The Salafi Critique of Kalam
One of the most powerful accusations that Asharis have of Salafis is the charge of anthropomorphism. Such polemical propaganda obfuscates the true difference between the school of Ibn Taymiyyah and the schools of Kalam. The greatest concern of the classical Atharis was the seeping of Aristotlean terminology and logic into the Islamic sciences. The Asharis proclaimed victory over the Mu’tazila due to the diligence of Imam Ashari and later proclaimed victory over the Philosophers due to the diligence of Imam Ghazzali. However, as many Salafis have deftly pointed out, Imam Ghazzali’s use of logic in usul al-fiqh, instead of defeating logic, legitimated more than any Philosopher or Mu’tazili could have. What the Asharis refuted were the philosophical conclusions of the Aristotlean and Neo-platonic tradition, not philosophy itself; it was still tainted by philosophical reasoning and this resulted in particular conclusions that resulted in deviation from Orthodoxy. Thus, the dispute between the Salafis and Asharis is not only over the interpretation of texts, but over reasoning itself. The source of contention, then, is over epistemology.
The Salafi argument is rather convincing, yet simple: The terms that are used by the Asharis are not truly empirical, but rational imaginations that have no actual conclusive basis in reality. In other words, terms like ‘accidents’, ‘substances’ and other terms that were inherited by the Greek tradition, are human innovations that are used to describe created things. These terms are not in and of themselves do not have any existence outside of objects which inhabit them. Space, time, color, sound, shape, direction, are attributes of created things, but are not created in and of themselves. They are merely human attempts to describe creation. The Asharis then, using syllogistic reasoning, draw generalized principles from particular objects. Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out that syllogistic reasoning is, in essence, a circular argument. The principle “The whole shares the properties of the parts†is a tautology that is not true.
More importantly, the terms that are used by Allah 
(subhana wa t’ala) to describe His essence, attributes, and actions are defined by Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) alone, since He has intimate knowledge of His own nature and in His infinite knowledge and wisdom, He related certain aspects of this knowledge to humanity through Divine Revelation.
Salafis argue that the properties of the creation do not inherently imply createdness on the grounds that the reasoning used to justify such a claim is faulty. Furthermore, the properties which are shared by both the creation and the Creator are merely linguistically similar, but not metaphysically or physically simlar. The Salafis assign the howness to Allah (subhana wa ta’ala). Thus, the charges of anthropomorphism are not only exaggerated, but illogical according to the very logic of the Mu’takallimoon themselves!
Not feeling intellectual?
Watch Metalocalypse.
Published February 24, 2007 . Filed under: Functional Literacy Project
Posts
So watchu sayin?
February 26, 2007 @ 3:17 am
One cannot refute an argument without first propertly understanding it. This is my restatement of an argument which I plan on refuting, inshaAllah.
February 26, 2007 @ 5:41 am
The very statement of Ibn Taymiyyah (r) stated above is similar to empricists’ methodology like Hume’s and Locke’s. It is interesting that they use philosophy to refute philosophy and call it the way of the salaf. The way of the salaf was to remain quiet and put trust in God.
February 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Well, it depends on what you mean by ‘philosophy’. Western civilization doesn’t have monopoly on rational inquiries into the nature of the universe and man. As far as I am aware, Ibn Taymiyyah relied upon the works of Ibn Rushd in his critique of the schools of Kalam. Even though Ibn Rushd wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s works, some of his own non-philosophical works were very similar to the Athari approach, such as “Faith and Reason in Islam”. Of course, he still rejected what he perceived to be anthropomorphism by some Hanbalis.
March 2, 2007 @ 2:03 am
Assalamualaikum,
Would you regard these as examples of how Ashari’s properly understand the Salafi’s arguement and refuting it?
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3160
As well as the following types of arguements:
This hadith, and the other ahadith and ayat that MIGHT be understood to indicate that Allah
is in a place must not be taken literally otherwise there would be contraditions. For example:
Some take “ar-Rahmanu ala al-3arsh istawaa” [TaHa 20:5] to mean that Allah
is above (or on) the throne. That would mean that He is above the sky.
But they take “man fis-samaa’” [al-Mulk 67:16] to mean that Allah
is above the sky, even though a literal iterpretation would mean “IN” in the sky.
Then they take “wahuwa ma3akum aynama kuntum” [al-Hadeed 57:4], allegorically. Literally, it would mean “and He is with you whereever you are.”
There is also the hadith, narrated by al-Bukhari, which if taken literally means, “If one of you is in Salat, then he is calling his Lord, so let him not spit in the direction of his qiblah nor on his right, for surely his Lord is between him and his qiblah.” (and this hadith, by the way, is stronger than hadith al-Jaariyah)
Or the hadith, narrated by al-Bukhari, which if taken literally would mean, “lower your voices, for surely you do not call upon one who is deaf or absent. You call upon one who is hearing and near. The one you call is nearer to one of you than then neck of one of your riding animals.”
If one were to take all of these literally, there would be MANY contraditions. And if one were to take some of them literally, and take others allegorically, (as the so-called salafis do), then they do so without any daleel other than their own whims.
The proper approach is the interpret them ALL allegorically.
Note also that the so-called salafis say that it is forbidden to interpret any ayah or hadith allegorically, yet they do so regularly, as is evidenced by their interpretation of [al-Hadeed 57:4] to mean that Allah
is with us whereever we are in His knowledge. So they, definitely, make rules and break their own rules whenever its convenient for them.
March 6, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Dear Siddique
First off, I’m not a Salafi. I defer to the Ashari and Maturidi schools and rely upon them in a daily manner. The purpose of this post was merely to understand the Salafi argument from the Salafi perspective. One cannot engage in a refutation if one does not develop the ability to see the argument from his opponent’s perspective.
Secondly, a Salafi would respond that the texts are not to be understood rationally or logically, but to be affirmed and assigned the meaning to Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala). They only contradict each other if one takes them literally. A true athari doesn’t take them literally, but affirms the text and assigns the meaning to Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala). Thus, your points are sort of moot in this regards.
March 12, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
My post was not meant as an attack.
I was seeking clarification.
I had some questions if you don’t mind.
Would you regard the common responses to the arguements presented in that thread, as not truly athari?
When it comes to the ayah’s and hadith in the thread, are the Salafi’s not dropping their principle of affirming and assigning the meaning to Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala)?
My experience has been that their principles do not apply to all texts. They prefer to apply these principles to texts that imply physical attributes, but not to one that imply omnipresence.
I would also like you to clarify, if you think that the past Ashari and Maturidi scholars have failed in addressing the problems with the Salafi school? Or that, they never understood their arguements, and there were no problems with the Salafi school to begin with? I find this hard to believe.
Finally,
Do you believe that the Athari school is correctly represented by the common Salafi scholars of today?
I would appreciate your response.
March 14, 2007 @ 3:44 am
Dear Siddique
Thank you for the clarifications on your questions.
The underlying purpose of the Salafi critique of Kalam is to not to make aqeedah logically consistent per se, but to make it consistent with the beliefs of the Salaf. Now, this in and of itself is problematic because it is not always clear what the Salaf believed in and their approach to various problems. They emphasize Imam Ahmad and Imam Malik to almost extreme proportions and downplay the views of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmutallah alayh) or claim that there are no reliable transmissions of Fiqh al-Akbar. They also ignore those Salaf who do engage in ta’wil. Furthermore, even if the Salaf agreed upon fundamental doctrine and differed upon secondary issues, the fact of the matter is that they certain theological questions simply did not exist at the time. Therefore, its the duty of the mujtahids of the Ummah to study the totality of Islamic texts and derive principles for acceptable theology. Naturally, there will be differences. This is why scholars have developed a wide array of views on Kalam itself, both with regards to its legitimacy and its extrapolation. There’s nothing wrong with people saying “Kalam isn’t for me.” The problem is when they say things like “kalam is bid’a.” The discussion of Kalam being bid’a is the heart of the disagreement between the Salafis and Traditionalists. This issue is really irreconcilable for the reasons described above. The mere fact that something didn’t exist in the time of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) is not a proof that it is prohibited. Otherwise, the Salafi formulation of tahweed into three categories would be a bid’a. Such a discussion is semantical. Ultimately, the Ashari/Maturidi opinion is correct because the jamhur of the ‘Ulema have said so and the Salafis aren’t part of the jamhur today or in the past. Now, whether being a part of the jamhur even matters is an entirely different question. Obviously, Salafis have gone to extreme lengths to show that the jamhur of the ‘Ulema has deviated, and this is my problem with them. The reason why the Salafis seem to be saying this is not for theological or juristic reasons, but because they’re in a position where they are opposed to the jamhur and they need to justify their positions. In other words, their view of the jamhur is reactionary, not in good faith.
With regards to your specific questions:
1. I would say it is athari, so long as they recognize that the attributes of Allah
are truly for Him alone and He is absolutely dissimilar to the Creation.
2. With regards to the claims that the Salafis are ‘dropping their principles’ for not affirming other verses, the answer is no. The Salafis are not ‘logical’ in this sense. I am not saying they are “illogical” but rather, they’re approach to logic is radically different from the Ashari understanding of logic. In order to understand the Salafi methodology, you have to abandon the presumptions that the Ashari school is built upon. Neither the Salafis nor the Atharis are concerned with whether the methodology is consistent. The law of non-contradiction has very little room for a methodology that doesn’t utilize Kalam. The reason why the Atharis are not referred to a school of law is because they don’t engage in complex arguments to justify points of belief, but because they simply compile texts on aqeedah and accept them. The Salafis would reject holding that denying that Allah
is everywhere is ta’wil because to hold that Allah 
is everywhere in order to be ‘logically’ inconsistent would be a bid’a (if not kufr) because this was a belief that wasn’t espoused by the Salaf. Again, the highest priority for the Salafis is the plain meaning of the text as understood by the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Salaf.
3. I don’t think the Ashari/Maturidi scholars have failed in addressing the problems with the Salafi school. Firstly, the origins of the schools of kalam was primarily to refute the Mu’tazila. They then became re-oriented towards engaging in arguments against various other sects, including extreme anthropomorphists, Ismailis, and the kuffar. The Hanbalis were usually a minority in Islamic history and although they strongly opposed Kalam along with some Malikis and Shafi’is, they weren’t as great of a threat to the Asharis as the Mu’tazila were. Furthermore, their are many Ashari ‘Ulema who engaged in refutations of Ibn Taymiyyah after his death. But the fact of the matter is that the Hanbalis were never a really serious problem. The problem with Salafis is not their views per se, but how they apply them against Muslims. It is their overzealousness that is the problem. In many ways, the Ashari-Salafi dispute is largely a phenomenon in limited geographical area (Jordan/Syria/Egypt) just like the Deobandi-Barlewi dispute is limited to the Subcontinent. The Deobandi-Barelwi conflict has a lot to do with overzealousness then truly doctrinal or juristic differences.
Remember, if their were truly doctrinal issues between the Salafi method, then we would see the Maturidis and the Salafis going at it. However, the opposite is true. The Deobandi ‘Ulema seem much more tolerant of Salafi views than Ashari scholars are, even though the Ashari school is probably closer to the Athari method than the Maturidi school.
What Salafis need to change is constantly berating the ‘Ulema and inciting the masses against them. Of course, this isn’t something new. The Hanbalis of Baghdad would instigate riots against the Asharis. Thus, not all the conflicts of the Ummah are caused purely by doctrinal differences, but political factors as well.
I believe for the most part, the Salafis are Atharis, but they differ on certain points that are largely semantical.
I hope this helped clarify some of my comments above.
March 17, 2007 @ 4:52 am