Atomism and Materialist Conceptions of the Soul Among the Mutakallimīn
The majority of the mutakallimin were atomists concerning the metaphysical query. Most of their ideas on the soul were materialist; they either saw it as a body or associated it with life, which they claimed was a fleeting feature that happens to a body. However, there were differences among them, notably between those who belonged to the rationalist Mutazil school of Kalm, which peaked in strength and influence during the first half of the ninth century (Abd Malek, 2018).
Al-Nam, one of its foremost theologians, rejected atomism as a result. Additionally, he thought of the soul—which he associated with life—as a subtle body dispersed throughout the physical body. His understanding of the soul is essentially the same as the conventional one upheld by Ibn Qayyim.
Other exceptions were Muammar’s point of view. He advocated that the soul is an immaterial atom since he was an atomist. Other theologians believed that the soul is not ethereal but an atom.
The Mu’tazilah differed about whether accidents could occur in a single atom or only in atoms connected and making up a body (Abd Malek, 2018). They disputed whether life, spirit, and souls are all the same. However, the widely held Mu’tazil belief was that life, whether identical to the soul, is a passing accident and that the soul is material.
Eschatological Continuity and the Problem of Resurrection
The above-indicated eschatological question must be viewed in light of this widespread viewpoint. Where is the continuity that would ensure the person’s identity to be resurrected if life is a passing accident and the atoms of the deceased body split to mix in diverse ways to produce new physical entities? Without this continuity, the person who looks to have been raised from the dead is a mithl, a comparable entity. Some Mu’tazilah turned to the belief that nonexistence al-adam is a thing (Abd Malek, 2018), an entity, or an essence, and that existence is a state that happens to address this problem. A nonexistent entity, then A gets existence for a period, loses it for another time, and then regains it forever at all stages.
Ashʿarite Occasionalism and the Rejection of Muʿtazilite Metaphysics
The Ashar school of Kalm rejected the theory that nonexistence is a being or object. Al-Ashar, a former Mu’tazili who revolted against his school, built this institution. Ash’arism steadily grew in influence until it supplanted all other kalmschools in Islam (Pektas, 2021).
The Ash’aryah were atomists even if they opposed core Mu’tazil teachings. Their occasionalist metaphysics, which held that all occurrences are directly the work of God, included atomism as a component. Accidents are fleeting, lasting just a single instant, and are thus perpetually replicated. According to the Ash’aryah, life is a passing accident formed and recreated while a person is alive (Pektas, 2021). Thus, it is evident that the eschatological issue with the soul that the Mu’tazilah attempted to address still exists.
Al-Ghazālī’s Defense of Corporeal Resurrection
Furthermore, individuals look to al-Ghazālī for an Ash’ari solution to this conundrum. Two of his books include the primary justifications supporting the possibility of a corporeal resurrection. His criticism of Islamic thinkers, especially Ibn Sina, the Tahfut al-falsified, is the first of the Incoherence of the Philosophers. In this essay, he makes a convincing case that Ibn Sn could not support his notion that the soul is an immaterial, eternal essence. Nonetheless, he also argues for the viability of a bodily resurrection using the concept of an immaterial, eternal soul, holding that God will build a new body for such a soul at the resurrection (Brotherton, 2021).
An alternative justification is provided in the second book, Al-iqtid f al-ltiqd, produced shortly after the Tahfut. Significantly, al-Ghazālī rejects the notion he promoted in the Tahfut in this book, claiming that he did so to prove that corporeal resurrection is still conceivable even if one believes in the doctrine of an immaterial soul(Brotherton, 2021). The Ashaar, which holds that life is an impermanent accident continuously formed and renewed in the living body, is the real philosophy, he says. Resurrection is the resuscitation of God’s first creation to life and existence, and what God has already created can be recreated.
Never is a duplicate of anything that was genuinely a fresh creation; it is always just a copy. Al-Ghazālī must address how one may tell the difference between the original, recreated being and its replica, the mithl. However, his argument implies that God, who created everything, can do so.
Al-Ghazālī essentially adopts Ashar al-Juwayn, his mentor and teacher’s, thought. Al-Ghazālī must address whether the spirit or the soul is equivalent to life, unlike al-Juwayni. Al-Juwayn is more direct about this (Brotherton, 2021).
The physical body has a spirit body that permeates it and gives it life. Nevertheless, life is merely an accident that occurs briefly and is inherent in spirit. Al-Juwayn’s understanding of the soul is consistent with the conventional notion upheld by Ibn Qayyim, except for this distinction between life and spirit.
Muʿtazilite Theology: Free Will, Divine Justice, and Moral Responsibility
Additionally, Wasil bin “Ata” established the Mu’tazila, also known as those who retire, in the second century AH. The followers of this movement had a common conviction that a logically sound explanation of Islam was required. The two most significant of the five theological truths they adhered to were the oneness of God and divine justice(Brotherton, 2021). They had two different beliefs, the second leading them to acknowledge the reality of free choice.
At the same time, the first drove them to reject that God’s qualities, the supernatural, were separate beings and that the Qur’an was an everlasting book. A particularly active group in the 18th through the 10th centuries comprised the Mu’tazilites. The Shia theology is the finest illustration of how this group’s views have affected many theologies because they were so influential and active.
The Mu’tazilites made several claims, among them that humans must have complete free will, just as does God, who is revered for being infinitely knowledgeable and benevolent at all times and who cannot permit evil to exist despite it. Second, they said that God frequently permits human suffering to demonstrate and test people’s confidence in Him, demonstrating the absolute freedom of action (Piwko, 2021). These tests are typically used to increase people’s trust in God. Thirdly, the Mu’tazilites asserted that morality had only two positions, namely, good or bad, and that it is the job of the human person to use reason to determine which is which and to adhere to the preferred position.
In addition, they asserted that the almighty God must keep His word to reward the pious and those who follow His will with paradise and punish the wicked with hell. This was done to illustrate how humans can choose any path, knowing that their actions would have positive or negative consequences.
Last but not least, they made the case that only when subjects have a free choice can God recompense or punish them. The Mu’tazilites held a different perspective on this (Piwko, 2021). They thought that those passages in the Quran predicted what would occur after death during judgment, where those who did please God in their lives would be led to paradise, and the evil would be taken away from the righteous one. Even though some parts of the Quran teach that God gives direction and leads astray to whomever he wants to.
Ashʿarite Responses to Rationalism and the Limits of Human Freedom
The most prestigious theological school in Sunni Islam was the Ash’ariyya, after its founder, the philosopher al-Ash’ari. Its inception was a response to Mu’tazila’s extreme rationalism. Its adherents claimed that reason should be given exclusive precedence over revelation (Piwko, 2021). They embraced the Mu’tazilites’ cosmology but disregarded their religious tenets.
Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari founded the Ash’ariyyah in the tenth century after breaking with the Mu’tazilite philosophers, who were then the instructors and leaders. These were the arguments put forward by the Ash’arites to refute the Mu’tazilite theory of free choice.
The Ash’arites claimed that although humans have unlimited freedom of thinking and only limited freedom of action, only God has the power to initiate and control such activities. They argued that people are powerless to influence their future in any manner.
Second, they said that humans are incapable of understanding the concepts of justice and freedom, which are exclusively the purview of God. Because of this, God is sovereign; they also asserted that God’s actions are fair because He can send people to either heaven or hell, regardless of what humans may see (Piwko, 2021). He has an understanding above human comprehension. They also firmly contended that God can pardon those in hell for misdeeds.
References
Abd Malek, M. K. M. (2018). Colonialism and the Dialectics of Islamic Reform in a Malay State: Pengasoh and the Making of a Muslim Public Sphere in Kelantan, 1915-1925 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).
Brotherton, J. R. (2021). A Response to Paul Griffiths’ Annihilationist Proposal. Modern Theology, 37(1), 89-113.
Pektas, S. (2021). A comparative analysis of three Sunni Muslim organizations on ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ Islam in Egypt, Morocco and Indonesia. Religion, 51(2), 190-213.
Piwko, A. M. (2021). Islam and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Between religious practice and health protection. Journal of religion and health, 60(5), 3291-3308.