al-As̲h̲ʿarī, Abu ’l-Ḥasan, ʿalī b. ismāʿīl , theologian, and founder of the school of orthodox theology which bears his name. He is said to have been born in 260/873-4 at Baṣra, and was ninth in descent from the Companion Abū Mūsā al-As̲h̲ʿarī. Little is known of his life. He was one of the best pupils of al-Ḏj̲ubbāʾī, head of the Muʿtazila in Baṣra, and might have succeeded him, had he not left the Muʿtazila for the party of the orthodox traditionists (ahl al-sunna). This change or conversion is placed in 300/912-3. In later life he moved to Baghdād, and died there in 324/935-6.
The story of al-As̲h̲ʿarī’s conversion is told with many variations of detail. Three times during the month of Ramaḍān he is said to have seen Muḥammad in a vision, and to have been commanded to adhere to true Tradition. He regarded this vision as authoritative, and, since the traditionists disapproved of rational argument ( kalām ), he gave up this also. In the third vision, however, he was told ¶ to adhere to true Tradition but not to abandon kalām. Whatever be the truth of this story, it is a succinct account of al-As̲h̲ʿarī’s position. He abandoned the dogmatic theses of the Muʿtazila for those of opponents like Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, whom he professed to follow; but he defended his new beliefs by the type of rational argument which the Muʿtazila employed.
The chief points on which he opposed the doctrines of the Muʿtazila were:
(1) He held that God had eternal attributes such as knowledge, sight, speech, and that it was by these that He was knowing, seeing, speaking, whereas the Muʿtazila said that God had no attributes distinct from His essence.
(2) The Muʿtazila said that Ḳurʾānic expressions, such as God’s hand and face, must be interpreted to mean “grace”, “essence” and so on. Al-As̲h̲ʿarī, whilst agreeing that nothing corporeal was meant, held that they were real attributes whose precise nature was unknown. He took God’s sitting on the throne in a similar way.
(3) Against the view of the Muʿtazila that the Kurʾān was created, al-Ashʿarī maintained that it was God’s speech, an eternal attribute, and therefore uncreated.
(4) In opposition to the view of the Muʿtazila that God could not literally be seen, since that would imply that He is corporeal and limited, al-As̲h̲ʿarī held that the vision of God in the world to come is a reality, though we cannot understand the manner of it.
(5) In contrast to the emphasis of the Muʿtazila on the reality of choice in human activity, al-As̲h̲ʿarī insisted on God’s omnipotence; everything, good and evil, is willed by God, and He creates the acts of men by creating in men the power to do each act. (The doctrine of ‘acquisition’ or kasb [q. v.], which was in later times characteristic of the As̲h̲ʿariyya, is commonly attributed to al-As̲h̲ʿarī himself, but, though he was familiar with the concept, he does not appear to have held the doctrine himself; cf. JRAS, 1943, 246 f.).
(6) While the Muʿtazila with their doctrine of al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn held that any Muslim guilty of a serious sin was neither believer nor unbeliever, al-As̲h̲ʿarī insisted that he remained a believer, but was liable to punishment in the Fire.
(7) Al-As̲h̲ʿarī maintained the reality of various eschatological features, the Basin, the Bridge, the Balance and intercession by Muḥammad, which were denied or rationally interpreted by the Muʿtazila.
Al-As̲h̲ʿarī was not the first to try to apply kalām or rational argument to the defence of orthodox doctrine; among those who had made similar attempts earlier was al-Ḥārit̲h̲ b. Asad al-Muḥāsibī. Al-As̲h̲ʿarī, however, seems to have been the first to do this in a way acceptable a large body of orthodox opinion. He had the advantage, too, of having an intimate and detailed knowledge of the views of the Muʿtazila (as is shown by his descriptive work, Maḳālāt al-Islāmiyyīn , Istanbul, 1929; cf. R. Strothmann, in Islam, xix, 193-242). His many followers came to be known as the As̲h̲ʿariyya [q.v.] or As̲h̲āʿira, though they mostly deviated from him on some points.
To a European reader his argumentation differs little at first sight from that of the ultra-conservative followers of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, since many of his proofs depend on the interpretation of Ḳurʾān and Tradition (cf. A. J. Wensinck, Muslim Creed , Cambridge, 1932, 91). This, however, was because his opponents also, including even the Muʿtazila, ¶ used proofs of this sort, and he was always arguing ad hominem. Yet when opponents would admit a purely rational premiss, al-As̲h̲ʿarī had no hesitation in using it to refute them. Once the permissibility of such arguments was established, at least for many theologians, it was possible for the As̲h̲ʿariyya to develop this side of his method until in later centuries theology became thoroughly intellectualistic. This, however, was far removed from the temper of al-As̲h̲ʿarī himself.
(W. Montgomery Watt)
Bibliography
Al-Lumaʿ and Risālat Istiḥsān al-Ḵh̲awḍ fī ʿIlm al-Kalām, ed. and tr. by R. C. McCarthy, Beirut 1953, The Theology of al-As̲h̲ʿarī
al-Ibāna, Hyderabad 1321, etc. and Cairo 1348, tr. by W. C. Klein, New Haven 1940 (cf. W. Thomson in MW, xxxii, 242-60)
Ibn ʿAsākir, Tabyīn Kad̲h̲ib al-Muftarī, Damascus 1347 (summarised in McCarthy, op. cit., and A. F. Mehren in Travaux of 3rd Internat. Congress Orientalists, ii, 167-332)
Spitta, Zur Geschichte . .. al-Ašʿari’s, Leipzig 1876
Goldziher, Vorlesungen 2, 112-32
B. Macdonald, Development of Muslim theology, New York 1903
S. Tritton, Muslim Theology, London 1947. 166-74, (with further references
Montgomery Watt, Free Will and Predestination in Early Islam, London 1948, 135-30
Gardet et M. M. Anawati, Introduction ŕ la Théologie Musulmane, Paris 1948, 52-60
Schacht, in Studia Islamica, i, 33 ff.
Cite this page
Watt, W. Montgomery, “al-As̲h̲ʿarī, Abu ’l-Ḥasan”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. First print edition: ISBN: 9789004161214, 1960-2007
Additional sources:
Al-Ashʿarī, Maqālāt al-islāmlīyn wa ‘khtilāf al-muṣallīn, ed. H. Ritter, 2 vols. Istanbul: Government Press, 1929-1930.