And it may be that, of all the schools, his patron (whom he follows) is inclined toward the Ash'arite school, holding that to go against this school, even in the finest of details, is an incontrovertible act of Unbelief. Ask him, though, how he came to enjoy this monopoly over the truth, such that he could adjudge (the likes of) al-Baqillani to be an Unbeliever (kafir) because the latter goes against him on the question of God's possessing the attribute of eternity, holding that this attribute is indistinct from the essence of God. Why should al-Baqillani be more deserving to be branded an Unbeliever for going against the Ash'arite school than the Ash'arites would be for going against al-Baqillani? Why should one of these parties enjoy a monopoly over the truth to the exclusion of the other?
Is it on the basis of who preceded whom in time? If this be the case, then al-Ash'ari [6] was himself preceded by others like the Mu'tazilites. Let the truth, then, rest with precedence. Or is it on the basis of one possessing more virtue and knowledge than other? But by what scale and by what measuring device is this knowledge and virtue to be quantified, such that it would be proper for him to claim that no one in existance is more virtuous than the other he has chosen to follow?
-
On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al Ghazali's Faysal al Tafriqa (Studies in Islamic Philosophy, V. 1)
, translated by Dr. Sherman Abdal-Hakim Jackson, pg. 88-89.
No comments:
Post a Comment