In the name of Allah, Praise belongs to Allah, and Peace and Blessings be upon our Master Muhammad, and upon his family and his noble companions.
And so:
In the realm of Islamic theology, few topics are as misunderstood or as frequently attacked as kalam (Islamic theological discourse) and aqida (creed). Critics often conflate the two or misrepresent their purposes, leading to confusion among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This blog post aims to clarify the definitions of kalam and aqida, defend the methodologies of the Ashari and Maturidi schools, and explain why their approaches to Islamic apologetics and polemics remain relevant today.
What Are Aqida and Kalam?
Before diving into the differences between the schools of thought, it’s essential to define the key terms:
- Aqida: This refers to the Islamic creed—the foundational beliefs that every Muslim must hold. It encompasses core tenets such as the oneness of Allah, the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the belief in the afterlife.
- Kalam: This is the discipline of Islamic theological discourse, which includes both apologetics (defending Islamic beliefs) and polemics (refuting heretical or incorrect beliefs). Kalam is a tool used to articulate and safeguard the Islamic creed.
The Unity of Aqida Among the Schools
The three primary schools of Islamic creed—Ashari, Maturidi, and Hanbali/Athari—share the same foundational beliefs. Their differences are often overstated and are primarily related to terminology or minor theological nuances. For example:
- Some schools argue that iman (faith) can increase or decrease, while others contend that it is the quality of iman that fluctuates.
- Despite these differences, all three schools accept Aqida Tahawiyya, a classical text on Islamic creed, as a foundational reference.
This unity in creed underscores the fact that the real distinctions between these schools lie not in their core beliefs but in their methodologies and attitudes toward kalam.
The Role of Kalam: Ashari and Maturidi vs. Hanbali Approaches
The primary divergence between the schools is their approach to kalam:
Hanbali/Athari Perspective
The Hanbali school, often associated with the Athari creed, takes a more reserved stance on kalam. Hanbalis believe that engaging in theological discourse can lead to unnecessary confusion or deviation. For example, if someone were to ask, “Why couldn’t Prophet Noah (﵇) have been a drunkard?” a Hanbali scholar would respond by affirming the infallibility of prophets and declaring such a question as an act of kufr (disbelief). The Hanbali scholars believes it is wrong for them to try and use logic to explain this issue. They prioritize simplicity and adherence to textual evidence.
Ashari and Maturidi Perspective
The Ashari and Maturidi schools, on the other hand, embrace kalam as a necessary tool for defending and clarifying Islamic beliefs. They argue that engaging with questions and doubts through logic and reasoning can strengthen a person’s faith and correct misconceptions.
Using the same example about Prophet Noah (﵇), an Ashari or Maturidi scholar would employ apologetics to explain why Allah would never allow a prophet to commit such a sin. They might argue that a prophet’s fallibility would undermine their role as a moral paragon, giving people an excuse to justify sinful behavior. However, like the Hanbalis, they would still consider calling Noah (AS) a drunkard an act of kufr.
The Misunderstood Legacy of Kalam
Critics of kalam often point to early scholars like Imam Shafi’i, who reportedly cautioned against engaging in theological discourse. However, it’s important to note that the kalam being criticized was primarily that of the Mu’tazila, a school heavily influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy. The Mu’tazila reduced Allah to a theoretical concept, divorced from His divine attributes, and prioritized reason over revelation in ways that often led to heresy.
The Ashari and Maturidi schools, by contrast, strike a balance between reason and revelation. They use logical arguments to defend Islamic beliefs without compromising the transcendence and sovereignty of Allah.
Why Ashari and Maturidi Kalam Matters Today
In an age of skepticism and misinformation, the Ashari and Maturidi approaches to kalam are more relevant than ever. Here’s why:
- Addressing Modern Doubts: With the rise of atheism, agnosticism, and secularism, Muslims are increasingly confronted with questions about their faith. The logical and reasoned approach of Ashari and Maturidi kalam provides a framework for addressing these challenges.
- Countering Excess: By engaging with doubts and misconceptions, these schools prevent individuals from falling into excess or heresy. They offer a balanced, intellectually robust understanding of Islam.
- Preserving the Creed: While the Hanbali approach emphasizes textual purity, the Ashari and Maturidi methodologies ensure that the Islamic creed remains accessible and defensible in diverse intellectual contexts.
Conclusion
The Ashari and Maturidi schools of thought have played a vital role in preserving and defending Islamic theology. Their use of kalam as a tool for apologetics and polemics has helped countless Muslims navigate doubts and strengthen their iman. While differences in methodology exist, the unity of their creed underscores the shared goal of upholding the truth of Islam.