For those of you who don't (yet) know the Orthodox Islamic doctrine of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) teaches that God is a relative unity, this means that Allah is not wholly indivisible or entirely without composition.
Instead Allah is a composite being (dhat), meaning (as Samuel Green puts it): "each of God’s attributes (his power, knowledge, speech, life, will, sight, hearing, breath, etc.) are a distinct attribute" and: "Islam solves the problem of God’s unity of essence and diversity of attributes by saying there is a special connection between them".
Anthony Rogers points out some earlier Muslims refused to acknowledge these divisions within God: "According to the Mu‘tazilites, Allah’s absolute oneness, transcendence, and dissimilarity from all created reality precluded the idea that he had distinguishable and knowable attributes."
But later Rogers observes this view was supplanted: "Although the Mu‘tazilite position was eventually displaced by the “suprarational” (i.e. mysterious, paradoxical, etc.) idea that God does have attributes “in addition to the essence in such a way as to be neither the essence nor other than the essence”".
Green adds how Orthodox Muslims (past and present) confronted this dilemma:
For the Ash`aris this was expressed with the famous Arabic saying bi-la kayfa (without asking how). Therefore, if Muslims do not accept the unity and diversity of the Trinity they still must acknowledge that in Islam God does have unity and diversity, and that Muslim leaders disagree about how to explain this. That is, Muslim leaders do not agree about Tawheed, and Muslims are rarely encouraged to think about the diversity of God.
A non-Muslim scholar who points out this controversial division is Harry Wolfson:
The belief in the reality of divine attributes was characterized by those who were opposed to it as being analogous to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Abul-faraj, also known as Bar Hebraeus, speaking of the Mu'tazilites, who denied the reality of divine attributes, says that thereby they steered clear of "the persons (akanim) of the Christians,"3 the implication being that the belief in the reality of divine attributes indirectly steers one into the belief of the Christian Trinity. 'Adad al-DIn al-Iji similarly reports that the Mu'tazilites accused those who believed in the reality of divine attributes of having fallen into the error of the Christian belief in the Trinity.4 And prior to both of them, among the Jews, David al-Mukammas,5 Saadia,6 Joseph al-Basir,7 and Maimonides,8 evidently reflecting still earlier Muslim sources, whenever they happen to mention the Muslim doctrine of the reality of divine attributes, compare it to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. (Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam [Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1976], p. 112f.)
Several Muslim Scholars confirm the same:
The Mu‘tazilah synthesized a complex theology that, while grounded in the Qur’an, was heavily influenced by Hellenistic rationalism. At its simplest level, their creed involved five “fundamentals.” The first was “unity,” by which the Mu‘tazilah meant more than simply the tawhid that Sunni Muslims understood: One God as opposed to many. The Mu‘tazilah insisted that God’s attributes had no existence distinguishable from His essence, but rather they emanated from the essence of God: God willed from His essence, and He knew from His essence. Their negation of God’s attributes arose from their concern regarding the Sunni position. The Sunnis, in turn, responded to the Mu‘tazilah, arguing that the attributes were in addition to the essence in such a way as to be neither the essence nor other than the essence; this was a suprarational attempt at avoiding the polytheism of which the Mu‘tazilah accused them. For the Mu‘tazilah, this affirmation of “hypostatic” attributes approximated the Orthodox Christian argument of a triune God that was closer to polytheism than monotheism. It is arguable that the debate is not simply semantic, but, in the eyes of the more conservative Sunni scholars, it accomplished little more than an immense exchange of talk (kalam) about God that the pristine understanding of the early community would never have accommodated. (The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi (al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah), Translated, Introduced, and Annotated by Hamza Yusuf [Zaytuna Institute, 2007], p. 20).
And:
The Ash`aris maintain that the attributes of God are not the essence [dhat] nor are they other than His essence. If it is said that the attributes are the very essence of God (as the Mu`tazilah and philosophers claim), then it means that the essence of God is without attributes since they would be one and the same as the essence (whereas the attributes and essence are understood to be two different things). However, it is also problematic to say that the attributes of God are totally other than His essence, since it would mean that the attributes may exist separately and die away - whereas this is certainly not the case given that his attributes are eternal. The reality is that there is a special connection between His essence and attributes. His attributes exist in His essence, are eternal in His eternalness, and everlasting with His everlastingness. They have always been WITH HIM and will be that way for eternity. (Muhammad Salih Farfur, The Beneficial Message & The Definitive Proof in the Study of Theology, (Trans: Wesam Charkawi) 2010, p. 119)
The Great Islamic Scholar, (the Proof of Islam, Hujjathul Islam ,the Mujaddid of the 5th Century of Hijra) Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali in his most noteworthy book on the theology of Islam stated of God's attributes:
They are not the essence but rather they are: (1) Eternal and subsistent in the essence, and that it is impossible that any aspect of the attributes is temporal. (2) Distinct (existing separately and objectively) (3) Super added to the essence. We maintain that the Master of the world is knowing according to knowledge, living according to life, powerful according to power, willing according to will, seeing according to sight, hearing according to hearing, and speaking according to speech. The divine attributes are not something other than God. All the attributes are all eternal because if they were originated the eternal a parte ante would be a locus for contingent things which is absurd .It is impossible for a necessary essence to possess possible attributes. When say “God”, we point to the divine essence together with the Attributes and not to the essence alone because the term “God” could not be predicated of an essence that is judged to be free from attributes. As against Philosophers and Christians who say that attributes are essence, We believe that attributes are not essence but only superadded to the Essence. They are rather point to essence.” The essence is independent of attributes but the attributes depend on the essence. All the attributes subsist in His Essence and none of them could possibly subsist without His Essence whether (the attribute is) in a locus or not. Just as the mind is capable of intellecting an eternal existent who has no cause, it is also capable of intellecting an eternal existent who has attributes and who has no cause for the existence OF BOTH [essence as independent and attributes as super added. i.e, the attributes are not something other than Allah and there in no plurality in his essence either through attributes or otherwise]. (Al Ghazali On Divine Predicates And Their Properties)
The last quotation is the most baffling of all them, yet it is the official position of Orthodox Islam. Even attempting to summate this incoherence is mind boggling. I will only attempt to put forward some of the possible paradoxes:
- God's attributes are not his essence but they are in his essence
- God's essence does not contain any plurality or multiplicity yet attributes are super added his essence
- Are they super added or in his essence or do they actually point to the essence?
- God's essence is independent of attributes yet the attributes are not other than the essence, nor the essence
- All the attributes cannot exist without God's essence, but God's essence is independent of any and all attributes
- God's attributes are not God's essence nor other than his essence
- The attributes are not other than Allah but nor are they Allah's essence
A mental activity by nature and often involves paradoxes, in which seemingly insoluble problems…are dialectically entertained in the mind of the theologian, who then attempts to reconcile them, using sacred scripture and intellect—a combination made volatile and dangerous in the absence of a devout piety that would otherwise illuminate both the effort and the outcome. For this reason, true theology is, to a certain degree, the squaring of a circle within an enlightened mind. (The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi, Translated, Introduced, and Annotated by Hamza Yusuf (Zaytuna Institute, 2007), p. 13.)
Perhaps this is why some Muslim Scholars have just given up. Muhammad ‘Abduh, the renowned and highly respected Egyptian scholar of the early part of the 20th century, had this to say:
But as for whether the attributes are other or more than the essence, whether speech is an attribute other than the import of the heavenly books within the Divine knowledge, and whether hearing and seeing in God are other than His knowledge of things heard and seen, and other such controversial issues, of the pundits and the contentions of the schools—all these are questions impenetrable to us, beyond the wit of human mind to attain.[Muhammad ‘Abduh 56]
But not all Muslim scholars have relented, some just reverted back to ancient times:
“…. The very concept of ‘definition’ implies the possibility of a comparison or correlation of an object with other objects; God, however, is unique, there being ‘nothing like unto Him’ (42:11) and, therefore, ‘nothing that could be compared with Him’ (112:4) – with the result that any attempt at defining Him or His ‘attributes’ is a logical impossibility and, from the ethical point of view, a sin. The fact that He is UNDEFINABLE makes it clear that the ‘attributes’ (sifat) of God mentioned in the Qur’an do not circumscribe His reality but, rather, THE PERCEPTIBLE EFFECT OF HIS ACTIVITY on and within the universe created by Him.” (The Message of the Qur’an – Translated and Explained by Muhammad Asad, Surah 6, fn.88. See also Surah 13, fn.21; Surah 76, fn.73.)
I cannot help but recall Samuel Green's words:
"Muslim leaders disagree about how to explain this. That is, Muslim leaders do not agree about Tawheed, and Muslims are rarely encouraged to think about the diversity of God."
I can only conclude with a germane comment made by Anthony Rogers:
"THIS is the grand cure for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?"
(Stay Tuned for P2: The Grand Cure)
No comments:
Post a Comment