Is the Ash'ari view of God's speech really different from the Mu'tazili view?

Yeah. I mean that's my experience of them. No it's true and I think what you end up with over history is you have different groups of Hanbalis with their own approaches. So there is a more Kalamish Hanbalism and then there is an anti-Kalam Hanbalism and there's different species of them and and then we could say it's probably true for for many groups but but the overall issue that that is plaguing everybody including the the current controversy is this.

What is the relationship between God's actual speech and the Arabic Quran? And then what is the nature of the Arabic Quran? It is is the revelatory form oral or is the revelatory form written? Those are those are your questions. Because the whole question is it preserved? Like to say oh is the Quran preserved? Well well what do we mean by the Quran? And then what utility does preservation have because if whatever the Quran is if it's only if it's main job if the main function is to put a person in touch with the Kalam Allah then frankly a little alteration

here or there may not even affect it may not affect that at all. And if Because I felt that in the traditional I mean in the traditional narrative politics and not just by politics sectarian politics has played a huge role in ending up sometimes with just ambiguous kind of teachings and you know kind of creeds in the sense that like if we take this issue the Ash'aira who represent the dominant Sunni kind of strand of Muslims

they seem to be saying one thing in a book in their books but then they also will say things like you know like like you're saying oh no but this is and yes we are it's like they want to draw in essence it's like one Sunni Ash'ari scholar said to me in essence it's just what the Mu'tazila said but it's just rebranded and they don't want to kind of get attached with that name. So they want to make sure they've kind of rebranded it differently but it's not in essence saying anything different.

I mean I don't know what your thoughts on that are. I think it's certainly true that the Ash'aris and the Maturidis have have borrowed a lot of Mu'tazili thinking. I I don't think anybody can deny that. They've borrowed the methodology they've borrowed a whole bunch of concepts from the Mu'tazili. So You know you say borrow but could it not be that they are simultaneously kind of coming up with similar because similar eras similar kind of ideas like people have similar ideas in in the same era.

It's true you're right on that sense but it is also true that historically speaking the Mu'tazili as a more sort of scholastic group precede the Ash'aris by at least a century or century and a half. Right? And we do know whether the myth is true or not but like Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari himself was trained in in Mu'tazili theology.

I mean he was he was the nephew of Jubba'i isn't it? Abu Ali al-Jubba'i I believe I believe so but I'm not I don't know the family relation per se but he was trained by by them. And so that never that didn't really leave us thinking. As to the the question of is the Ash'ari view the same as the Mu'tazili view? Now the Hanbalis the Hanbalis would say that it is.

The Hanbalis would polemicize against that. But, I think one key difference is this. For the Mu'tazilites, God's speech is sounds and letters. That's what Kalam Allah is for Mu'tazilites. The Kalam is sounds and letters. For Ash'aris, Kalam, whether human or divine, is not sounds and letters. It's the meaning being expressed through sounds and letters.

Yeah. Now, that is an important integral difference there. It is cuz that sort of change that set that frames the whole debate. Uh it's not that Mu'tazilites say the Kalam Allah is created and the Ash'aris say it's uncreated. That's That's the secondary debate. The primary debate is what's the nature of Kalam? What's the nature of speech? And on this, even grammarians would have a different answer. Because what's funny is you get some grammarians.