Athari, Ashari, Mutazali, etc

[Taha]

Can somebody explain these schools of thought?  I thought having different fiqh madhhabs was strange enough, but now y'all have different aqeedah madhhabs?

What exactly does a Sunni believe?  I am seriously getting confused with all these different "schools" that seemingly hate each other. Is Sunni just a generic word for "not Shia"?

[Furkan]

http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2009/11/19/the-asharis-maturidis-standards-of-mainstream-sunni-beliefs/

Ahlu.sunnah wal jammah is asharis,maturidis and atharis together. They believe in same principles, but on unnecessary points developped with philosophy, they differ. (remember it like this: thet have different arguments developped against other sects like mutazilla to refute them). For the laymen like me and many it is not necessary to pick an aqida school of these since the ulema take various points from ashari, maturidi. It is hard to comprehend the little differences for the laymen.

On the other hand you have salafis (I think there are here). They have a different aqida then the above mentioned, because they differ on basis principles.

[Moin]

Atharis are those who take who take the sources of Shariah and its text on its apparent meaning. They believe in attributes of Allah as being uncreated.
Ash'aris believe in seven attributes of Allah and they interpret all other attributes of Allah considering their literal meaning to be anthropomorphic.
Mu'tazila do not believe in attributes of Allah rather they interpret all of them against their apparent meaning.

With regards to Sahaba and Ahlul Bayt and the issue of Khilafah the two former groupsa are in agreement that the best of companion was Abu Bakr then 'Umar then Uthman then Ali.
Mu'tazila had different opinions in this regard. Early Mu'tazila beleived in superiority of Abu Bakr. They are mainly Mu'tazila of Basra. The later Mu'tazila, especially Baghdadis, almost agreed on the superiority of Ali.

[Furkan]

Moin I disagree with first alinea. Atharis themselves have refuted other hanbalis who take the appearent meaning. Asharis do not negate attributes of Allah which are clear. As for the verses ,which if given an meaning/interpretation leads to kufr, we do tafweed by saying: "only Allah knows it's meaning, we read the verse and let it's interpretation to Allah". (refer to ibn katheer)

[Rationalist]

Can somebody explain these schools of thought?  I thought having different fiqh madhhabs was strange enough, but now y'all have different aqeedah madhhabs?

What exactly does a Sunni believe?  I am seriously getting confused with all these different "schools" that seemingly hate each other. Is Sunni just a generic word for "not Shia"?

These are schools of Kalam and not fiqh. Today we have about 10 different schools of thought. However, in the first century of Islam, we had over 130 different schools of thought.
As for Kalam, you will find differences within the 12er Shia school of theology and even fiqh as well.
Shaykh Mufid differed with his teacher Shaykh Saduq.
Shaykh Tusi differed with Shaykh Mufid and Sharif Murtaza.
Shaykh Mufid and Sharif Murtaza differed with Kulayni
As for the hate, those who hate others for thinking differently or those who think there is only one school of thought are only jahils.

[Husayn]

Can somebody explain these schools of thought?  I thought having different fiqh madhhabs was strange enough, but now y'all have different aqeedah madhhabs?

What exactly does a Sunni believe?  I am seriously getting confused with all these different "schools" that seemingly hate each other. Is Sunni just a generic word for "not Shia"?

The question is - "Who are Ahlul Sunnah?", or, "What is Sunnism?".

Sunnis - or "Ahlul Sunna wal Jama'a", are those that follow a certain path to acquiring the "Sunnah", which they do via "Jama'a".

All of these groups that arose, and there were hundreds, were united on this very principle - the principle of consensus (Jama'a). They all advanced their own way of thinking - and then sought to achieve a consensus in the community.

This is because the community as a whole should not ever be able to unite on a falsehood (when it comes to a fundemental belief).

Here are some ahadith to back that up:

Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said:

يَدُ اللَّهِ مَعَ الْجَمَاعَةِ

"Allah's Hand is with the Jama'ah."

Sunan al Tirmidhi hadith #2166

Ibn 'Umar narrated that the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said:

"‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَجْمَعُ أُمَّتِي - أَوْ قَالَ أُمَّةَ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم - عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ وَيَدُ اللَّهِ مَعَ الْجَمَاعَةِ وَمَنْ شَذَّ شَذَّ إِلَى النَّارِ ‏"

'Indeed Allah will not gather my Ummah " - or -  "[Muhammad's] Ummah upon deviation, and Allah's Hand is over the Jama'ah, and whoever deviates, he deviates to the Fire."

Sunan al Tirmidhi hadith #2167

Both ahadith are apparently graded Sahih (wallahu a'lam).

--------

'Ali (RA) says in Nahjul Balagha sermon 126:

Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf.

This was delivered to the Khawarij, who had left the community, abandoned the principle of consensus, and adopted their own heretical beliefs.

So, basically, any group which deviates from the consensus of the majority is a heretic, or, a non-Sunni.

The Shias are one such group. Their origins attest to this fact - they abandoned the consensus of the Muslims, and adopted heretical beliefs. Some of those beliefs which the community reached a consesus on were:

 - There was no successor chosen by the Prophet (Shias say 'Ali was selected).

 - The companions were all righteous Muslims (Shias say they are mostly kaffir)

 - 'Aisha (RA) was a chaste woman (Shias say she was an adulterer)

 - The Qur'an was not, and cannot be, corrupted (Shias say verses were deleted, or added, or changed around)

You will find that most of the beliefs that Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a reached consensus on - atleast one group of Shias rejected it and adopted the opposite stance.

[Moin]

Moin I disagree with first alinea. Atharis themselves have refuted other hanbalis who take the appearent meaning. Asharis do not negate attributes of Allah which are clear. As for the verses ,which if given an meaning/interpretation leads to kufr, we do tafweed by saying: "only Allah knows it's meaning, we read the verse and let it's interpretation to Allah". (refer to ibn katheer)

Basically there is no difference in being a Hanbali and an Athari. Hanbali was used traditionally while Athari was used by later scholars of Hanbali madhhab. There were some scholars who differed with standard viewpoint of Hanbali beleif but they were refuted by other scholars. There is a lot of details in this but tis forum is not supposed to be platform for such discussion that is why I only gave brief description which none of the three disagree. Who is on the right path is totally diferent discussion.

[Furkan]

Yes indeed. I'm not really interested in searching details up since the aim of this forum is different.

[Hani]

I personally believe each human being has a "Madhab" of his own, as each person thinks slightly differently and each person processes information differently, and each person imagines the unseen differently.


Athari/Maturidi/Ash`ari are popular ways through which people understand the creator and the creation.


You don't need to join any of the above, for instance I don't belong to any of them, my philosophical understanding comes directly and purely from reading the Qur'an based on human instinct "Fitrah".


This is similar to joining or not joining a Fiqhi Madhab, you can be a Sunni and still not join any of the four, and you have the option of joining if you wish.

[Furkan]

In regards of aqida, what you are stating is dangerous. One can get indulged into deviant beliefs if the person is interpreting it on a wrong way or if the person thinks he is able to comprehend in depth matters related to.aqida and he starts getting wrong ideas in regards of Allah and his attributes.

Just see it like this : If there is a caliphate with an excellent organised ruling, administration, police, sharia, ... How are we going to.judge someone if he doesn't adhere to any madhab? And where the population has a huge variety of opinions in regards to aqida. This will bring chaos and ruin, I think.

[Hani]

In regards of aqida, what you are stating is dangerous. One can get indulged into deviant beliefs if the person is interpreting it on a wrong way or if the person thinks he is able to comprehend in depth matters related to.aqida and he starts getting wrong ideas in regards of Allah and his attributes.

Just see it like this : If there is a caliphate with an excellent organised ruling, administration, police, sharia, ... How are we going to.judge someone if he doesn't adhere to any madhab? And where the population has a huge variety of opinions in regards to aqida. This will bring chaos and ruin, I think.

I don't think so. Unless the person is a stubborn Jahil who is a Munafiq, in which case adhering to a Madhab won't save him anyway.

Trust me when I tell you, don't force/limit someone into joining any group. If you see that a person has "deviant beliefs" then the cure usually won't be for him to jump and join any of these groups, rather you explain to him your view on that specific matter and if he's not a stubborn hypocrite, he'll be convinced (assuming your view makes sense to him as not all brains work similarly).

I can be convinced by Ash`aris on some point and convinced by other groups on another point.

[Furkan]

Yes "forcing" won't help, since the other person will start defending his view instead of giving your view a probability of being the truth. The reason for it might be pyhsological, pride or shaitan :p

But what about the hadith where rasululah ( saw) says not to leave the jamah or not to go on a different way? (something like that)

[Hani]

Yes "forcing" won't help, since the other person will start defending his view instead of giving your view a probability of being the truth. The reason for it might be pyhsological, pride or shaitan :p

But what about the hadith where rasululah ( saw) says not to leave the jamah or not to go on a different way? (something like that)

Leaving the Jama`ah means to stray far away from the Qur'an and Sunnah and understanding of the nation. Such as what Khawarij and Imamis did when they opposed the entire nation and accused them of deviance and Kufr. You're talking about joining a school of thought that was created many years later, I don't see that as necessary for me or anyone, I do recommend reading their books but joining them returns to each man's personal life choices.

[Rationalist]

On the Imami side, Mu'tazilism first made an impact at the end of the 3rd/9th century, with the
Banu Nawbakjt [q.v.]: Abu Sahl al-Nawbakjti (d. 311/924) and his nephew al-Hasan b. Musa (d.
ca. 310/923), the author of the K. Firaq al-Sji'a. It was initially short-lived; the theology of Ibn
Babawayh (d. 381/991 [q.v.]) affirmed, on the contrary, that God creates the actions of men and
wills everything which comes into being (including evil). But Mu'tazili theses prevailed again,
this time definitively, with the disciple of Ibn Babawayh, al-Sjaykj al-Mufid (d. 413/1022 [q.v.]),
upholding the theses of the "Bagjdadis", as is abundantly illustrated by his Awa'il
al-maqalat (cf. M. J. McDermott, The theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufid, Beirut 1978). Then it was the
turn of al-Sjarif al-Murta·a (d. 436/1045 [q.v.]), a disciple of 'Abd al-jabbar, who, for his part,
successfully championed the theses of the "Basrans". The qur'anic commentaries of
Abu ja'far al-Tusi (d. 459/1067 [q.v.]) and of al-Tabarsi (d. ca. 548/1155 [q.v.]) are overtly
Mu'tazili commentaries, even more so than the Kashshaf of al-Zamakjshari, and not their least
interesting feature is the innumerable references made in them to the (now lost) tafsirs of
al-jubba'i and al-Balkji (the same observation applies, moreover, to the qur'anic commentary
of the Zaydi theologian al-Hakim al-jushami (d. 494/1101 [q.v.]).

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei2/mu-tazila.htm

[Optimus Prime]

Basically there is no difference in being a Hanbali and an Athari. Hanbali was used traditionally while Athari was used by later scholars of Hanbali madhhab. There were some scholars who differed with standard viewpoint of Hanbali beleif but they were refuted by other scholars. There is a lot of details in this but tis forum is not supposed to be platform for such discussion that is why I only gave brief description which none of the three disagree. Who is on the right path is totally diferent discussion.

I think this part needs clarification from the staff. If any Non-Shia topics are started on this section of the forum then can it be discussed in detail or are their limits?

On the HCY forum too many Non-Shia threads were being locked even though they were started on the Non-Shia forums which, I found pretty retarded. If this forum is to flourish then it must permit all sorts of discussions.

[Taha]

Thanks for all the answers.