The 500 years, or so, of the Abassid Caliphate are rightly known to the World as our Golden Age, and yet most of us today view that time with hostile suspicion. (750-1258CE).
Twice we were sacked by marauding tribes, the last by the Mongol hoarders, but it is these sackings that lend authenticity to those times for us when we recall our Messenger’s (saw) prediction of such, and by his calling them “my people”. *1
It was a time that predated the schisms caused by the followers of the madhabs.
And there are potent lessons here for one who deliberates.
1- That the idea of Islam does not belong to any one people, but to all the World’s people, ready for each and every Nation to bring to fruition. *2
Whereas for the Ummayads that predated them, Islam was for the Arabs *3. With the Abassids we saw the administrative language of their empire became Persian, since the Persians were adept administrators.
The Muslim world became necessarily multi-lingual, with for example my grandfather knowing Arabic, Persian, Urdu and several other Indo-Pak languages. And they were all that much the richer for it.
2- it was an unprecedented time of tolerance that saw its roots within the societal idea that was Medina at the time of our Messenger (saw).
Here we saw the Yuhood flocking to Muslim lands because of the freedom of conscience guaranteed by Islam.
3- that we as a Prophetic Nation, as one Ummah, became innovators and leaders in every field of endeavour from the Sciences to the Arts. Where the free exchange of knowledge and peoples was a given.
And it is by the beacon of this light that Europe came out of the Dark Ages, benefiting from our love of sharing, and freedom of giving.
*The three above are undeniable, historically verifiable facts.*
Then we should readily question what makes us, today, view those times with mistrust.
Towards the end of the Abbasid dominion, Ibn Rushd surveyed the state of Muslim thought. *4
And there he states that “with respect to the Mu’tazilites, none of their books have reached us in this island (of Spain) to be able to investigate the methods that they followed …”
This is striking since the narrative that we accept is that the dominant school of thought within the early Abassids were the Mu’tazalities.
Further when you study this time you would come to know that the school of thought that predated the now dominant Ashari view, did not actually call themselves Mu’tazalities.
That it was what their detractors called them, in a derogatory fashion, because they said (the detractors that is) that they were want to cede from certain questions.
This means that either, or even both,
1- for most Muslims, at that time, the rational approach that has come to be called Mu’tazalite was neither a sect, nor did they see themselves as separate from the people, but was common currency amongst most.
2- that if they did name themselves, that the name that they gave themselves has been wiped from the annals of our history.
*This is a shocking state of affairs given that those were our golden years*
That we do not know, or have,
1- whether they gave themselves a name, and if so what.
2- expositions written by them in regards to their thought.
What this means for us is that *in order to realise our Golden Age*, we need to be like investigative journalists, find the threads of truth and follow them to their conclusions.
So what little we do know of them is that they would frame their justification of belief not from referencing to God the Most Merciful, directly, but by drawing attention to the miracle of the Quran. And this by simply asking “Could it have come from any other, other than Allah?” and this in complete harmony with the how the Quran itself begins, in Al-Baqara. *5
Then it should seem strange to us for us to accept the narrative of the defining conflict, of who we modern Muslims are, that saw Ahmed bin Hanbal being held in honour. *9
For recall the Abassid era was renowned throughout the then known World for its tolerance.
Ahmed bin Hanbal is most honoured, it would appear, because he suffered torture at the hands of the tolerant Abassids? The defining question of what caused such ill treatment is one not often asked, nor scrutinised.
For the Mu’tazalites, for want of the name that they gave themselves, did not care whether or not the Quran was the created or uncreated word of God.
That was far, far from their method, which was to show that no one other than God could have sent this down.
But off course the whole dilemma of whether or not the Quran is the created or uncreated word of God, only has significance within the framework of knowledge that is provided by the Ashari worldview/ belief structure, specifically within their designation of Al-Asma wa Sifaat: God’s names and attributes.
For the Ashari the Asma wa Sifaat, are things to be fully accepted without seeking to understand, or thought. (La bil khayf) *6
And their insistence on the Quran being the uncreated Word of God, appears when you look at it from this standpoint, to be their assault on the rational World view presented by the Mutazalites, whose primary concern was to create thinking Muslims.
And off course when framed like that, there can be no doubt as to why the Ashari World View then dominated and scrubbed out from our history the rationalist view of the prior generations.
And so I do not believe the written history that remains of the Abassids persecuting Ahmed bin Hanbal for claiming the Ashari view, for he was an Athari- believing fully in the literal understanding of God’s being- and not an Ashari. *7
No Arab before him had ever held a belief in God, other than His Transcendental Nature, that He is like no other.
It is a pity that this most dire innovation within the Muslim beliefs ever happened, but what is more so, is that the man who championed this innovation is held in respect. *6
And I do not fear the blame of any blamer.
Indeed when we reread the Hadith narrated in Abu Dawud *1, then we should rightly be worried that we live at the “end of times”.
And when we recall the manner in which the Most Gracious terms the stages of creation as days each marking periods, then it should not come as surprise to us that this period has lengthened beyond the 500 or so years of the Abassids.
That we are living in a time where the Ahl-Hadith is the dominant mode of thought amongst the Ummah of the Messenger (saw).
With its promotion of ignorance.
That you must accept a Hadith without deliberation, to do otherwise would be an affront to the Messenger’s (saw) authority. *8 The one whom the Most Gracious commanded us to follow.
And yet the Speech of God, is something that we are commanded to deliberate upon. And that has no uncertainty about it, nor any doubt.
Knowledge is sought through study and contemplation. Not talks and lectures, nor this above.
Notes:
*1 Sunan Abu Dawud 4306 (compiled before 889CE).
Narrated Abu Bakrah (ra), that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Some of my people will descend onto low-lying ground they will call al-Basrah, beside a river called [the Tigris river] over which there will be a bridge. Its people will be numerous and it will be one of the capital cities of the Muslims. At the end of times, the descendants of Qantura’ will come with broad faces and small eyes, descending on the bank of the river.
The towns inhabitants will then split into three sections: One which will follow cattle into the desert and perish; another which will seek security for themselves and perish; while the third will put their children on their backs and fight the invaders, and they will be the martyrs.”
The description of broad faces with small eyes fits exactly with the Mongolian face.
*2 see verse 53, Al-Maedah
*3 the Umayyads applied the Jizya to even those newly reverted who were non-Arab.
*4 1179CE, Al-Kashf’an Manahij Al-Adilla (The Exposition of the Methods of Proof). Where Ibn Rushd goes so far as to assume that the Murazalite arguments must have mirrored the Ashari ones, even though from the above we can see that the Ashari sect completely defaced (by removing their name), defiled (by giving them a derogatory name) and eradicated them from our history.
*5 Ibn Rushd (ibid) in his survey mentions the Ashari way of proving the existence of the Most Merciful, and when you examine it without bias then you would see that it is opaque and does not do what it sets out to do. Their theory of occasionalism, where they purport that God constantly destroys and recreates the Cosmos as a means of nullifying cause and effect, is on par with building castles in the air that was seen by the Philosophers.
Here we can see that the Mutazalite approach whilst being far simpler, was also far stronger.
*6 lit, without a how. Accept without reason, nor thought.
The Rationalist approach to the dilemma of God’s names and attributes, that He relates to us in His Speech is that they are there to help us understand His Nature, and connect and respond to Him in supplication.
So for example to illustrate the point let us use the Hadith Qudsi in which God informs us that if you come close to him a hands breadth… and ends with the God will come to you running.
The Rationalist view:
That figurative speech is used to enervate you to act, that God loves for you to come close to Him and responds to any that does.
The Athari (literalist) view:
That God literally comes to you running, even as you run.
The Ashari view:
That we cannot know how God runs to us, we accept it and do not question how this happens.
The Ashari view therefore lays claims to being the middle view between the two preceding views.
But what is not in doubt is that the figurative (rationalist) view was the first, the literalist (Athari) view was an innovation in belief, and the Ashari view sought to be balanced between the two.
*7
The Ashari view came about in response to the Athari view. Therefore the Athari view propounded by Ahmed ibn Hanbal predates the Ashari view.
*8
There is no doubt that we are commanded to follow the Messenger (saw), and yet the Messenger (saw) taught us to take a nuanced and intelligent view of things so for example when Abu Bakr (as) was called to mediate between him and Bibi Aisha (ra). To not be intelligent in regards to understanding them would be to do a disservice to them.
*9
Our history books say that he was tortured for saying that the Quran is the uncreated word of God, in contradiction with Mutazalite theology. And yet Ibn Rushd could find no such expositions of the Mutazalites.
That he was tortured is not in doubt.
He championed an animalistic conception of a religion that had always before that time understood the nature of God to be transcendental, above creation.
Ahmed bin Hanbal, born Nov 780CE Baghdad, died 2nd Aug 855CE Baghdad. He championed the anthropomorphism of God, the Athari view, said that there was no harm in visiting graves, believing in saints and their relics. In contradiction to the Messenger’s (saw) words to the effect that there is benefit in it if it reminds you of death. However you do not visit a saints grave to remind you of death.
He said of Abu Haneefa (rm) that his father had said that there was no value in him.
Abu Haneefa (rm) known to have had contact with companions of the Messenger (saw). Born 699CE Kufa, died 14th June 767CE. Therefore of a prior generation to Ahmed bin Hanbal.
Championed transcendentalism, and argued steadfastly against the Athari innovation.
In the above accounts, about the rise of the above two personalities to prominence, we can see a SunnatAllah, that I have deliberated upon before. That Allah t’ala ever presents you with a choice to know who you are.
Choose wisely.
*ADDENDUM*
To be added later.
