By Amhar Rasyid
Despite severe criticisms to one of Professor Harun Nasution’s books by certain Indonesian Muslim intellectuals, his academic influence to the contemporary Muslims is significant. Recently I have also read several pages of his insightful book entitled Teologi Islam (Islamic Theology) (Jakarta: UI Press, 1983) in which a deliberate explanation on Islamic theology deserves attention. The author emphasizes, among other things, the weakness of the Ash’arite theology which has been spread extensively particularly in Indonesia but his standpoint, I think, also implies the objectivity of Cartesianism. What kinds of such objectivity and why? What is the significant of this discussion for the young contemporary Muslims? These are perhaps some of the questions which had not been resolved.
Firstly, what is the Ash’arite theology and its weaknesses according to the author? The Ash’arite theology is said to have originated from Abul al-Hasan al-Asy’ari’s (born 260 H) and his teaching culminated in 935 M as an antithesis of the dispute with his prior Mu’tazilite’s protagonist (al-Jubba’i p. 65). Tradition tells the story of his refusal, Prof. Harun said, that only after did Asy’ari have a dream in his sleep where the Prophet Muhammad reproached the Mu’tazilite’s theology for being fabricated (p. 9). In the long term, the Asy’arite theology is thereafter known as Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah upon which the Indonesian Muslims mostly rely on (followers of Asy’arite and Maturidite p. 65).
Despite its followers outnumber in this country, Asy’arite theology entails some weaknesses he said. Among others, its teaching is only suited for the ordinary people who have insufficient knowledge of both rational and philosophical thinking (p. 63). Asy’ari himself is said to have originated from the traditional and fatalistic milieu of the desert as pointed out by Duncan B. Mac Donald in his book Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (Lahore: 1964). The successful emergence of the Asy’arite theology, according to the author, was mainly due to political status quo (p. 68). The reigning Caliph al-Mutawakkil who paid homage to Ibnu Hanbal vs Mu’tazilite’s doctrine who finally abolished his predecessor’s al-Ma’mun policy that had promoted the Mu’tazilite doctrine at a state level. Benefitted from such theological lacuna, al-Asyari came to realize that the ummah were in need of an established new theology which adhered to the Hadits of the Prophet. It is interesting to note that Prof. Harun tried to disseminate the view among the contemporary Muslims that the emerging theological antithesis was successful primarily due to political interregnum. It implies that rational and philosophical elements in Islamic teaching were subdued unfair politically. Historical Islam is embedded with a less rational theology.
Among the Asy’arite teachings are no Free Will (man’s conducts are wholly governed by God’s interference). It is from here the term kasb emerged in which man’s capacity is said to be helpless (p. 70). This doctrine is rejected, however, by his disciple al_Baqillani who maintained instead that man contributes effectively to his own destiny. It means that God has had only the internal genus (internal power of moving) inside the human body but the outward application of such genus is of man’s himself like sitting or standing known as spectes (naw’) (p. 71). Significantly, al-Asy’ari believed that the ‘kasb’ had no effect, but for al-Baqillani did. Another disciple of al-Asy’ari named al-Juwainy who maintained differently i.e, God’s hand must be interpreted as His Omnipotence, God’s eyes as His Observance and His face as His Existence (p. 72). Moreover, al-Juwaini also differed from al-Baqillani so far so that the internal genus inside the human body has also causal effects. Thus something is said to effect on something else and this latter also does something else and so do naturally cause and effect operate. Along with this Prof. Harun also quotes Egyptian Ahmad Amin’s commentary that al-Juwaini seemed finally to have adopted the causality doctrine of Mu’tazilite by passing the zigzagging route. Finally al-Ghazali came to supersede the earlier differences in opinions. For him, the earlier doctrines of al-Asy’ari is preferable and it is this latter doctrine which is now being adopted by the majority of Muslims all over the world including the Indonesian Muslims. What about yours?
Besides, Asy’ari also has an anthropomorphism element. According to the author, Asy’ari believes that God has physical but formless and limitless organs such as face, hands and eyes known as the term ‘la yukayyaf wa la yuhad (p. 70). Another important point in this doctrine is that God is believed to have an absolute power but not obligatory upon Him.
Secondly, what is thus the subsequent negative effects of the doctrine to the Indonesian Muslim theology? To repeat, for Asy’ari there are no virtue or wicked deeds only after the Qur’an was revealed by God (p. 100). Hence, nothing had been regulated prior to the revelation. It can be said that the coming of the Messenger was sine qua non. Conversely the Mu’tazilite believes that reason can differentiate between good and bad by itself, unaided by the revelation and its presence solely functions as a confirmation. Hence the Asy’arite gave little room for reason while the Mu’tazilite did otherwise. Moreover the Asy’arite is said to translate the sacred text quite literally while the Mu’tazilite prefers liberative theology and hence preferable for the educated people (151). Many religious interpretations by the Mu’tazilite, said the author, consequently conform to the educated stratum while that of Asy’arite belong to the mayority of ordinary people. The question is to which stratum now does Prof. Harun belong to?
Thirdly, to say the author’s position is objectivism means that he tries to ascertain the meaning intended by the mind that authored the object of study. In this case the subjects are both Asy’ari and the Mu’tazilites such as al-Jubba’i. it seems to me that Prof. Harun has inclined to be Objectivist seen from the earlier discussions. He portrayed both the Asy’arite and the Mu’tazilite doctrines as if they are free from his own historicity. Indeed, to make possible of such portrayal requires the author’s pre-assumptions to quote Gadamer. Moreover, every generation of the earlier Muslims has contributed to enrich the substance of historical Islam. Hence to explain the two conflicting theologies at any time may also enrich it thanked to the author’s pre assumptions. Significantly, this article may inspire young Muslim generation to rethink the way that Prof. Harun undertook in writing the book. For my part, I do appreciate this scholarly work but the author’s subjectivity should not be ignored. It is here where he failed to realize.
In conclusion the author said that both Asy’arite theology and of Mu’tazilite are Islamic in their essences. Having different interpretations have led to different theology and Historical Islam has benefited much from them. To explain fairly and intellectually both of such theologies must be of a great value. He tried to be wise and tolerance in writing the book particularly concerning the positions of the two theologies by letting the contemporary Muslims free to adopt one of them yet the Mu’tazilite for him is preferable. Yet there is no criticism has ever been found compared to his earlier controversial book entitled ‘Islam Ditinjau dari Beberapa Aspeknya’ (Islam Seen from Its Several Aspects). Now The Foreword was given by Prof. Rasjidi in this book may be interesting, since he had severely criticised Prof. Harun for having liberal arguments.
I may reemphasize here that Prof. Harun Nasution in this particular book has more inclined to Objectivism. The Objectivism considers the fact as true as themselves, i.e, natural phenomena which are value-free. In the same way, Prof. Harun describes both the Asy’arite and the Mu’tazilite theologies are in diametrical positions. Both are explained in terms of their different theological perspectives where the author does not realize his own involvement in such historical Islam. According to Gadamer, the Objectivism conceals the fact of its involvement in judging the issue. It is similar to statistics he said. It lets the fact speak, so Gadamer insists, and hence simulate an objectivity that in reality depends on the legitimacy of the questions asked. That is why there is no objectivity in the longstanding theological debates between the Asy’arite and the Mu’tazilites. They may have been by product of Historical Islam which dated from the eve of the 8th century AD after the Prophet died. Now it is safe to say that Prof. Harun also took part in his turn to such Historical Islam as being Geneticus Subjectivus (anak zaman) which can be witnessed along with his numerous academic lectures during his life. Since every time we try to understand something, says Gadamer, the Truth in our Tradition contributes to our preliminary Fore projections (Prejudices). By the absence of such Prejudices there are no elements for obtaining subsequent understanding. In other words, Prof. Harun must not free himself from the Mu’tazilite theological perspective as a Muslim and from Pancasila’s ideology as a citizen. Thus the Gadamer’s concept of Effective History was not realized by Prof. Harun in writing the book. One may say that it is Cartesianism however.
Thank you for reading my article.
Jambi Febr 12th, 2026
