The Other History of Sunni Islam

You may have grown up in a Muslim family. Or you came to Islam later, out of curiosity, conviction, a path of your own. At some point you wanted to understand seriously. You read, listened, searched. And someone told you, or you eventually read, that what your family practiced, what your mosque practiced, what your country's tradition practiced, wasn't really Islam. That it was a deviation. That real Muslims thought differently, acted differently, avoided certain formulas, certain practices, certain scholars.

This moment exists. Millions of people have lived it, in France, Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia, Senegal. It feels like an illumination: you finally believe you've found the source, after years of patchwork. And it often comes with a new, sometimes harsh, look at what you'd received before.

This essay does not tell you that what you found is false. It offers something else: understanding where what you found comes from, what existed before it, and why one became so visible while the other faded. Not so you switch sides, but so you know the landscape you stand in.

Because there is something most introductions to Islam don't say: Sunni Islam produced, for nine centuries, a dominant theological tradition that most Muslims today don't recognize by name.

❦A name nine centuries carried

In the tenth century, in the city of Basra, Iraq, a theologian named Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī laid the foundations of a method. He did not invent a new religion. He answered a crisis: how to hold together fidelity to the revealed text and intellectual rigor in the face of Greek philosophers, of the rationalist Muʿtazilites — a school that made reason the final judge, even on the nature of God — and of objections of every kind crossing a rapidly expanding Islamic world? His answer: use reason as a tool, not as a master. Revelation remains the source, but reason protects it against readings that would do God an injustice.

This method, later called Ashʿarism, did not impose itself immediately. It met resistance, notably from the Hanbalis — the legal school most attached to a directly textual reading, from which the Athari current emerged. But it gradually took hold, carried by the great institutions of the medieval Islamic world.

The decisive turn came in 1066. The Seljuk vizier Niẓām al-Mulk founded the Niẓāmiyya in Baghdad, the first great Islamic university in history. He invited al-Juwaynī, al-Ghazālī's teacher, to teach Ashʿarite theology there. Within a few decades, Niẓāmiyya schools opened across the empire: Nishapur, Isfahan, Basra, Merv. Ashʿarism became the theology of the institutions.

Al-Ghazālī himself, who died in 1111, is its most famous figure. Jurist, mystic, philosopher, he is quoted today by both Salafis and Sufis alike, often without anyone noting he was Ashʿarite. His monumental work, the Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), remains one of the most read texts in Islamic literature.

This movement did not stay confined to the East. It spread west with the Berber dynasties, south along the Saharan trade routes, east to the Malay archipelago. A closely related, parallel school, Māturīdism, founded in the same century by Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī in Samarkand, covered Central Asia and the Turkic-speaking world. Together, the Ashʿarite and Māturīdite schools form what historians call classical Sunni kalam.

When the Ottoman Empire reached its height in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it administered territory stretching from Algeria to Iraq, from Egypt to Yemen. Its official theology was Māturīdite in Anatolia, Ashʿarite in the Arab provinces. Al-Azhar in Cairo illustrates this shift well. Founded in 970 by the Fatimids, it was first a center of Ismaili Shia thought, the doctrine of the dynasty that created it. Only after the fall of the Fatimids and Saladin's rise to power, in 1171, did it turn Sunni and gradually become the great reference center of Ashʿarism in the Sunni world. It still is.

This is not an opinion. It is a documented historical fact, confirmed by historians of every orientation: for roughly nine centuries, from Cordoba to Jakarta, the vast majority of Sunni scholars, universities, dynasties, and populations were formed in the Ashʿarite or Māturīdite tradition.

❦A map to see it

Names of cities and dynasties, listed like this, stay abstract. Here, then, is the same story seen from above: nine snapshots, from the Prophet's death to today, showing which theological tradition dominates where, and how it spread from its centers of origin.

One clarification is needed before looking at it. The map tells a story of institutions and dominant schools, country by country, century by century. It does not tell what each individual Muslim believed, nor the exact share of any given minority in any given region. A uniform color on a country does not mean unanimity: it means a tradition held the universities, the courts, the training of scholars there. That is already saying a lot, but it is not saying everything.

What it shows is unambiguous: a green that covers, era after era, most of the Sunni world. That green has a name most people have never learned.

❦The eighteenth-century shock, and what oil did

In 1703, in the Najd, the arid central region of what would become Saudi Arabia, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb was born. A Hanbali theologian, he developed a reading of Islam he believed stripped of centuries of additions. To him, Ashʿarite kalam, Sufi practices, the veneration of tombs, intercession, all of it was a deviation from original Islam. One had to return directly to the text, without the filters theological tradition had accumulated.

In 1744, he sealed a pact with Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd, a tribal chief of the Najd. The agreement was simple: ibn Saʿūd provided military power, ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb provided religious legitimacy. This pact, renewed and consolidated generation after generation, structured the Saudi state until recently: the Al Saʿūd family rules, the Wahhabi tradition — a name its followers reject, preferring Salafi or Athari — defines the state's official doctrine.

But for two centuries, this tradition remained essentially local. The Najd was poor, isolated, of little influence. It existed, defended itself, produced scholars. It did not transform global Islam.

What changed everything was oil.

Two centuries of silence;
75 billion dollars in thirty years.

In 1973, the first oil shock quadrupled the price of a barrel within months. Saudi revenues exploded. The Al Saʿūd family suddenly found itself sitting on wealth unprecedented in the history of the Arabian Peninsula. And with that wealth came a decision: use it to spread its reading of Islam across the world.

Between 1982 and 2005, the Saudi government is estimated to have spent this sum spreading this reading of Islam: at least 1,500 mosques, 2,000 schools, and 200 Islamic colleges, according to the most widely cited estimate. The Islamic University of Medina, founded in 1961 and massively expanded after 1973, trained tens of thousands of foreign students in Athari theology, who then returned to their countries as imams, teachers, preachers. Mohammed bin Salman himself, in a 2018 interview with the Washington Post, acknowledged that these investments were partly driven by the Cold War: Western allies had asked Saudi Arabia to use its religious resources to counter Soviet influence in Muslim countries.

The exact amount remains disputed: estimates range from about 1 to over 100 billion dollars depending on the source and what it counts; some researchers (including Peter Mandaville) urge caution toward figures considered hard to verify. The scale of the effort and the network it built are better established.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a public, openly acknowledged, documented state policy, carried out by a country that sincerely believes it is spreading religious truth and that had the means to do so at a scale unprecedented in the history of Islam.

The result is visible everywhere. In Morocco, a country of Ashʿarite Māliki tradition for centuries, mosques built with Saudi funds offer a different reading. In Egypt, Al-Azhar's Ashʿarism coexists with a Salafi current that openly challenges its authority. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim population, of Sufi and Ashʿarite tradition, has seen, since the 1980s, the rise of currents that reject this tradition as a deviation. In France, Belgium, and Canada, the first easily accessible Islamic resources in French or English are often produced by this current, because it invested massively in digital content production starting in the 1990s.

What this concretely produces: a generation of Muslims, in countries where Ashʿarism had been the norm for nine centuries, gradually came to see their own tradition as suspect. Not through violence, but through saturation of the available intellectual field. When the free books, the well-ranked websites, the best-produced YouTube channels, and the imams trained abroad all say the same thing, that thing ends up looking self-evident. And what it often says, explicitly or not, is that the Ashʿarite tradition is a Hellenistic deviation, a philosophical contamination, a departure from authentic Islam.

This is the moment when someone can watch their grandmother recite her litanies, their father visit a saint's tomb, their country celebrate the mawlid, and think these practices are an obvious deviation. Without knowing that this view was passed on to them by a school that does not have nine centuries of majority status behind it, but two centuries of expansion, fifty of them massively funded — a fact that settles nothing about who is right, but that explains why this view appeared to them as self-evident rather than as one choice among others.

❦Where do you start, to know God?

Behind the debate over tombs and the mawlid, behind the quarrels over practices and innovations, lies a deeper question. A question both camps have asked since the tenth century, and answered differently. It is not a question of detail. It is the founding question of all Islamic theology.

When you want to know God, where do you start?

Three elements are available. The fiṭra, that innate disposition the Quran says is inscribed in every human being prior to any culture or upbringing. Reason, the faculty of reasoning, analyzing, distinguishing the possible from the impossible. And the revealed text, the Quran and what has been transmitted from the Prophet. All three are present in Islam. All three are mentioned in the Quran. The question is not which to choose. The question is how to relate them, and which one serves as the starting point.

The Ashʿarite answer. For Ashʿarites, reason comes first, not because it is above God, but because it is necessary to read the text correctly. Before reading the Quran, you must already know something: that God cannot be a body, that He does not occupy space, that He is not bound by time. Why? Because if you approach the text without these prior certainties, you risk reading "the hand of God" and picturing a physical hand. You risk reading "God settled upon the Throne" and picturing a being who sits down.

This point deserves clarification, because it is sometimes presented as a pure borrowing from Greek philosophy, with no root in the text itself. That is not quite accurate. The principle Ashʿarites seek to protect, tanzīh, God's absolute transcendence, is stated in the Quran itself:

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ"Nothing is like Him" · Quran 42:11

Classical commentators, Ashʿarites included, read this verse as the very foundation of divine transcendence over everything that characterizes the created: organs, limbs, senses. Ashʿarite reason does not, in its own eyes, substitute itself for revelation; it places itself at the service of a principle revelation itself states. The disagreement with the Atharis is not over this point — both camps accept verse 42:11 — but over what consequence to draw from it for reading other verses.

Reason protects the text from anthropomorphism, from the human tendency to project onto God the characteristics of the created. This is not reason against revelation. It is reason in service of a correct reading of revelation.

When the text says something that seems to contradict what reason establishes with certainty about the divine nature, Ashʿarites have two tools. Taʾwīl: interpreting the verse non-literally, seeking a meaning compatible with divine transcendence. For example, "the hand of God" becomes "the power of God." And tafwīḍ: affirming the meaning of the verse while suspending the question of how.

ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ"then He settled upon the Throne" · Quran 7:54

Yes, but we do not know how, and we do not claim to know.

The Athari answer. For Atharis, and this is an intellectually serious position that should not be caricatured, this order is problematic. Who says our reason is reliable enough to judge the nature of God? Human reason is limited, conditioned, fallible. It has produced contradictory philosophical systems since the Greeks. Why trust it to establish what God can or cannot be, before even reading what God says of Himself?

Their answer: start from the text, and affirm what the text affirms, without trying to interpret it through categories foreign to it. "The hand of God" — affirm it. "God settled upon the Throne" — affirm it. But do not ask how, and do not liken this hand or this settling to anything created. The classical formula is bilā kayf: without how. Affirm the meaning, suspend the modality, refuse anthropomorphism without resorting to figurative interpretation.

What Atharis hold against Ashʿarites is therefore not interpreting out of caprice. It is importing Greek philosophical categories, foreign to the text, to decide a priori what God can or cannot be — and in doing so, subjecting the text to a filter the text itself never asked for.

What the two camps share. It must be said clearly: both camps reject anthropomorphism. No serious Ashʿarite thinks Atharis believe God has a physical hand like ours. No serious Athari thinks Ashʿarites deny the divine attributes. The disagreement is over method, not the conclusion. Both want to protect God's transcendence. They choose different paths to get there.

And both paths produced giants. Al-Ghazālī, Ashʿarite, is one of the deepest minds of medieval Islam. Ibn Taymiyya, Athari, is one of the most rigorous pens of the Hanbali tradition. Both deserve to be read, understood, and not reduced to caricature.

❦The circle no one escapes

There is an argument Atharis often make against Ashʿarites that seems decisive at first glance. Ashʿarites, they say, start from a rational presupposition to establish God's existence and nature. But how do they justify this presupposition? Through reason. So they use reason to validate reason. That is a circle. And a circle proves nothing.

The argument is correct. But it applies to everyone, without exception.

Atharis start from the fiṭra and the transmitted text. But how do they know their fiṭra is not distorted by their culture, their upbringing, their desires? An idolater's fiṭra also tells him his idols are true. And how do they know the text they received is authentic? Because a human chain of transmission guarantees it. But why trust that chain? Because the criteria of that chain are reliable. And why are those criteria reliable? Because the scholars who established them were trustworthy. And how do we know that? Through other criteria. The circle is there too, simply less visible because the starting point seems more natural, more immediate, less philosophical.

This is not a criticism of Atharis. It is an observation about the structure of all human knowledge.

The problem of the criterion. Philosophers call this the problem of the criterion. To know whether a piece of knowledge is true, you need a criterion. But to validate the criterion itself, you need another criterion. And to validate that one, yet another. At some point, you stop somewhere. You trust something the system itself cannot justify from outside.

Descartes tried to avoid this problem by seeking an absolutely indubitable truth. He found the cogito: I think, therefore I am. But even the cogito presupposes that logic is reliable, that "thinking" and "being" have a stable meaning. No one ever starts from absolute zero.

In science, the problem is identical. Why trust repeated observation as a method of knowledge? Because it has worked so far. But nothing guarantees it will keep working tomorrow. David Hume showed this in the eighteenth century with brutal clarity: the problem of induction has never received a definitive solution. Science rests on an act of trust that science itself cannot justify.

This is not a weakness of science. It is the condition of all human knowledge.

What this changes. Understanding this does not lead to relativism, to the idea that all positions are equally valid and you can believe anything. It leads to something more useful: clarity about your own starting point.

Ibn Taymiyya, the great Athari reference, was aware of this problem. His answer was subtle and deserves to be heard honestly. He did not say reason is useless. He said sound reason and authentic revelation never contradict each other. When they seem to, either reason malfunctioned, or the text was mistransmitted or misunderstood. This is a coherent position. But notice what it presupposes: that one can identify sound reason and authentic revelation. How? Through reason and tradition. The circle is elegantly phrased, but it is there.

Ashʿarites would say the same of their own approach, and the honest ones among them admit it. Al-Ghazālī himself, in the Munqidh min al-ḍalāl, his spiritual autobiography, describes a deep crisis during which he questioned the reliability of his own cognitive faculties. His way out of the crisis is not purely rational. It is a light God cast into his heart, he says. The greatest rational theologian of medieval Islam acknowledges that reason alone is not enough to ground certainty.

What this says about the debate. The question, then, is not: who starts from a presupposition and who doesn't? Everyone starts from a presupposition. The question is: which presupposition does one choose to inhabit, and with what clarity?

An Ashʿarite chooses their starting point;
so does an Athari. Neither finds it bare.

An Ashʿarite who understands this will not say: my method is the only rationally defensible one. They will say: here is why I chose this starting point, here is what it allows, here are its limits.

An Athari who understands this will not say: I have no presupposition, I just follow the text. They will say: I trust the fiṭra and transmission, here is why, here is what that implies.

And someone who received only one of these positions as if it were self-evident, never knowing another, equally old, equally serious position existed, deserves to know they inhabit one circle among others. Not necessarily to leave it. But to choose it, rather than simply undergo it.

❦The conclusion

What this essay does not say, and what it says. This essay does not say Ashʿarites are right. It does not say Atharis are wrong. It does not say disputed practices are all defensible, nor that they are all condemnable. It does not say you should switch sides, join a school, abandon what you received.

It says something simpler, and perhaps harder to hear.

It says Islam produced, over fourteen centuries, an intellectual conversation of extraordinary richness. A conversation between minds who took the same revelation seriously, read the same texts with the same rigor, and reached different conclusions on fundamental questions. Not out of negligence, not out of ignorance, not out of corruption. But because the questions are genuinely difficult, and honest minds can inhabit them differently.

This conversation still exists. Al-Azhar continues it. The great Islamic universities of Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia continue it. Contemporary scholars of both traditions keep feeding it, with a rigor the short formats of social media don't allow you to see.

What has changed in the past fifty years is access to this conversation. Not that it dried up, but that one particular voice became infinitely more audible than the others. Not because it is more correct. Because it had the means to spread at an unprecedented scale.

Knowing this resolves nothing. It does not say which school is right about the nature of the divine attributes. It does not settle the debate over intercession or the mawlid. It does not provide a ready-made method for reading the Quran.

But it changes one precise thing: how you look at what you received, and at what others received.

Someone who knows Ashʿarism was the norm for nine centuries no longer listens to their grandmother the same way. They no longer listen to the imam of their childhood mosque the same way. They no longer look at the practices of their country of origin the same way. Not to automatically validate them, nor to believe them true because old, but to know that what they took for an isolated deviation was the most widespread position in Sunni Islam for most of its history — a fact that settles nothing on the merits, but changes the question one asks before judging.

And someone who knows the current that formed them is itself historically, financially, politically situated, can keep following it with conviction, but with new clarity. They know they chose. Not that they simply found.

Perhaps that is the difference between an inherited faith and an inhabited one. Not that you abandon what you received. But that you receive it again, eyes open, knowing others received something else with the same sincerity, from the same source.

وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ"And above every possessor of knowledge is one who knows more" · Quran 12:76

Two methods, two unevenly known histories, one same quest for transcendence. وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم (God alone knows).

A pushback, an idea, a different reading? Write to the journal — every response counts.

← All essaysLire en français →