Al Ashari provided the most rational defence of the central dogma of Sunnism. He was born at Basra in 873, and studied under the head of the Mutazilites there, al Jubbai. As a distinguished pupil he sometimes took the place of the master, and might conceivably have succeeded him, it is said. On the other hand, al Jubbai had a very intelligent son, Abu Hashim, who did in fact succeed him. It may be that the rivalry between this man and al Ashari was a factor contributing to his abandonment of the Mutazilites, which took place about 912, shortly before the death of the master in 915. The positive side of this conversion was the acceptance of Sunnite dogma in its Hanbalite form, and for the rest of his life al Ashari devoted himself to the intellectual defence of this position. He died in 935.
Conversion of al Ashari
Apart from the aforementioned reason, there might have been some other motives which brought about as Ashari`s conversion. It seems that there was growing dissatisfaction among the Mutazilites of Basra with the attempts to give a rational account of the variations in men`s destinies. It looks as if Al Ashari, carrying his master`s line of thought a little farther, came to the conclusion that revelation was superior to reason as a guide to life, and decided to attach himself to those who, quite explicitly, placed revelation in this place. In his works he professes himself to be a follower of Ahmad ibn-Hanbal.
Apart from this strictly theological motive, al Ashari was presumably dissatisfied with the Mutazilite position because it was ceasing to be relevant to the contemporary situation. Mutazilism was essentially a movement to work out a compromise that would help overcome the differences between the Sunnis and Shias. Later, the government became more pro-Sunnite in the middle of the ninth century and in the following half century, the consolidation of Sunnism was achieved. Thus by 912, both Sunnism and Shiasm had become rather strong in their own right and it was obvious that nothing much was to be achieved by the Mutazilite compromise. Thus there was no more scope for the acceptance of the Mutazilites.
The biggest motivating factor in al Ashari`s conversion was the series of dreams he had during the month of Ramzaan. In his dreams, the Prophet Muhammad appeared three times to al Ashari. On the first occasion he told the theologian to support what was related from himself, that is, the Traditions. Al-Ashari, dissatisfied with the rationalistic methods of the Mutazilites, did then turn to the Traditions, but occupied himself in interpreting them according to Mutazilite methods. When the Prophet appeared again a few days later, he asked how his command to support what had been related from himself had been obeyed, and on being informed simply repeated it. After the second dream, he completely gave up rational methods, and confined himself to a study of Traditions and of commentaries on the Holy Quran. A few days later the Prophet appeared for the third time, and again asked how his instructions had been followed out. He was not altogether pleased, however, when he was told, and said, `I did not tell you to give up rational arguments, but to support the true Traditions`. On the basis of this conception al Ashari worked out his new theological position which may be described as the support of revelation by reason. This implies a subordination of reason.
The works of Al Ashari mostly consist of arguments from Quranic verses and Traditions. Yet even here knowledge of the writings of men in the strict Hanbalite tradition shows that al Ashari really argues about these matters to a far greater extent. In addition other arguments are based on points of observation or of common knowledge, or on what the Muslims are agreed about. Despite appearances, then, Al Ashari really introduced rational arguments.
Theological Position of Al Ashari
The theological position of al Ashari can be best understood by considering his differences from the Mutazilites. This will also reveal his affinity to Ahmad ibn-Hanbal.
Firstly, he held that the Quran was uncreated and was the very Speech of God, and that, like his other attributes, it was eternal and in some sense distinct from his essence.
The second point of difference of al Ashari from the Mutazilites deals with the anthropomorphic expressions in the Quran. The Mutazilites had held, for example, that where the Quran speaks about God`s `hand` what is meant is his grace. On such points al Ashari opposed the Mutazilites, and insisted that such Quranic phrases must simply be accepted without specifying how`.
Under the third head come various matters relating to the ultimate destiny of mankind. Al Ashari insisted that they must be taken as they stand and not explained as metaphors. Most discussion was devoted to the vision of God in Paradise by the faithful. Here the tendency of the Mutazilites was to say that this meant they would know him in their hearts the heart being the seat of knowledge. But Al Ashari argued forcibly that the phrase `looking to their Lord` could mean only looking in the normal sense. He understood the vision of course without specifying how, and would have rejected the attribution to God of anything resembling materiality.
The fourth point is the rejection of the Mutazilite doctrine of free will. The common formula was that God creates the acts of a man, and that the man "acquires" them. Al Ashari is often said to have invented the conception of "acquisition", which became a distinctive a mark of his followers. Acquisition is best understood as a convenient name for the relation of a man to his act, where the omnipotence of God is taken seriously. It is a relation sufficient to make a man genuinely responsible for the act. The Mutazilites held that the power to will an act must be a power to will either the act or its opposite- either obedience to a command or disobedience, and that it must also exist in the moment before the act. Al Ashari denied this, and argued for an alternative- the power to act is a power to do only the act, not the opposite, and it exists only in the moment of acting, neither before nor afterwards. Moreover, it is created by God. This gives little scope to man. He can hardly be said to initiate. He does little more than "accept as his" what God does through him. Al Ashari considered that it gave man sufficient responsibility for him to be justly punished or rewarded at the Last Judgement.
Al Ashari`s primary concern was to maintain God`s omnipotence. For him this is something in the present, and is quite distinct from the old Arabian conception, which also found a home in Islam, that there had been an impersonal predestination and predetermination of men`s lives in the distant past. There is a certain depth in the answers Al Ashari gives to the difficulties about God creating evil. Since God is omnipotent he must be the creator of all that is evil. But Al Ashari insisted that the relationship of creation is not such that evil is attributed to God in the same way as to an evil-doer. This is similar to God`s creation of movement in one of his creatures. God is not, because of this creation of movement, described as moving. Al Ashari also produces instances where a man`s act of will may contribute to bringing about an evil act or situation and yet the man is in no way an evildoer. The real conclusion is that the relationship of human wills cannot be understood by physical analogies. Al Ashari does not formulate it like this but concludes that it is possible for God to create evil or to will folly without being an evildoer or foolish. Such are some of the positions and arguments of Al Ashari.
These are therefore the basic beliefs of Al Ashari`s theological standpoint. His main contribution was in attempting to find a way to assimilate the basic elements of Greek thought, as Islam was under the influence of the first wave of Hellenism at this point in time, without compromising any of the central dogmas of Sunnite Islam.
