Atomism in Maturidi and Ash’ari Theology: A Chronological Analysis of Contributions and Debates

The Islamic conception of atomism represents one of the most profound and enduring contributions to both theological discourse and natural philosophy in the medieval period. Far from being a marginal theory defended by isolated thinkers, atomism within the Maturidi and Ash’ari theological traditions became the dominant cosmological framework from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, fundamentally shaping Islamic intellectual history and providing sophisticated arguments for the nature of God, creation, and causality. This thesis presents a comprehensive chronological analysis of the development of atomistic thought within these two major theological schools, examining their distinctive contributions and the debates that emerged both internally and with competing philosophical traditions.

Introduction

Atomism in Islamic theology (kalām) represents a unique synthesis and transformation of earlier Greek and Indian atomistic theories into a framework that supported rather than challenged monotheistic theology. Unlike its Greek predecessors that often served materialistic philosophies, Islamic atomism became a powerful instrument for defending theological doctrines concerning God’s omnipotence, creation ex nihilo, and divine intervention in the cosmos. As noted by Osman Bakar, “Ash’arite atomism was the fruit of the direct application of a particular theological perspective embedded in the Islamic Revelation to the domain of nature”8. This fundamental reorientation of atomistic thought demonstrates how the mutakallimūn (theologians) engaged with philosophical concepts while remaining firmly grounded in their religious commitments.

The term “atom” derives from the Greek “atomos,” meaning that which cannot be cut or divided1. In the Islamic theological context, however, atoms (jawāhir) were understood within a sophisticated framework that paired them with accidents (a’rāḍ) to explain the structure and continuous recreation of the physical world. This conceptual framework became central to both Maturidi and Ash’ari schools, though with important distinctions in their specific formulations and applications.

This thesis examines the development of atomistic thought within these schools chronologically, tracing its origins in early Islamic theological debates, its systematization by figures like al-Maturidi and al-Ash’ari, its maturation under al-Ghazali, and its sophisticated defense by later theologians such as al-Razi. Throughout this analysis, particular attention is paid to how atomistic conceptions influenced core theological doctrines including creation, divine attributes, causality, and human action, as well as how these ideas were deployed in debates with the philosophers (falāsifa) who championed competing Aristotelian hylomorphism.

Origins of Islamic Atomism in Theological Discourse

Early Theological Context

The emergence of atomism in Islamic theology must be understood within the broader context of early theological debates concerning divine attributes, creation, and causality. While Greek atomism had been largely rejected by Christian thinkers, it found fertile ground in Islamic thought precisely because it could be repurposed to support key theological positions8.

The initial systematic discussions of atoms and accidents in Islamic thought can be traced to the Mu’tazilites in the early ninth century. As noted in contemporary scholarship, “It was the Mu’tazilites who began the discussion [on atomism]”11. This early Mu’tazilite atomism was characterized by a distinctly theological orientation that emphasized the created nature of both atoms and accidents, a fundamental distinction from Greek philosophical atomism which often posited eternal matter.

Mu’tazilite Foundations

The Mu’tazilite conception of atomism was fundamentally tied to their theological commitments, particularly their emphasis on divine justice and human freedom. According to research, “Atomism in Mu’tazilism as an early Islamic theology is a cosmological concept that emphasizes that the universe consists of discrete (juz’ lā yatajazzā) or undivided parts created by God. This concept is also the basis for Mu’tazila’s rejection of determinism”12. By conceptualizing the universe as composed of discrete atoms and accidents that are constantly created and recreated, the Mu’tazilites sought to preserve both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

Key Mu’tazilite thinkers who developed atomistic concepts included Abu al-Hudhayl Al-‘Allaf and Al-Jubba’i, though notably, not all Mu’tazilites embraced atomism, with Ibrahim al-Nazzam being particularly skeptical12. Al-Nazzam’s skepticism was influenced by Aristotle’s denial of atomism, which led him to formulate the alternative concept of the ‘leap’ (ṭufrah) to explain certain physical phenomena11.

Despite these internal debates, the Mu’tazilite contribution to Islamic atomism was foundational, establishing key conceptual tools that would later be adopted and transformed by both the Maturidi and Ash’ari schools.

Al-Maturidi’s Adoption and Transformation of Atomism

Al-Maturidi’s Life and Intellectual Context

Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333/944), the eponymous founder of the Maturidi school, was born in Maturid near Samarkand in Transoxiana6. As one of the pioneers of the rational school of Islamic theology, al-Maturidi emerged in an intellectual environment characterized by intense theological debates, particularly with the Mu’tazilites who had established significant influence in the region.

Al-Maturidi’s intellectual formation occurred at a critical juncture in Islamic intellectual history, when theological concerns about divine attributes, human freedom, and the nature of reality were being intensely debated. While being committed to traditional Sunni theological positions, al-Maturidi nonetheless engaged deeply with rationalist methods, including the atomistic framework that had been developing in Islamic theological discourse.

Al-Maturidi’s Atomistic Framework

According to Mehmet Bulgen’s research, “al-Māturīdī embraced atomism and defended the prevailing kalām view that ‘the universe is composed of indivisible substances and accidents'”3. This embrace of atomism was not incidental but central to his theological project, providing a conceptual framework for understanding creation, divine action, and the structure of the physical world.

Al-Maturidi understood key concepts such as body (jism), substance (jawhar), and accident (‘araḍ) within the framework of traditional Islamic atomism, though with certain distinctive features that would come to characterize the Maturidi school’s approach3. His acceptance of atomism reflected a broader trend among the mutakallimūn to adopt this framework as a means of defending theological positions against competing philosophical systems.

Theological Applications of Atomism in Al-Maturidi’s Thought

While the extant sources on al-Maturidi’s specific formulations of atomism are limited compared to those of his Ash’arite counterparts, his acceptance of the basic atomistic framework had profound implications for his theology, particularly in relation to divine attributes and actions.

Al-Maturidi utilized the atomistic framework to support theological doctrines concerning creation ex nihilo, divine sovereignty, and God’s ongoing relationship with the created world. By conceptualizing the universe as composed of atoms that require continuous divine sustenance, al-Maturidi reinforced the theological position of the world’s complete dependence on God.

However, it is important to note that al-Maturidi’s approach to atomism was integrated into a theological system that maintained certain distinctions from the Ash’arite school, particularly regarding human agency and divine attributes. As noted in the literature, the Maturidi position “differed on some of the details” of divine attributes compared to the Ash’arite position6.

Early Ash’arite Atomism and Its Distinctive Features

Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari and the Foundations of Ash’arite Atomism

Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 324/935-6), the eponymous founder of the Ash’arite school, laid important groundwork for what would become one of the most sophisticated and influential formulations of Islamic atomism. After breaking with his Mu’tazilite teachers, al-Ash’ari developed a theological system that retained rationalist methodologies while reorienting them toward more traditionalist doctrinal positions.

A central element of al-Ash’ari’s cosmological vision was the argument “that there is no Secondary Causation in the created order. The world is sustained and governed through direct intervention of a divine primary causation”2. This rejection of secondary causation would become a hallmark of Ash’arite atomism, distinguishing it from competing philosophical frameworks and establishing the foundation for later developments in occasionalist thought.

Al-Ash’ari also introduced the crucial concept of kasb (acquisition), which would become integrally connected to Ash’arite atomism. This concept attempted to reconcile divine determination with human moral responsibility by suggesting that while God creates human actions, humans “acquire” the moral responsibility for these actions. As noted in the literature, this theory “is known as the theory of ‘acquisition’, or kasb. It is, of course, based directly on Ash’arite belief of God re-creating accidents within atoms at each and every second”11.

Al-Baqillani’s Elevation of Atomism

Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d. 403/1013), one of the most influential early Ash’arite theologians, played a pivotal role in elevating atomism from a useful philosophical framework to an essential theological doctrine. According to the research, al-Baqillani “adopted Aristotle’s concept of substance (jawhar) and accident (‘arad) and the atomism of the Mu’tazilah”10, transforming these concepts to serve Ash’arite theological ends.

Al-Baqillani’s most significant contribution was his transformation of the doctrinal status of atomism within Ash’arite theology. As noted in the literature, “its doctrinal status was transformed by al-Baqillani and other fellow theologians from being a mere premise in support of specific religious beliefs to being an essential part of the creed”8. This elevation of atomism to creedal status ensured its centrality to later Ash’arite theological discourse and its application to a wide range of theological problems.

Distinctive Features of Early Ash’arite Atomism

Early Ash’arite atomism was distinguished by several key features that would become central to the school’s theological system:

First, the Ash’arites developed the innovative proposition that “No accident can last two successive instances of time”11. This means that accidents-qualities like motion, color, or life-must be continuously recreated by God at each moment for the world to maintain coherence. This concept of continuous recreation became one of the most distinctive features of Ash’arite atomism and provided the foundation for their occasionalist theory of causality.

Second, Ash’arite atomism emphasized the complete dependence of the created order on God’s direct intervention. As explained in the literature, “it is only God who could create each and every accident on each and every body in each and every instance of time. The entire universe and all that transpires in it, according to the Ash’arites, must be directly controlled by God at each specific instance”11.

Third, early Ash’arites deployed atomism to develop sophisticated proofs for God’s existence and unity. These included the “dalīl al-‘a’rāḍ wa ḥudūth al-ajsām” (Proof from accidents and temporality of bodies) and the “dalīl al-tamānu'” (Proof from mutual exclusion)11. These arguments would become standard features of Ash’arite theological discourse in subsequent centuries.

Maturation of Atomistic Theology: Al-Ghazali’s Contributions

Al-Ghazali’s Life and Intellectual Context

Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (1058-1111) represents perhaps the most influential and sophisticated proponent of Ash’arite atomism. As a theologian based in Baghdad, al-Ghazali inherited a well-developed atomistic framework from earlier Ash’arite thinkers and deployed it with unprecedented philosophical sophistication in debates with the falasifa (philosophers).

Al-Ghazali’s intellectual context was characterized by the growing influence of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophy among Muslim intellectuals, particularly through the works of philosophers like al-Farabi and Ibn Sina (Avicenna). These thinkers promoted competing cosmological frameworks, especially hylomorphism (the theory of form and matter), that presented significant challenges to theological atomism.

Al-Ghazali’s Occasionalism and Critique of Causality

Al-Ghazali’s most significant contribution to Islamic atomism was his sophisticated defense of occasionalism-the doctrine that denies causal efficacy to created entities and attributes all causal power directly to God. In his influential work “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” (Tahāfut al-falāsifa), “Al-Ghazali launched a philosophical critique against Neoplatonic-influenced early Islamic philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina”2.

Central to this critique was al-Ghazali’s attack on the philosophers’ concept of necessary causation. “In response to the philosophers’ claim that the created order is governed by secondary efficient causes (God being, as it were, the Primary and Final Cause in an ontological and logical sense), Ghazali argues that what we observe as regularity in nature based presumably upon some natural law is actually a kind of constant and continual regularity. There is no independent necessitation of change and becoming, other than what God has ordained”2.

Al-Ghazali’s occasionalism was directly grounded in the atomistic framework developed by earlier Ash’arite thinkers. By accepting that “atoms are the only perpetual, material things in existence, and all else in the world is ‘accidental’ meaning something that lasts for only an instant”12, al-Ghazali provided a metaphysical foundation for his critique of necessary causation.

The Concept of Divine Habit (‘Ādah)

To explain the apparent regularity and predictability of natural processes despite denying necessary causation, al-Ghazali developed the important concept of ‘ādah (divine habit or custom). According to this theory, “God had ordained upon Himself to act within certain norms”11. This means that while there is no necessary causal connection between, for instance, fire and burning, God has established a customary pattern of creating the accident of burning whenever fire comes into contact with a combustible substance.

As explained in the literature, “This theory safeguarded the permanent order of the universe, and also explained the apparent ‘causal’ relationship in daily life. What man perceives as ‘permanent’ is merely God’s habit (‘ādah) manifesting itself, at each successive instant. Contingent events, which man perceives as having been subject to natural physical causes, are in fact the direct result of God’s constant intervention”11.

This sophisticated theory allowed al-Ghazali to maintain the integrity of scientific observation and regular natural processes while still affirming divine sovereignty and the moment-by-moment dependence of the world on God’s direct action.

Al-Ghazali’s Legacy for Islamic Atomism

Al-Ghazali’s work represents the most sophisticated formulation of Islamic atomism and occasionalism, combining metaphysical rigor with theological insight. As noted in the research, “The most successful form of Islamic atomism was in the Asharite school of Islamic theology, most notably in the work of the theologian al-Ghazali”12.

His critiques of necessary causation and his defense of occasionalism provided a robust theoretical framework that would influence Islamic theological discourse for centuries. Moreover, his engagement with the falasifa ensured that atomistic theology remained in productive dialogue with competing philosophical traditions, maintaining its intellectual vitality and relevance.

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Advanced Atomistic Arguments

Al-Razi’s Life and Intellectual Context

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149-1209) emerged as one of the most sophisticated defenders of atomism in the 6th/12th century, further developing the theoretical foundation established by earlier Ash’arite theologians. Described as “one of the most articulate, erudite and effective defender[s] of atomism”49, al-Razi engaged deeply with competing philosophical traditions, particularly the Aristotelian-Avicennan hylomorphism that had gained significant influence among Islamic philosophers.

Al-Razi’s intellectual context was characterized by increasingly sophisticated philosophical challenges to kalām atomism, requiring more rigorous and detailed defenses of the atomistic framework. His contributions thus represent an important maturation of atomistic arguments in response to these challenges.

Al-Razi’s Geometrical Arguments for Atomism

Al-Razi’s most distinctive contribution to Islamic atomism was his development of sophisticated geometrical arguments in support of the atomistic thesis. These arguments appear prominently in his work “al-Matalib al-‘Aliyyah” and represent some of the most sophisticated defenses of atomism in the Islamic intellectual tradition9.

While the precise details of these geometrical arguments are not fully elaborated in the available search results, they evidently provided a mathematical and logical foundation for the atomistic position, responding to philosophical critiques that had been raised against the coherence of the concept of indivisible atoms.

Al-Razi’s defense of atomism was motivated by theological concerns similar to those of earlier kalām thinkers. As noted in the research, “In the long history of Islamic philosophical thought, two contrasting theories of the fundamental structure of the physical world came to be predominant. These were the Aristotelian-Avicennan theory of form and matter (surah wa maddah = hylomorphism) of the great majority of the falasifah, and the kalam theory of atoms and accidents (jawahir wa a’rad = atomism) of the great majority of the Mu’tazilite and Ash’arite-Maturidite mutakallimun”4.

The Debate Against Hylomorphism

Al-Razi’s defense of atomism took place in the context of intense debate with proponents of Aristotelian hylomorphism, particularly as developed by Ibn Sina and his followers. This debate centered on fundamental questions about the nature of physical reality and its relationship to divine action.

From the perspective of the mutakallimūn, including al-Razi, hylomorphism was theologically problematic because it “tends to ascribe a degree of ontic and causal autonomy to nature or rather to matter that is viewed as very problematic (from both the physical and theological viewpoints) by the mutakallimun, for whom the world, including matter, is totally dependent on God for every spatio-temporal instant of its existence”4.

Moreover, “the notion, implicit in hylomorphism, of a more or less autonomous nature operating on the basis of inherent causal principles entails a necessary connection between physical causes and effects, thus putting an external restriction on the freedom of the divine will and power”4. This concern with preserving divine sovereignty and freedom was central to al-Razi’s defense of atomism against hylomorphism.

Against these perceived theological problems with hylomorphism, al-Razi and other mutakallimūn championed an atomistic framework that emphasized moment-by-moment divine creation and control. “In contrast, for the mutakallimun, God is not only the ultimate transcendent inceptor (mujid, muhdith) and motivator (muharrik) of the world (al-‘alam), He is also the proximate, immanent sustainer (mubqi) and administrator (mudabbir) of the world, directly involved through His knowledge, will and power in each and every particular aspects of the structures, processes and ends of nature”4.

Theological Applications of Atomism in Islamic Thought

Arguments for God’s Existence

One of the most significant theological applications of atomism in both Maturidi and Ash’ari thought was its use in formulating arguments for God’s existence. The mutakallimūn developed sophisticated proofs based on the atomistic conception of nature, most notably the “dalīl al-‘a’rāḍ wa ḥudūth al-ajsām” (Proof from accidents and temporality of bodies)11.

This argument proceeds from the atomistic premise that the world is composed of atoms and accidents to establish the necessity of a creator. As explained in the literature, this proof relies upon the following logic: “(i) existence is divided into bodies (composed of multiple atoms), and accidents; (ii) bodies are inherently composed of temporal accidents and cannot exist without them, and so: (iii) ‘that which is composed of temporal elements and does not precede it must also be temporal'”11. Since atoms and accidents are temporal (created in time), the entire universe must be temporal and thus requires a creator who brought it into existence.

Some Ash’arite theologians even sought scriptural support for this argument, claiming that “Abraham understood that the star, moon and Sun could not be gods because they were moving, and movement was an accident, hence Abraham realized that any body that carried within it an accident must be created and not a God”11.

Arguments for God’s Unity (Tawhid)

A second major theological application of atomism was its use in arguments for divine unity (tawhid). According to the research, “based upon this atomic conception, they proved that God is One, and cannot be more than one. This proof is known as dalīl al-tamānu’, or the ‘Proof from mutual exclusion'”11.

This argument proceeds by imagining a scenario with two gods with competing wills: “suppose that the universe had two gods, and one of them wished to create the accident of motion within an atom, while the other wished to create the accident of rest”11. Since motion and rest are contradictory accidents that cannot simultaneously inhere in the same atom, and since one accident must prevail, one divine will must overpower the other, demonstrating that only one being can possess true divinity.

Divine Attributes and Actions

Atomism also provided a framework for understanding divine attributes and actions. For the Maturidis, “the concept of Tawhid means affirming that Allah, may He be exalted, is One in His essence and indivisible; One in His attributes, and there is nothing like Him; and One in His actions and no one plays a part with Him in creation”6.

However, there were important differences between the Maturidi and Ash’ari approaches to divine attributes within their respective atomistic frameworks. According to the research, “The Maturidis affirmed only eight attributes of Allah, may He be exalted, although they differed on some of the details thereof. These attributes are: life, power, knowledge, will, hearing, seeing, speech and being a Creator”6.

Both schools faced the challenge of reconciling anthropomorphic descriptions of God in scripture with their atomistic conception of physical reality. The Maturidis took the position that “Other attributes that are indicated by the Quran and Sunnah, the sifat khabariyyah (attributes that are based on texts and cannot be proven by rational thought, such as the divine Countenance, Hand and so on, that have to do with His Essence or His actions), cannot – in their view – be proven on the basis of rational thinking, therefore they denied all of them, and they misinterpreted the texts that refer to them”6.

Creation and the Nature of Time

Atomism had profound implications for understanding creation and the nature of time in Islamic theology. A distinctive feature of Islamic atomism, particularly in its Ash’arite formulation, was the concept that “time itself is composed of discrete, successive units that are not directly connected to each other”11. This atomistic conception of time supported the theological doctrine of continuous creation, whereby God creates and recreates the world at each instant.

This conception of creation differed markedly from the Greek philosophical tradition, which often posited eternal matter. As noted in the research, the mutakallimūn “strongly affirmed the belief that both atoms and accidents were created, and that matter was not eternal”11. This affirmation of the created nature of atoms and accidents was central to the Islamic atomistic framework and distinguished it from its Greek predecessors.

The atomistic conception of time also supported the theological position that the world exists in a “constant state of recreation by God”2. This view of continuous recreation emphasized the world’s complete dependence on God at every moment, reinforcing the theological doctrine of divine sovereignty.

Predestination and Human Action

Perhaps the most contentious theological application of atomism was its deployment in debates about predestination and human action. Here, significant differences emerged between the Mu’tazilite, Maturidi, and Ash’arite positions.

For the Mu’tazilites, atomism provided a foundation for affirming human freedom and responsibility. As noted in the research, the atomistic conception of the universe “is also the basis for Mu’tazila’s rejection of determinism. With an atomized nature, humans are considered capable of creating actions independently (mubasharah), so they deserve rewards or punishments according to their actions”12.

In contrast, the Ash’arite school developed a more deterministic interpretation of atomism, linking it directly to their theory of kasb (acquisition). “The Ash’arite position on predestination is that God creates the actions of the servant directly without the servant himself causing that act, and that the servant then ‘acquires’ the reward or punishment of that deed. Hence, there is only an illusion of free-will, for in the end all actions are a direct result of God’s will and action”11.

This deterministic interpretation was “based directly on Ash’arite belief of God re-creating accidents within atoms at each and every second. Man, being merely the agency upon which these accidents are created, cannot actually be the cause of any of his own ‘actions’. Hence, atomism was the key factor that led Ash’arites to deny both natural causality and human free-will”11.

The Maturidi position occupied a middle ground between the Mu’tazilite affirmation of human freedom and the Ash’arite emphasis on divine determination, though specific details of how the Maturidis integrated atomism into their understanding of human action are less extensively documented in the available research.

The Debate with Aristotelian Hylomorphism

Philosophical Context of the Debate

The debate between kalām atomism and philosophical hylomorphism represents one of the most significant intellectual confrontations in medieval Islamic thought. This debate was not merely academic but had profound implications for understanding the relationship between God and the world, the nature of causality, and the extent of divine sovereignty.

As described in the research, “In the long history of Islamic philosophical thought, two contrasting theories of the fundamental structure of the physical world came to be predominant. These were the Aristotelian-Avicennan theory of form and matter (surah wa maddah = hylomorphism) of the great majority of the falasifah, and the kalam theory of atoms and accidents (jawahir wa a’rad = atomism) of the great majority of the Mu’tazilite and Ash’arite-Maturidite mutakallimun”4.

The falasifah, heavily influenced by Aristotelian and Neoplatonic traditions, advanced a hylomorphic conception of physical reality that understood bodies as constituted of matter and form. This conception “tends to ascribe a degree of ontic and causal autonomy to nature or rather to matter”4, an autonomy that the mutakallimūn viewed as theologically problematic.

Ibn Sina’s Critique of Atomism

Ibn Sina (Avicenna, d. 1037) emerged as one of the most formidable critics of kalām atomism, developing sophisticated philosophical arguments against the coherence of indivisible atoms. In works such as the Shifa, Najat, and ‘Uyun al-Hikmah, Ibn Sina “is also drawn to a critical engagement with aspects of Greek and kalam physical theories including atomism”4.

Ibn Sina’s critique of atomism formed part of his broader defense of an Aristotelian metaphysical framework that emphasized the continuity of matter and the reality of natural causality. For Ibn Sina, the atomistic denial of necessary causal connections undermined the possibility of scientific knowledge and conflicted with the evident order and predictability of natural processes.

The debate between Ibn Sina and proponents of kalām atomism extended beyond his lifetime. As noted in the research, “An aspect of this engagement is his wide-ranging debate through correspondence with the great polymath, al-Biruni (d. ca 1051), who also happens to be sympathetic to kalam atomism and criticises Ibn Sina for rejecting it”4.

Al-Ghazali’s Response to Philosophical Critiques

Al-Ghazali’s engagement with the falasifah, particularly in his “Incoherence of the Philosophers,” represents the most sophisticated theological response to philosophical critiques of atomism. As noted earlier, al-Ghazali “launched a philosophical critique against Neoplatonic-influenced early Islamic philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina”2, focusing particularly on their conception of necessary causation.

Al-Ghazali’s defense of atomism and occasionalism against philosophical critiques was not a rejection of the evident regularity of natural processes but rather a reinterpretation of this regularity in terms of divine habit (‘ādah) rather than necessary causal connections inherent in nature itself. This allowed al-Ghazali to maintain the theological emphasis on divine sovereignty while accounting for the predictable order of the natural world that the philosophers emphasized.

Averroism and the Spanish Philosophical Tradition

The debate between atomistic theology and hylomorphic philosophy continued beyond al-Ghazali, with significant developments in the Spanish (Andalusian) philosophical tradition associated with Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and his followers.

As noted in the research, “Other traditions in Islam rejected the atomism of the Asharites and expounded on many Greek texts, especially those of Aristotle. An active school of philosophers in Spain, including the noted commentator Averroes (AD 1126–1198) explicitly rejected the thought of al-Ghazali and turned to an extensive evaluation of the thought of Aristotle”16.

Averroes’s commentaries on Aristotle “did much to guide the interpretation of Aristotle in later Jewish and Christian scholastic thought”16, ensuring that the debate between atomism and hylomorphism would continue to shape philosophical discourse beyond the Islamic world.

Comparative Analysis of Maturidi and Ash’ari Atomism

Similarities in Atomic Theories

Despite their theological differences on certain issues, the Maturidi and Ash’ari schools shared fundamental commitments to an atomistic framework for understanding the physical world. Both schools accepted the basic premise that the universe consists of indivisible atoms (jawāhir) and accidents (‘arāḍ) that inhere in these atoms311.

Both traditions also emphasized the created nature of atoms and accidents, distinguishing Islamic atomism from Greek philosophical traditions that often posited eternal matter. As noted in the research, the mutakallimūn “strongly affirmed the belief that both atoms and accidents were created, and that matter was not eternal”11.

Moreover, both schools deployed atomism for similar theological purposes, particularly to establish arguments for God’s existence and unity, and to emphasize the world’s complete dependence on divine action. The atomistic framework provided both schools with conceptual tools for articulating and defending core theological doctrines against competing philosophical systems.

Theological Divergences

Despite these shared commitments to an atomistic framework, important theological differences emerged between the Maturidi and Ash’ari traditions, affecting how they interpreted and applied their atomic theories.

One significant area of divergence concerned divine attributes. According to the research, “The Maturidis affirmed only eight attributes of Allah, may He be exalted, although they differed on some of the details thereof. These attributes are: life, power, knowledge, will, hearing, seeing, speech and being a Creator”6. The specific interpretation of these attributes, particularly divine speech, differed between the two schools.

Another important area of divergence concerned the relationship between faith and works. As noted in the research, “The Maturidis say concerning the definition of faith that it is belief in the heart only. Some of them added that it is verbal affirmation, but they do not believe that it may increase or decrease… Thus they are in agreement with the Murji’ah on that score, and they differed with Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, because faith, according to the latter, is belief in the heart, words on the lips and physical actions; it increases when one does acts of obedience and decreases when one sins”6.

While both schools embraced occasionalism-the denial of secondary causation-the Maturidi tradition appears to have maintained a somewhat more nuanced position on human agency compared to the more deterministic Ash’arite approach. However, the specific details of Maturidi occasionalism are less extensively documented in the available research.

Development of Atomism in the Māturīdiyya School after Imām al-Māturīdī

The development of atomism in the Maturidi school after the death of Imam al-Maturidi is an important but less well-documented aspect of Islamic intellectual history. According to Mehmet Bulgen’s research, there was significant “development of atomism in the Māturīdiyya kalām school after Imām al-Māturīdī”313, though the specific details of this development are not extensively elaborated in the available research materials.

What is clear, however, is that atomism remained a central feature of Maturidi theological discourse, with later scholars continuing to engage with and develop the atomistic framework established by al-Maturidi. As noted by Mehmet Bulgen, “In the Islamic world, atomism was not a marginal theory defended by a small number of individuals or groups, as was the case in the other cultures; rather it was adopted by the official teaching and became the dominant conception of the universe from the third/ninth to the sixth/twefth centuries”17.

This continuity of atomistic discourse within the Maturidi tradition suggests its ongoing theological utility, even as specific interpretations and applications evolved in response to changing intellectual contexts and challenges.

Influence and Legacy of Islamic Atomism

Transmission to Western Philosophy

One of the most significant aspects of Islamic atomism’s legacy was its transmission to Western philosophical thought. As noted in the research, Islamic occasionalism, which was intimately connected with atomism, is “commonly misapprehended as originating in Western philosophy it already appears in the texts of Muslim scholars of the Ash’ari and Maturidi school in the 10th century, before being transmitted to Europe via the works of Averroes and Maimonides in the 13th century”5.

This transmission had profound effects on Western philosophical discourse, particularly in the seventeenth century, when “among the Cartesian philosophers and most famously in the works of Nicolas Malebranche that the theory flourished and was taken seriously”5. The influence of Islamic atomism and occasionalism on Malebranche and other Cartesian thinkers represents an important but often overlooked channel of intellectual exchange between Islamic and Western philosophical traditions.

Moreover, the debates surrounding Islamic atomism and occasionalism influenced major Western philosophers beyond the Cartesian tradition. As noted in the research, “Many of the great philosophers such as Gottfried W. Leibniz and David Hume authored their works in light of the occasionalist critique of other theories of causation, especially the much-contested concept of natural causation as formulated by Aristotle”5.

Continuing Relevance in Islamic Theological Discourse

Islamic atomism and occasionalism continue to hold relevance in contemporary Islamic theological discourse. As indicated by recent publications such as “Occasionalism Revisited: New Essays from the Islamic and Western Philosophical Traditions”5, there is ongoing scholarly interest in recovering and reassessing the historical roots and philosophical dimensions of occasionalism in Islamic thought.

This contemporary engagement with Islamic atomism and occasionalism recognizes that “this volume illustrates the indispensability of this theory for those who want to understand the central discussions and dynamics within Islamic and modern philosophy”5. By exploring the historical development and philosophical implications of these theories, contemporary scholars continue to find resources for addressing perennial theological and philosophical questions.

Scientific and Epistemological Legacy

The atomistic tradition in Islamic theology had complex interactions with emerging scientific thought. While in some respects the occasionalist interpretation of atomism might appear to undermine natural scientific investigation by denying necessary causal connections, in practice, the concept of divine habit (‘ādah) provided a framework for understanding the regular patterns observed in nature.

The mutakallimūn’s emphasis on the contingent, created nature of the physical world and their sophisticated analyses of atoms, accidents, and their relationships also contributed to an intellectual environment that valued careful observation and logical analysis of natural phenomena. As noted by Osman Bakar, “Ash’arite atomism was the fruit of the direct application of a particular theological perspective embedded in the Islamic Revelation to the domain of nature”8, suggesting that theological atomism represented a genuine attempt to understand and explain the natural world, albeit from a distinctively theological perspective.

Conclusion

The atomistic theories developed within the Maturidi and Ash’ari theological traditions represent one of the most sophisticated and enduring contributions of Islamic thought to intellectual history. From its earliest formulations in the ninth century to its mature expressions in the works of al-Ghazali and al-Razi, Islamic atomism provided a powerful conceptual framework for addressing fundamental theological and philosophical questions about the nature of reality, divine action, and causality.

While sharing a common commitment to the basic atomistic premise that the universe consists of indivisible atoms and transient accidents, the Maturidi and Ash’ari schools developed distinctive interpretations and applications of this framework, reflecting their broader theological differences. These differences notwithstanding, both schools deployed atomism to defend core theological doctrines, particularly the world’s contingency and dependence on God, against competing philosophical systems.

The debate between kalām atomism and philosophical hylomorphism represents one of the most significant intellectual confrontations in medieval Islamic thought, with implications that extended beyond the Islamic world through complex processes of transmission and influence. The ongoing scholarly interest in Islamic atomism and occasionalism testifies to their continuing relevance for understanding both historical and contemporary theological and philosophical discussions.

As this chronological analysis has demonstrated, the atomistic theories of the Maturidi and Ash’ari schools were not static doctrines but dynamic intellectual frameworks that evolved in response to changing contexts and challenges. Throughout this evolution, however, Islamic atomism maintained its distinctive character as a theological interpretation of physical reality that emphasized divine sovereignty, the contingency of creation, and the moment-by-moment dependence of the world on God’s sustaining action.