the verse “Say: He is Allah, the One” is the muhkamat (sound) verse, not the mutashabihat (ambivalent). Keeping this in mind, it is impossible to say that He has His own space, implying His bodiness. So based on the sound meaning of this verse, istiqrar (to rest at a place) for God is unreasonable.
So far as the ambivalent and ambiguous verses and Prophetic Traditions are concerned, there are two different opinions. The first hold that we should not try to interpret these verses. Instead, we have to be fully convinced that God is above time and space. As reported by al-Ghazali, al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, who has collected thousands of Traditions of the Prophet, has only interpreted three Traditions concerning this problem and nothing more. This passive position, to say so, toward the mutashabihat was criticized by al-Fakhr al-Razi, regarding this as weak for several arguments; if we hold that God is above space and time, we will have believe that by istiwa’ God does not mean sitting, and this is what the ta’wil is all about; if we are not convinced that God is above time and space, we betray our ignorance of Him except that we say that God seem to mean something other than signification of the Holy Quran. But we do not venture to express it in many words to avoid the risk of that we fall into error. This view is imperfect, since if we affirms that God has revealed His word in Arabic language, we must know that most part of revelation is understandable to the Arabs. Because the word istiwa’ contains two meanings, istiqrar (to settle) and isti’la’ (to get master), and the former is absurd attributive to God, the latter is the only alternative meaning last to interpret the word istiwa’. The second tendency is to explain away the mutashabihat by the mean of ta’wil, which is, according to al-Fakhr al-Razi, inevitable.
Based on two opposite positions, al-Fakhr al-Razi made four different point to consider. First, we shall act up to both views severally and individually. Second, the exact opposite of the first. Third, we should choose authority prior to reason. And fourth, we choose the contrary. The first is preposterous and so is the second. The third cannot defended since affirmation of the authority needs reason. The only remaining choice is the judgment of reason in explaining the authority, for this reason then istiwa’ here means to get mastery.
The point which to explore by al-Fakhr al-Razi is that God is above space. The view that God is above place and time is also the view of another Sunni school, i. e. the Maturidites, as conserved by al-Nasafi in his book.

endnote:
*It should be noted that what is contained within recent publication of this book should not always be attributed to al-Ash’ari, for it is reported that this book is fabricated under his name. For more proofs concerning this problem, see http://salafytobat.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/bukti-wahabi-selewengkan-fakta-kitab-al-ibanah-2/

Read More...

An Overview on Religious Pluralism*

For some people religious pluralism is a belief that conflicts existing between competing truth claims of religions can be overcome. It tries not to underestimate other religious traditions by finding common ground between one’s own tradition and others’, while neglecting the differences they consider to be not essential. This belief brings about an attitude that is the original objective of religious pluralism. However, in most cases this view have no theological basis within religious literal tradition.
The precondition for religious pluralism to exist is freedom of religion, that is, to equal rights of different religions within a society. Therefore, when this precondition is not fulfilled, by means of giving one religion more privilege or eliminating all religious activity, religious pluralism will soon disappear. Like what has happened to communist countries where religious activitiy is totally forbidden.
Many religion believers believe that religion pluralism means cooperation between religions and, hence, substituting rivalry spirit with more mutual understanding. For religious pluralism to happen there must be societal and theological modification within each religion.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The origin of this thought might be traced to European history after reformation and enlightment in which a movement to reform abuses of Roman Catholic Church emerged. Roman Catholic had suppressed other religions like Islam and Judaism to the extent that the people of these religions cannot practice their religions freely. The Reformation which marked the emergence of Protestantism did not fully eliminate discrimination against the minor sects within Christianity and other religions. Since, in places, such as England, Scotland, and Ireland, Protestant Churches did the same things as their Catholic counterpart. Even smaller Protestant denominations in these countries sought freedom to North America when their freedom was limited, and again when these groups become dominant they did the same restriction to those outside their circle.
Founding Fathers of the United States were influenced by Protestant and freethinking philosopher like John Locke and Thomas Paine who insisted on tolerance and moderation in religion. This brought equality and freedom to the American constitution. Different religions are supposed to be treated equally. This does not mean that each people there has to believe that every religion is equally true, on the contrary, there are many religious institutions which claim to have way of salvation exclusively.

LITERAL AND SPIRITUAL TRUTH
Religious pluralism does not say that all religions and sects within a religion are completely and equally true, for it is impossible for diametrically different faiths to be true at the same time. Like the Christians’ belief of Jesus’ crucifixion which all Muslims are convinced that he is saved and ascended. Surely, one of these conflicting faith is true and other false.
However many modern religious pluralists believe that there is no religion which can legitimately claim to preach the absolute truth. They base their opinion on the what they assume to be true, i.e., that religion is not precisely the revealed word of God. It is merely a humanly creative interpretation to it. Assuming active role of man in revelation and his imperfect nature, no single scriptural text is considered to fully originate from God, and, hence, it cannot perfectly explain God and His will. The whole truth—to say so—cannot be apprehended through only one religion. All religions share the same effort to catch that truth using their cultural and historical factors.
The notion of cultural and historical text is because religious pluralists find that almost all religious texts cannot avoid from being influenced from human-historical factors, and, they infer that there is nothing of these religious texts to be considered fully divine origin. Therefore, disticntion needs to be made between what is transcendent, and therefore permanent, and what is changeable.
Recently, religious pluralism has developed into its maximal form, that is, the view that all religions are equally true. This trend is brought about by post-modern philosophies, particularly deconstructionism. Many criticisms to this thought underline its self-contradictory tendency.
For about a century ago, liberals within Judaism and Christianity reform some of their faiths to make them compatible with religious pluralism. They maintain that their convictions are not the only way to salvation, rather they only believe that their religion are the most perfect revelation to the human kind. It should be noted that comparison implied in “the most perfect” means that there are many alternative, however imperfect, ways of salvation together with theirs. This thought enable them to assume that there is a common ground underlying all religions and that some aspects of God may be captured by other religion while are neglected within their own religions. They call this as theological humility compared to intellectual humility that every scientist should have, that is, admitting the possibility of other’s finding the truth.
However, conservatives in Christianity refuse these thoughts and still hold that their way is the only way to God, while many of them admit the different religious expressions and the new one will give new understanding to the dogmas.
To develop religious pluralism within every one’s religion has now become an obligation for many people. It is since our view of humanity has changed and requires a new approach to our life. The advance of science, development of information technology, and questions raised by modern philosophers have forced people to rethink their view regarding this world.
Retrospective form of religious pluralism can be found in many religions. That is to accept religion prior to one’s religion and reject religion which after one’s own. Such as three Abrahamic faith, Christianity can accept Judaism as the valid religion but reject Islam and consider it as heretical sect out of Christianity, and so is the case with Islam and Christianity.
In Greek and Roman era in which religion is polytheistic, pluralism was easily done by absorbing other gods originating from other tradition, or rarely they add new god adopted from others, into their own religion.

INTER-RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Classical Christian view hold that Christianity is the only way through which God is reached, and if it is done, the result will be damnation. Christians believe that Jesus, God literally made flesh, was crucified to save human kind from such damnation and by accepting beliefs in Christianity a person could gain meaningful life and happines in the hereafter. All other people outside Christian are destined to damnation, this is what their doctrine, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, means.
For them the consequence of denying trinity is the eternal death. In spite of that some still regard Christianity as egalitarian, because it teaches that people potentially have the same opportunity to gain salvation through entering Christianity.
Traditional Christian will see religious pluralism in its maximal form as self-contradictory, because it is impossible for two competing claims of truth to be equally true. This view is also held by most Jews and Muslims. For Christians, Christianity is the most absolute revelation revealed to human kind, and other religions, although may have lesser revelation, are not equally true. So, to be pluralist means not to be Christian in full sense and vice versa.
Church is often identified as a hospital. The doctor will care a patient in the best-suited way according the condition of the patient, instead of following what a patient wants. And following what pluralist say will be similar to “pillow prophets” who prophesies what the king wanted to hear instead of sincerely telling God’s word. Thus, all Christians must invite human kind to Christianity which is the way to salvation.
To this view, it is a contradiction to acknowledge legitimacy of Christian’s practices while rejecting beliefs underlying them. If a person deny to believe that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood, it means that he rejects it as unifying medium to God.
Currently, some Christians change their view on their religion and others and start to accept religious pluralism. This socially leads to reconciliation with other faith especially Judaism but theologically requires adjustment to their faith they hold before. Reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity is done by viewing the New Testament as extended covenant to cover non-Jews. It implies that Judaism is still the valid religion. Furthermore it allows relationship between both sides to improve. It also stresses Chritians’ regret of anti-Jewish attitude and of theology of “Replacement”. Many Christian groups of this kind, including Catholic Church and several large Protestant Churches, declare not to convert Jews to Christianity. Yet, for most Christians, including most conservative Protestant, New Testament is not an extended covenant as understood above.
The Eastern Orthodox Church views that Orthodox Church is the only salvation but, at the same time, does not limit God’s will to save whomsoever He pleases. This seemingly contradictory position is explained by comparing it to Noah’s Ark. It says that while Noah’s Ark is the safest place to go through the flood, it is within God’s power to save people outside the Ark. Keeping this in mind, Orthodox Christian must encourage people to take the safer path by which they will gain salvation. For the Orthodox the one and only thing leading to perdition is blasphemy against Holy Spirit. However, the question on human kind salvation is only secondary for them, stressing that one should care of own salvation more than other’s.
Islam, as other monotheistic religions, affirms that it is the only salvation way and considers other monotheistic faiths as valid, for they constitute the single Truth revealed through human history. The most important creed of Islam is witnessing that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad PBUH is His messenger. Renouncing this would mean entering hell.
But this apparently very exclusive claim does not mean intolerance to other religious traditions. On the contrary, Muslim history, mainly in golden era, witnessed very tolerant relationship with other religions. The Muslims ruler guaranteed the freedom of practicing other religion, which this is the very preaching of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, with taxation, namely jizyah. Minor religions, such as Mandeans, Zoroasterians, and Hindu, can still perform freely their religious activities, an obvious contradiction to what happened to Muslim minorities in the Europe Renaissance.
Islam has never instructed its adherents to forcibly convert non-Muslim into Islam, notwithstanding the widespread allegation that Islam is spread by sword. What truly happened is Islam extends together with Muslims’ conquest. The so-called persecution in Islamic history is due to cruel ruler and economic hardship.
Religious debates lived in the time of Muslim govermennt and resulted in many works which are interesting for many people learning theology. When this debate spread to the unlearned masses, rulers interfere to pacify them. As far as sects within Islam, there are various patterns. In some places, different sects can live harmoniously, while in others, especially when one sect is in power, clash cannot be avoided.
Baha’ism discourages the intolerance between religions, saying that God is one and has sent messengers through history, therefore we have to be united and give our love, reflecting God’s love, to people of all religions. Baha’ism has the concept of “Progressive Revelation” underlining the different stages undergone by humanity. Its founder, Baha’ullah, claims that he is one of the messengers sent to human kind and says whatever is said by any prophet must be true.
Hinduism is by nature a pluralistic religion. It may willingly recognize other religions’ degree of truth. It will easily subsume deities of religions into its system. This, in turn, makes the relationship between between Hindus and adherents of all religions harmonious.
However, this is not always the case. In India where Hindus become majority, there is grave conflict. The source of this conflict is said to be Muslims’ view that Hindus are the worst infidels. As response, Hindus view Muslims as hostile to their religion. Muslims built masjids in the place of temples, causing riots, such as what happened in 1992 at the Babri masjid.

INTRA-RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Before divided into sects, Christianity generally profess “one holy catholic and apostolic church”. It remains so until now in Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Episcopalians, and most Protestant Christian denominations. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox see each other as heterodox but still regard as Christian. Concerning Protestant, their view varies depend on Trinitarian in that Protestant.
Most fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups maintain that their churches is the only valid way to God and other churches are considered to be heretical, or even diabolic. This view is rejected by Neo-evangelical Protestant Christian Churches, regarding most Christianities as valid. They believe in unity of the Church.
In Islam there is no religious pluralism within different sects, for, there is no real difference between them.

*resumed from wikipedia free encyclopedia.

Read More...