The Ash‘aris are a group named after their leader, Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari. In order to understand the beliefs associated with the Ash‘ari school, it is necessary to look at the intellectual development of al-Ash‘ari himself and, more importantly, at the theological roots from which the school emerged.
Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari passed through several stages. In the first stage, he was a Mu‘tazilite and remained upon the Mu‘tazilite doctrine for approximately forty years. He then publicly recanted from the Mu‘tazilah and followed the views of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘eed ibn Kullaab, being influenced by him. This constituted the second stage of his development.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was among the people who most vehemently opposed ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘eed ibn Kullaab and his companions, such as al-Haarith and others. [See: Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’ 14/380.]
The roots of what later became the Kullaabiyyah and Ash‘ariyyah therefore have to be examined carefully. Ibn Battah (d. 387H), in his Al-Ibaanatul Kubraa, described the emergence of this doctrine from its Jahmite roots. He said:
Chapter: Mention of the Lafdhiyyah and Warning From their Opinion and Their Sayings
Know, may Allah have mercy upon you, that a faction amongst the Jahmiyyah, out of the conniving of their hearts, the vileness of their opinions and the repugnance of their desires, believed that the Qur’an is created. And they alluded to that with an innovation they invented out of deception and misleading of the common folk, all in order to conceal their kufr, seeking to obscure their deviation from the one whose knowledge was little and whose disposition was weak.
So they said: The Qur’an that Allah spoke with and said, that is the speech of Allah, not created, and as for that which we recite and read with our tongues and which we write in our copies of the Qur’an is not the Qur’an which is the Kalaam of Allah. This is only a hikaayah (quotation, narrative) of that. So what we read is a hikaayah of that Qur’an with our own words, and our verbal expression with our words is created.
Ibn Battah continued by explaining that they had become subtle in their kufr and used deceitful means to introduce kufr to the common people through an obscure and hidden doctrine. He then stated that the scholars rejected what they had fabricated and exposed what they had concealed.
Ibn Battah specifically praised Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for recognizing the reality of this doctrine and for making its kufr manifest through the Qur’an and Sunnah.
This is important because the doctrine of the Kullaabiyyah and later Ash‘ariyyah concerning the Qur’an did not emerge in isolation. Rather, it developed out of an earlier Jahmite discussion concerning the Qur’an, its wording, and its recitation.
The Kullaabiyyah developed this doctrine further. They called what they considered to be the uncreated Qur’an Kalaam Nafsee—the meaning residing eternally within Allah Himself. The Ash‘aris subsequently adopted and developed this concept.
The distinction they made was that the Qur’an present with us—the words that we recite, memorize, hear, and write—was treated as an ‘ibaarah, an expression, of the eternal speech rather than the actual speech of Allah in its letters and words.
The Ash‘aris therefore do not affirm for Allah the Kalaam that is properly defined in the language of the Qur’an and the language of the Arabs as consisting of both meaning and wording. Rather, they say that Allah’s Kalaam is only the meaning.
This innovation was unknown until Ibn Kullaab originated it, and Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari followed him in it. Even Abdul Kareem ash-Shahrastani (d. 548H), himself an Ash‘ari, acknowledged the emergence of this position. In Nihaayat ul-Aqdaam, he wrote:
So al-Ash‘ari innovated a third saying and judged with the emergence of the letters, and this is the destruction of the ijmaa‘, and he judged that what we read is Allah’s speech only metaphorically, not in reality—and this is pure innovation.
Ash-Shahrastani therefore described al-Ash‘ari as having broken the ijmaa‘ and innovated a third position: namely, that what is read is called the speech of Allah only metaphorically, because their actual conception of Allah’s Kalaam was Kalaam Nafsee, rather than the letters and words that make up the Qur’an.
However, the more precise historical point is that Ibn Kullaab and the Kullaabiyyah originated this doctrine before al-Ash‘ari adopted it.
It was for this reason that Imam Ahmad condemned individuals such as al-Haarith al-Muhaasibee and Hussain al-Karaabeesee when they began speaking with the speech of Ibn Kullaab concerning this issue.
The early roots of this doctrine were therefore connected to the Jahmite position concerning the Qur’an.
Ahmad ibn Sinaan al-Waasitee (d. 258H), the Shaykh of al-Bukhaaree and Muslim, expressed the same warning a century before Ibn Battah.
The later Ash‘aris continued to develop these theological principles. Most of the later Ash‘aris do not adhere to the madhhab of Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari himself. Rather, they were influenced by many principles of the Jahamiyyah, Mu‘tazilah, and even the philosophers, and they differ with al-Ash‘ari regarding many of his views.
Among the attributes they rejected or interpreted away were Allah’s rising over the Throne (istiwaa’), His being exalted above His creation, His descending to the lowest heaven in the last third of the night, the Hand, the Eye, the Foot, and speech.
Thus, with regard to many of these divine attributes, the later Ash‘aris differ even from Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari himself.
The later Ash‘aris were Jabris with regard to the divine decree and Murji’ah with regard to faith. They denied the divine attributes and affirmed only seven of them because, as they claimed, these seven could be proven rationally.
They denied Allah’s rising above the Throne and His being exalted above His creation. Some of them stated that Allah is neither within nor outside the universe, neither above it nor below it.
This raises the question: how can such a doctrine be called Ahl as-Sunnah?
Their rejection of the divine attributes is one of the central problems with their theology. They interpret the revealed texts away from their apparent meanings and claim that affirming the apparent meaning of the texts concerning Allah’s attributes constitutes disbelief.
But if the apparent meaning of the texts describing Allah constitutes kufr, then the implication is that Allah could not describe Himself except through expressions whose apparent meaning is kufr.
Al-Sijzi explained the problem in detail in Al-Risalah ila Ahl Zabid. He wrote:
It is necessary to reflect on the statements of the Kullābiyyah and the Ashʿariyyah regarding the attributes, so that one may realize that they do not truly affirm a deity in reality, and that they selectively choose from the texts what suits their aims, leaving the rest and opposing it.
He then discussed their position concerning Allah’s Hand:
Ahl al-Sunnah are in agreement that God—Glorified and Exalted—has two hands, as this is established in the Qur’an and the hadith. Allah تعالى said: “For what I created with My two hands.” [Sad 38:75] And the Prophet ﷺ said: “Both of the hands of the Most Merciful are right.”
Al-Sijzi explained that the Kullaabiyyah affirmed only one hand and interpreted the attribute away from its apparent meaning. He stated that al-Ash‘ari affirmed two hands but agreed with Ibn Kullaab in his methodology of Ta’wil concerning other attributes.
He then mentioned the authentic hadiths concerning Allah’s fingers, His laughter, His anger, and His pleasure, explaining that Ahl al-Athar accept these attributes as they came without asking how.
He also criticized Abu Bakr ibn Furak al-Asbahani for writing works interpreting the attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and the authentic collections in ways that contradicted Ahl al-Sunnah.
Al-Sijzi further stated:
The Kullābiyyah and the Ashʿariyyah have outwardly shown opposition to the Muʿtazilah and defended some aspects of the Sunnah and its people. However, they spoke regarding the Qur’an and the other attributes, as we have mentioned some of it. Concerning the Qur’an, they express a confusion. They claim there is a Qur’an that is not in Arabic, and that it is the eternal attribute, whereas this Arabic text is, in their view, created.
This brings us back to their doctrine of the Qur’an.
For the Ash‘aris the Qur’an we see on earth is a second Qur’an: a created expression of the Qur’an that remains within Allah’s Self. They say Allah speaks within Himself, which they call Kalaam Nafsee. They deny that Allah speaks literally through sound and letters.
Consequently, they believe that the Qur’an on earth is created and is not the actual Qur’an, because they do not believe that Allah speaks the Qur’an through sound and letters.
In this regard, their doctrine agrees with the Mu‘tazilah in holding that what is present in the Mushaf is created.
Al-Sijzi stated:
Abu Muhammad ibn Kilab, those who agreed with him, al-Ash‘ari, and others said: “The Qur’an is uncreated, and whoever claims that it was created is a disbeliever—except that Allah does not speak in Arabic, nor in any other language, and His speech does not involve meter, composition, succession, nor does it consist of letters or sounds.”
He continued:
From what they stated, it is clear that the Qur’an, whose creation they denied, is not in Arabic and has neither beginning nor end.
And he then stated:
Whoever denies that the Qur’an is Arabic and that it is the speech of Allah is a disbeliever according to the consensus of jurists, and whoever affirms a Qur’an that has no beginning or end is also a disbeliever according to their consensus.
This is why the issue of the Qur’an became one of the major points upon which scholars criticized and declared takfir upon the Ash‘aris.
Their kufriyat and beliefs, according to these scholars, include the following:
- They say the Qur’an is created.
- They claim that there is no Qur’an on earth.
- They interpret and deny the attributes.
- They say the Qur’an does not show any certainty, and therefore disbelieved in it.
- They reject ahadith.
- They use kalaam and philosophy.
- They give priority to ‘aql over naql.
- They say tawhid is only Ruboobiyyah.
- They claim that acknowledging the apparent meaning of the texts concerning the attributes is disbelief.
Ibn Hazm said:
“The people have differed in regard to the reality of Iman. So a group of them took the view that Iman is mere knowledge of Allah Ta’Ala by the heart only, even if he showed Judaism or Christianity or any kind of Kufr by his tongue and worship. So when he knows Allah Ta’Ala by his heart, he’s a Muslim from the people of Jannah. And this is the saying of Abu Mihriz al-Jahm bin Safwan and Abul Hasan al-Asha’ri (Al-Basri) and their followers.” [Al-Fisal 3/106]
This is another point used to connect the Ash‘ari understanding of faith with the Jahmite and Murji’ah understanding.
The issue of Allah’s ‘Uluww is another major point of dispute.
The Ash‘aris from the time of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari up to al-Baqillani held the view that Allah is above in the literal sense, and on this point they shared the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah.
However, regarding their beliefs about Allah’s attributes of actions and speech, the early Ash‘aris rejected them through ta’wil, which is major kufr.
Later Ash‘aris rejected Allah being above and adopted the view of the Jahmiyyah that Allah is not above His Throne.
Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have explicitly stated that negating Allah’s aboveness alone constitutes major kufr because it denies what Allah described Himself with in the Qur’an and through His Messenger.
Their main rationale for declaring the Ash‘ari position to involve kufr therefore hinges upon two primary contentions: first, the rejection of the literal ‘Uluww of Allah, and second, their stance that the letters of the Qur’an are created.
Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari aligned himself with the Kullaabiyyah. This group denied Allah’s volitional attributes and His speech in letters and sounds while still upholding Allah’s ‘Uluww, in contrast to later Ash‘aris.
Imam Ahmad and Ahl al-Sunnah strongly cautioned against the Kullaabiyyah and vehemently condemned their belief that Allah does not communicate through sounds.
Al-Sijzi also recorded another statement concerning the Ash‘ari doctrine:
Abu Muhammad ibn Kilab, those who agreed with him, al-Ash‘ari, and others said: “The Qur’an is uncreated, and whoever claims that it was created is a disbeliever—except that Allah does not speak in Arabic, nor in any other language, and His speech does not involve meter, composition, succession, nor does it consist of letters or sounds.”
The position of Ahl al-Sunnah, by contrast, is that Allah’s attribute of speech is eternal and is always with Him, while He speaks whenever He wills. He speaks literally, with sound and letters.
Imam al-Lalaka’i said:
“The Qur’an is the literal speech of Allah. He revealed it to Muhammad, peace be upon him, commanded him to challenge with it, and to call people to it. It is the Qur’an in truth: recited in the prayer, written in the Mushafs, and preserved in the hearts. It is neither a mere Hikayah (narration) nor an Ibarah (expression) of the Qur’an.
It is a single Qur’an, neither created nor made nor fabricated; rather, it is an attribute of God’s essence, eternally. Whoever says otherwise is a disbeliever, misguided, misleading, innovator, and contrary to Ahl Sunnah wal-Jama’ah.” [Sharh Usul I’tiqad – Volume 2, Page 364]
Thus, according to this understanding, there is only one Qur’an. Whether it is recited, heard, memorized, or written, it remains the uncreated speech of Allah in letter and word.
This is fundamentally different from the doctrine of Kalaam Nafsee, according to which Allah’s actual speech is an eternal meaning within Himself, while the Arabic words and letters that are recited and written are an expression of that speech.
This distinction is a serious theological deviation.
Ibn Mandah said:
“And this is the description of the Ash‘ari zanadiqah who have appeared in this era: they have turned away from the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions, relied upon analogy, and with their weak intellects claimed that which contradicts the transmitted reports.” [Majlis fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Zanadiqah, Page 3]
He also said:
“And this is the statement of Ibn ‘Abbas and others among the Companions, which negates any anthropomorphism, contrary to what the Ash‘ari zanadiqah claim, according to those who follow knowledge and adhere to the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition.” [Majlis fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Zanadiqah, Page 4]
And he stated:
“And we say: Whoever claims that a letter in the Book of Allah, such as the disconnected letters like Alif-Lām-Mīm, or Ḥā-Mīm ‘Ayn-Sīn-Qāf, and the like, is not part of the speech of Allah, and that Allah’s speech does not contain letters, and that this is the speech of Jibril—then he has effectively claimed that the Qur’an was created, and his path is the path of idolaters.” [Majlis fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Zanadiqah, Page 8]
According to this argument, the Mushrikun of Quraysh used to claim that the Qur’an was not the speech of Allah but rather the speech of Jibril, and the Ash‘aris are said to follow them in this belief.
Ibn Mandah further said:
“And this is the description of the Ash‘aris (similar to al-Karabisi): they say that the words we utter in the Qur’an are created, and that the recited and the read is merely a narration of the speech of Allah, and that the letters written between the covers of the book are created. Thus, they claim that the Qur’an is created without explicitly stating it. We ask Allah to preserve our religions for us and to grant us a happy end in Islam, by His mercy.” [Majlis fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Zanadiqah, Page 9]
The Ash‘ari doctrine concerning the Qur’an is essentially a concealed form of the doctrine of the Qur’an’s createdness.
Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam (d. 224H) was also reported by Imam al-Lalaka’i in Sharh Usul I‘tiqad Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah to have said, when asked about someone who says the Qur’an is created:
“This is a man who should be taught and told: Indeed, this is kufr. If he retracts, then that is good; otherwise his neck should be struck.”
This demonstrates how seriously the early scholars regarded the claim that the Qur’an is created.
The same severity appears in the statements of a number of scholars concerning the Ash‘aris specifically.
Abu Ismail al-Harawi said:
“I saw Yahya ibn ‘Ammar, countless times upon his pulpit, declaring them (Asharis) disbelievers, cursing them, and testifying that Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari was a zindiq. And I saw the same from Umar ibn Ibrahim and our shaykhs.” [Dhamm al-Kalam wa Ahlihi, Volume 4, Page 411, Edition: Maktabah al-Ghuraba al-Athariyyah]
He also mentioned:
“I heard Bilal ibn Abi Mansur, the muadhin, say: I heard ‘Umar ibn Ibrahim say: ‘The slaughtered animals of the Ash‘aris are not lawful, because they are neither Muslims nor Ahl Kitab, and they do not believe that the Book of Allah (Quran) is on earth.’” [Dhamm al-Kalam wa Ahlihi, Volume 4, Page 413]
He further mentioned:
“I heard Ahmad ibn Hamzah and Abu Ali al-Haddad say: ‘We found Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Nahawandi engaged in refuting the theologians and making takfir of the Ash‘aris.’” [Dhamm al-Kalam wa Ahlihi, Volume 4, Page 404]
This narration is also mentioned in the book Jam‘ al-Juyush wal-Dasakir ‘ala Ibn Asakir. Many editions unjustly removed the portions of Dhamm al-Kalam in which takfir regarding the Ash‘ariyyah was mentioned.
Abu Ismail al-Harawi also mentioned:
“I heard my father say: I heard Abu al-Muzaffar al-Tirmidhi—who is Habbāl ibn Ahmad—the imam of the people of Tirmidh, declaring them (Asharis) to be zanadiqah.” [Dhamm al-Kalam wa Ahlihi, Volume 4, Page 408]
Al-Dashti mentioned that al-Silafi said:
“The Ash‘aris are misguided, zanadiqah, brethren of those who worshipped al-‘Uzzā alongside al-Lāt. They have openly disbelieved in their Lord, and their speech—when you reflect upon it—is among the worst of statements. They deny what they themselves first affirmed; the doctrines of these people are among the worst of impossibilities.” [Ithbat al-Hadd, Al-Dashti, Page 267]
Al-Sijzi also transmitted a statement from the Maliki jurist Khalaf al-Mu‘allim:
“Al-Ashʿarī remained upon the doctrine of the Muʿtazilah for forty years, then he publicly repented. He retracted from the subsidiary matters (furūʿ) but remained firm upon the foundational principles (uṣūl).”
Al-Sijzi then commented:
“And this is a statement coming from an expert in the doctrine of al-Ashʿarī and its deeper dimensions.” [Al-Risalah ila Ahl Zabid, Pages 210–211]
This shows that Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari remained a mutakallim and did not repent from the methodology of Ahl al-Kalam. Rather, he differed from the Mu‘tazilah in subsidiary matters while remaining upon their foundational methodology.
Ibn al-Hanbali said:
“The last of the innovations to appear was the Ash‘ari doctrine, and its support was taken up by the ignorant, the worldly-minded, the oppressors, and those guilty of injustices, who speak in ways contrary to the Law—through astrology, philosophy, persistent wrongdoing, and immorality. It should be known that this innovation is the worst of all innovations due to its appearance in the end times, its spread in corrupt lands, the deceitful and impossible claims of its proponents, and the nonsensical speech that conceals Kufr and misguidance. The era of this innovation is the vilest of times, its followers the vilest of the community, and its promoters the least religious among this nation.” [Al-Risalah al-Wadihah fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Ash’ariyyah, Volume 2, Page 452]
Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani said:
“Whoever claims that the Qur’an is created, or that it is merely an ‘Ibarah (expression), or that what is recited is different than what is original, or says: ‘My recitation of the Qur’an is created,’ is a disbeliever in Allah, the Almighty. He should not be associated with, dined with, married to, or resided near; rather, he should be avoided and humiliated. Prayer should not be performed behind him, his testimony is not accepted, his guardianship in marriage is invalid, and funeral prayer should not be offered for him if he dies. If he is captured, he should be asked to repent three times like an apostate; if he repents, well and good, otherwise he receives the capital punishment.” [Al-Ghunyah li al-Talibin Tariq al-Haqq, Volume 1, Page 128]
There are therefore numerous explicit statements in the Islamic scholarly tradition declaring the Ash‘aris — and their doctrines — to be kufr.
The central issues around which these declarations revolved included the nature of Allah’s speech, whether the Qur’an in its letters and words is uncreated, whether Allah literally speaks with sound and letters, the doctrine of Kalaam Nafsee, the rejection or interpretation of the divine attributes, and the rejection of Allah’s ‘Uluww.
The position of Ahl al-Sunnah presented in these criticisms is that Allah has always been one who speaks, that speech is an attribute of His essence like knowledge, life, hearing, and seeing, and that Allah speaks whenever and however He wills, with His speech tied to His will and power.
His speech is not created.
The Qur’an is His speech.
He spoke it.
It is uncreated.
There is only one Qur’an—not two Qur’ans.
Whether it is recited, heard, memorized, or written, it is, in letter and word, the uncreated speech of Allah.
This was the position defended by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah against the Jahmiyyah, Mu‘tazilah, Kullaabiyyah, and Ash‘ariyyah.