The first thing we ought to establish is that this theory does not seek “unity for unity’s sake”. Yes, there is a level of unity which all Muslims ought to have simply because we are all Muslims. However, this does not mean we do not try to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Therefore, even though this theory is one which may sound elementary (many individuals and groups already preach a message of Muslim unity) it is a bit more profound than that because I believe that unity amongst the two major groups (Salafis/Sufis) is something we can philosophically and academically establish.

One thing to keep in mind is the developoment of Islamic scholarship through time. Often when we study Islam, it is presented to us with a defined thesis. It can often be startling to realize that people did not always agree. Ijtihaad started with the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, and there were schools of thought even among the Companions radhi’allaahu ‘anhum. The fact is that Islam, although divine, did not go into details of every single conceivable situation which may arise in daily life. This is the challenge of human beings - to live by the principles outlined in the Quran, taught to us by our Prophet, implemented by the Companions. Yet human reasoning being what it is, it is possible to look at the same pieces of evidence and derive different conclusions. Therefore, if we take the example of the 4 schools of thought in fiqh, we know that there is nothing divine about them. They are merely scholastic approaches used in deriving jurisprudence. Moreover, there were more schools of thought than these 4, but there was a general agreement that over time, these 4 have developed into distinct schools which have stood the test of time.

Thus, it is philosophically conceivable that as the 4 “acceptable” schools developed, others can too. It may or may not happen practically, but in theory, it is certainly possible. What I am proposing is not that we develop a new school of thought in terms of fiqh, but that when the Ummah finds there are 2 different approaches in an issue (’aqeedah seems to an area of serious dispute) then it is possible that although they do not agree, they are both correct. Again, this is not a “feel-good” sentiment, saying it is immaterial what anyone says about Allah and that it’s “all good”, but that when two sides continually bring their evidences from the same sources, holding similar methodology and only differing in their conclusions, it is possible they are both correct, both from Ahl-us-Sunnah. This is not currently acceptable to either Salafis or Sufis. Each side believes that their approach in this issue is the correct one, the other side at most not even Muslim, at least misguided. 

I myself have heard some who say acceptable schools of ‘aqeedah are 2. Others have said it is 3. I personally see 4 distinct schools (2 having a similar approach), all of whom bring their evidence. I personally lean towards one, but it does not mean someone else who brings Allah’s Book and evidence from the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam himself, as well as the context of the beliefs/actions of the Sahaabiyaat, just because we did not arrive at the same conclusion, is “off the path”.

Therefore, we currently seem to agree that there are 4 major “acceptable” schools of fiqh: Hanafi, Shafi’ee, Maliki, and Hanbali. We do not agree on schools of ‘aqeedah, but here are the 4 actual positions I have heard of:

1. Athari - those who affirm what Allah affirmed and deny what Allah denied and go no further (make tafweedh)
2. Ash’ari - those who give a metaphorical meaning to the attributes of Allah which are physical in nature (similar to 3)
3. Maturidi - those who give a metaphorical meaning to the attributs of Allah which are physical in nature (similar to 2)
4. Salafi - those who take the apparent meaning of Allah’s attributes (as opposed to the metaphorical)

So actually, if you look at these schools in general, you have a continuum: Atharis being minimalistic, the Ash’aris and Maturidis combatting the philosophical infiltrations of the Mu’tazilah and their like at their time, and the Salafis, who then came and reacted to the middle generation. Make no mistake, none of these groups actually differs from the others in what they are trying to achieve. Alhamdulillaah, belief in Allah is something the Muslims are united upon and it is ludicrous if we can’t even unite upon this first tenet of our faith. Unfortunately, too many people cannot see that they are in reality all doing the same thing!

1. The Atharis take the safe approach. You simply cannot go wrong affirming what Allah affirmed and denying what He denied without elaborating. This was the position of most of the salaf and early generations.

If Allah says He has a Hand, he does. No further comment. We do not know the exact nature of the Hand.

2. The Ash’aris and Maturidis (who have minor points of difference based upon rational principles within their schools) actually developed as the defense of orthodox Islam at the time when the Mu’tazila and others came, influenced by Greek logic, etc. in deriving the religion. These 2 groups took a stand and affirmed much of what was dismissed as “irrational” by the groups who thought rationality alone could deduce all of Islam, or what was deemed irrational by their logic alone should be expunged or re-interpreted to fit their ideas. Inevitably, the Ash’aris and Maturidis had to delve into rhetoric themselves and would explain rationally why Islam takes certain positions regarding Allah. Human development is inevitable, and the Muslim community will be exposed to different philosophies in this world, and can choose as the Atharis to desist from such discussions completely, or choose as these 2 groups to join the discussion. And while mistakes and misunderstandings may come about, just as in fiqh, the target is the same for those who are sincere and seek to uphold orthodox Islam.

If Allah says He has a Hand, we must believe this because of His revelation to us, but Hand could mean Power as Allah is unlike His creation, which He mentions elsewhere. We do not know the exact nature of the Hand.

3. The Salafis undeniably (although many of their followers in fact do deny it) came as a reaction to the 2 intermediate groups. They felt that deciding that something was dangerously physical in nature, and using metaphorical or symbolic interpretations in order to solve the problem was uncalled for and had no basis from the Quran or the prophetic tradition. Thus, although many people believe they are proponents of “literalism” (and harmfully even anthropromorphism) a more accurate term would be “apparent” in the sense that it negates metaphorical or symbolic re-interpretation without an explicit evidence.

If Allah says He has a Hand, we must believe this because of His revelation to us, but it is definitely NOT another meaning such as Power, because if He meant Power, He would have said Power. We do not know the exact nature of the Hand.  

Look how they all agree in the principles! And these people are all expelling each other from the religion or the fold of the guided! Why do we not take a similar position to the 4 schools of thought - arriving at different conclusions, but internally consistent? I am not alone in this - historically, there were no “schools” of thought in aqeedah, as it was a relatively sparse and undefined area. Gradually, the scholars (whom both sides respect) would designate 2 schools and later 3 schools as all acceptable approaches. And now we have 3 distinct schools (although still only 3 approaches, 1 neutral, 2 reactionary on either side). And in our time, we have scholars accepting this development.

I respect all these schools which are essentially all trying to arrive at what the Muslims as an Ummah agree upon with our Lord. I pray that we can all see that orthodox Islam has many defenders, even ones who may differ with us in some things, but that we are all on the same side. May Allah unite the Muslims who are all trying to know Him!

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am and is filed under Unification Theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.