Is Affirming Allah’s ‘Eye’ Affirming a Bodily Organ?

August 22, 2006

The Ash’aris accuse Ahlus Sunnah of anthropomorphists for affirming the literal meaning while negating modality. Yet, this is exactly what Ibn ‘Asakir, who said clearly, “without modality or definion,” and before him Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari does in al-Ibana!

Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari says Allah has Hearing, Seeing and an Eye.

Now, does al-Ash’ari believes that Allah literally has Hearing and Seeing?

If he does, then he also believes that Allah literally has an Eye.

If the Ash’aris claim that Abul Hasan does NOT believe that Allah literally has Hearing and Seeing, they would have made him a pure Mu’tazili (because he would be rejecting all the Attributes of Allah).

Therefore, if Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari literally believes in Hearing and Seeing, he literally believes in Allah’s Eye.

Some Ash’aris may claim that,

What is anthropomorphic is your insisting that the literal meaning of Ayn is meant in that text i.e. you try and give Allah a bodily organ! And, you contradict the “without modality or definition” clause found therein!

But who said that the literal meaning of an Eye is bodily organ?! Where did this conclusion come from?

Angels have Eyes, and so do the Jinns, literally. Can their eyes be described as ‘bodily organs’? Rather, their eyes are in accordance with the nature of their existence.

Secondly, their terms such as ‘bodily organs’ have nothing to do with theology or language. Terms like substance (jawhar), accident (’aradh) and jism (body) are Aristotelian terms, on which Ash’arite and Mu’tazilite theology are based.

In fact, their doctrine is so firmly rooted in Greek philosophy that they cannot discuss Allah’s Names and Attributes for a moment without mentioning an Aristotelian term.

Ash’arism IS Aristotelianism.

Posted in Uncategorized