This sect has always interested me, they were considered the Muslim rationalists and many of Islams greatest scientists were mutazilities. Does anyone have any information about them and especially about their falling out with other sects?
The Mu’tazilah are from the Rationalist school of thought and have very many deviations in their methodological principles These people are the Rejecters of the Sunnah, and spring from the works of Ghulaam Ahmad Parweiz and Rashid Khalifah, both of whom were declared apostates, due to their very clear and apparent kufr.
Allahu aalim
Athari I found that web site you posted was very biased against countless sects. I am afraid it doesn';t explain much about Mutazilities, or their belief system.
i think they're the diet version of mutasheavies
I know that when the Khalifa of Baghdad chose to follow the views of this particular sect, he had many of the leading Ulema, including Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, tortured until they publicly accepted the sects beliefs.
Ahmed Bin Hanbal never did, and his stand against their views is one of the reasons that the majority of the common people remained Sunnis instead.
http://www.beliefnet.com/glossary/entry.asp?entry=mutazila
A rational school of theology in Islam. It was first connected with the names of Wasil ibn Ata (d. 748) and Amr ibn Ubayd (d. 761), who taught in the city of Basra, Iraq. A second group of Mutazilites flourished in Baghdad. Each group had its successive disciples and distinctive, subtle differences on points of doctrine. The controversial issue that led them to isolate themselves (Arab. itazala; hence the name Mutazila) from other theologians was whether the grave sinner was to be considered a believer or an unbeliever? Wasil’s answer was that the grave sinner was neither a believer nor an unbeliever but was in an intermediate position: a reprobate. By ca. 900, the Mutazila–who referred to themselves as “The People of Justice and Unicity”–had come to express their doctrine in five fundamental principles, affirming (1) the unicity of God, (2) God’s justice, (3) God’s commitment to carrying out His threats of punishment to the wicked and promises of reward to the faithful, (4) that the grave sinner is neither a believer nor an unbeliever, but in “an intermediate position,” and (5) commanding the good and forbidding the evil.
Discussion of the first principle logically led the Mutazilites to deny that God has essential attributes and affirm that God is living, all-knowing, all-powerful, willing, speaking, etc., in virtue of his essence. Consequently, the Qur’an is not uncreated, as mainline theologians held, but created. The principle of God’s justice led them to reject the doctrine of predestination and affirm human free will and an individual’s power over one’s actions. Furthermore, the adherence of the Mutazila to human free will and personal responsibility and accountability, and to the fifth principle (above) led them to espouse the political view that a sinful caliph should be deposed, and if he resists then rebellion against him is lawful and so is killing him.
The Mutazilite doctrine of the created Qur’an was upheld by three Abbasid caliphs: al-Mamun, al-Mutasim, and al-Wathiq (who ruled in succession from 813 to 847). They attempted to enforce Mutazilite doctrine on society by compelling the leading religious thinkers to subscribe to it. Resistance led to an inquisition, which caused many uncompromising scholars suffering and imprisonment. The most famous example is Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855). This episode ended when al-Mutawakkil succeeded to the caliphate in 847; persecution then was reversed and traditionalism restored. The Mutazila were weakened but continued to produce great scholars such as Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025) and al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144). Although Mutazilism seemed to collapse by the time the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, Mutazilite doctrines (with the exception of their doctrine regarding the caliphate/imamate) were adopted by the Zaydiyya branch of the Shia, which flourished in Yemen, where it still survives. Although the Mutazilites are often characterized as heterodox thinkers, their attempt to place Islamic religious belief on a rational basis in conjunction with revelation has found some support among twentieth-century Muslim intellectuals.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Athari: *
These people are the Rejecters of the Sunnah, and spring from the works of Ghulaam Ahmad Parweiz and Rashid Khalifah, both of whom were declared apostates, due to their very clear and apparent kufr.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm... the Mutazilites were eliminated over 1000 years before these two guys were born.
A comparitive site about the Mutazilites, and the Ashariyya movement which used logic to defeat it.
It's interesting reading to go and do reserach about the Mu'tazila, who tried to use rationalism to attack traditional Islam, and the Ash'ariyya, who successfully used rationalism to attack the Mu'tazila and defend traditional Islam.
Needless to say, the Ash'ariyya position won - and without needing to resort to any violent execution of heretics. They literally persuaded people to stop following the Mu'tazila on the basis that the Mu'tazila did not make sense.
Re: Mutazilites
An excellent thread worth discussing again.
Re: Mutazilites
These people are the Rejecters of the Sunnah, and spring from the works of Ghulaam Ahmad Parweiz and Rashid Khalifah, both of whom were declared apostates, due to their very clear and apparent kufr
well u know they only belive in quran in ur dictionary if some 1 only belive in quran who become apostate.wht a thought tell me why u hve said there is billions of people who belive in quran they r apostate?
this apostate Ghulam pervaiz has become the hightlight of Qadyani case where our Beliveable :) Mullah had couldnt prove tht who is nabi and wht is the defination of nabi and Rasool?10 year taak adalaat ke chakar katay rahi aur prove hi na karsakay ke Hazoor Pbuh akahari nabi hai aur is apostate ke ek mazboon se Qadyani ko kafir qaraar dia gayaa jo judge nay read kia tha
app ke so called Mullah ko yea hi nahi pata tha ke din kia muslim kaisay kahtay nabi kia hai woh tu Ahle iran ke scripture se jo ke muslim ko wirsay main mila tha parhtay hai aur is se is k means akhaz karty hai 10 saal taak rootay rahi ke nabi kia hoota tu is Alim Allama pervaiz ke Mazboon se in ko kafir karaar dia gaya.Yani ke app ke nazar main ek kafir ko kafir ke wajah se kafir qaraar dia gaya App ke Mullah ko tu pata hi nahi tha ke din aur Nabi kia hoota hai
Shukar hai ke Main quran ko parhnay laga warna mujhe pata hi nahi chalta ke Quran ke rooh se firqa wariyaaat shirik hai.
Re: Mutazilites
Ghulam Ahmd Pervez and Rashid Khalifah lived in the 1900s. The Mutazilites lived 1000-1100 years ago during the time of the Abbasid Khalifah.. The Mutazilites were behind the persecution of Ahmed ibn Hanbal.
Unless Ghulam Ahmed Perzez and Rashid Khalifah secretly invented a time machine to go back 1000 years before they were born, the Mutazilites could not possible have had anything to do with these two men.
Re: Mutazilites
An interesting debate between Abu 'Ali Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Jubba'i, one of the most celebrated of the Mu'tazili of 10th century AD and 'Ali ibn Isma’il al Ash'ari.
Al Ash'ari had been al-Jubba'i’s student for almost 25 years but later having seen the Prophet (saw) in his dream warning him not to follow mutazilah creed, he departed from them.
al Ash’ari one day confronted his teacher al Jubba’i with the following problem:
Three brothers, one evil, one righteous, and one a minor, died. What was the fate of each of them?
Al Jubba’i answered that the righteous was in Paradise; the evil in Hell; and the third belonged to the vague class of "People of Peace."
Al Ash’ari asked: If the minor asked for permission to visit his brother in Paradise, would it be granted? Al Jubba'i's answer, based on the Mu'tazilah doctrine of justice, was, No, because Paradise can be earned only with good deeds.
Al Ash'ari rejoined: But what if the minor claimed: Had I been allowed to five, I would have earned it.
Basing his stance on the Mu’tazilah principle of divine omni-goodness, al Jubba’i answered that the boy would be told that it was better for him to have died early.
Al Ash'ari then drove to his conclusion: But if the evil brother were then to ask God: You have known the good of the minor and decided to terminate his life in order to prevent him from doing evil and ruining himself. You knew my future as well. Why then did you do him the favor and not me?
Al Jubba’i was confuted and al Ash’ari made his exit from the Mu’tazilah ranks.
And he was instrumental in destroying the Mu'tazilah rationality
Re: Mutazilites
Heres my understanding of it.
Mutazilah were never really debated out of existence. It was a political victory, first for the Mutazilites who had the caliphs favour (and as expected lent support to persecution of those who disagreed with them, not just hanbalies) and then the Hanbalies/Asharies who marginalized the Mutazilites once they were in favour in the court. There were mutazili schools established in different part of the caliphate way after the asharies got favour, but they didnt have the influence of the court religion.
There was a distinction between asharies and hanbalies for quite a long time before the boundaries became blurred. Hanbalies were akin to today's tablighi jamaat, focusing on religious and ritualistic rigour and abhorring Kalaam/theological disputes usually taking the line of not going beyond the revealed text. Asharies were the middle ground between mutazilites (greek philosophy accepting theologians) and Hanbalies, they used greek methods of reasoning but did not go as far as the Mutazilites in assimilating greek philosophy. The story of the origin of the school is that Ashari (or ashar i forget the name) who was a mutazili saw a vision of the Prophet who seemed to suggest going to hadith, so he became a hanbali and abandoned theology, then he saw another dream in which the Prophet was angry at him abandoning the methods so he got the idea of finding middle ground.
If a hanbali read the Quran and read passages of God's hand then it was a hand exactly as we know a hand. If a Mutazili read that passage it was definitely a figurative hand because God philosophically cannot have a hand. If an Ashari read it then it was a hand but we dont know what a hand means. Could be literal could be figurative, as long as you dont assign a definite meaning your fine.
Its an intellectual cop-out that might be invulnerable to being disproven (how can you disprove "i dont know"?) but it also isnt very meaningful.
It should also be noted that the differences between hanbalies and asharies were so severe that routinely there were charges of heresy from one side to another. Ibn Taymiya was a Hanbali and he lambasted asharies for example.
Re: Mutazilites
Mutazila were a strong movement, but they were pretty much extinct after few hundred years. Shiite scholars were closer to Mutazilites than the traditionalists.
Re: Mutazilites
I am not familiar with Rashid. Although I have read a book by Parweiz. He didn’t denied sunnah, nor challenged / changed any of the basic beliefs that I (traditionally) grew up. He didn’t even claim to be RIGHT! He said he is presenting a theory /some logical thoughts (based on Quran) - he welcome all critisim, to have him proven wrong (which no one has yet to do so).
I have also heared, that he was a student of Illama Iqbal (who is no less than shakespare with his art).
P.S: Don’t assume that I am his follower or taking his side or rejecting…
Re: Mutazilites
[quote=ravage]
Heres my understanding of it.
Mutazilah were never really debated out of existence. It was a political victory, ------------------
-edit-------------------quote]
I would agree with that. This makes the most sense. Once a theory is presented (good or bad) it will linger on over history and emerge and submerge as a cycle... unless ALLAH SWT wills for somthing to be completely forgotten it will survive.
Mu'tazilla are prsent today as well. This does not mean that they will call themselves by this name. They will express the same logical reasoning thoughts that will be a reflection of Mu'tazilla.
Re: Mutazilites
AOA
This is an interesting thread and I would like to avail the honour of adding something in my humble capacity.
As rightly pointed out by brother MadScientist, it was Wasil bin Ata who was credited with the start of this sect. Over here I would like to narrate an incident which led to the name itself ie, "Mutazilla".
It is said that once Wasil bin Ata was attnding a sermon of Hazrat Hassan Basri (ra) when a controversy arose regarding the "Iman" of the persons who commit "Kabira Sins". As per the opinion of "Marjia Sect" they remained "Momin" but according to "Kharjia Sect" they were "Kafirs". Wasil asked Hazrat Basri (ra) for his view-point. Hazrat Hassan Basri (ra) was of the opinion that such persons were "Munafiq". Wasil differed and said that such persons were niether "Momin" nor "Kafir". Moreover they were not even "Munafiq". Infact they attained a middle status in between "Momin" and "Kafir" called "I'ti'zal" which led to the name "Mutazilla".
Another version is that after this controversail debate, Wasil got up, gatherd his friends and followers and went away to sit in another corner of the mosque. To this Hazrar Hassa Basri (ra) remarked, "I'ta'zal ann'a" meaning "He has driftd away from us", hence th name "Mutazilla".
Something more interesting in the next mail. So long.
Wassalam.
Re: Mutazilites
Re: Mutazilites
well i am a big supporter of reason in decision making but somehow or the other i do not understand why people should debate to such lengths. You cannot explore anything in religion on your own.
Rashid Khalifa has its site submission.org. He claimed to a be rasool of Allah saying that Nabi's have finished but rasool's are not. Rasool is whom who only gives the previous message and nabi has shariat as well. so a nabi and rasool like hazrat Muhammad brought shariat and taught it and he as a rasool is only purifying the original shariah'e Muhammadi. Anyway he was killed by a zealous Muslim. He is most famous for his mathematical work of finding how quran is based on a prime number 19.
It really striked to me that no where i have read about last rasool however for nabi, there had been many ayats. Can any one tell me if any rasool can come after Hazoor (i do not believe it however it is a question in intellectual exercise)
Re: Mutazilites
He is khatam-ar-rusul and khatam-al-anbiya
here is the explanation:
(from Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
He is the Last of the Prophets (surah Al Ahzab verse 40)
وَلَـكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيماً
(but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everything.) This is like the Ayah:
اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ حَيْثُ يَجْعَلُ رِسَالَتَهُ
(Allah knows best with whom to place His Message) (6:124). This Ayah clearly states that there will be no Prophet after him. If there will be no Prophet after him then there will surely be no Messenger after him either, because the status of a Messenger is higher than that of a Prophet, for every Messenger is a Prophet but the reverse is not the case. This was reported in many Mutawatir Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah via a group of his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.
Imam Ahmad recorded a narration from Ubayy bin Ka`b, from his father that the Prophet said:
مَثَلِي فِي النَّبِيِّينَ كَمَثَلِ رَجُلٍ بَنَى دَارًا فَأَحْسَنَهَا وَأَكْمَلَهَا، وَتَرَكَ فِيهَا مَوْضِعَ لَبِنَةٍ لَمْ يَضَعْهَا، فَجَعَلَ النَّاسُ يَطُوفُونَ بِالْبُنْيَانِ وَيَعْجَبُونَ مِنْهُ وَيَقُولُونَ: لَوْ تَمَّ مَوْضِعُ هَذِهِ اللَّبِنَةِ، فَأَنَا فِي النَّبِيِّينَ مَوْضِعُ تِلْكَ اللَّبِنَة»
(My parable among the Prophets is that of a man who built a house and did a good and complete job, apart from the space of one brick which he did not put in its place. The people started to walk around the building, admiring it and saying, "If only that brick were put in its place. ‘’ Among the Prophets, I am like that brick.) It was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who said "Hasan Sahih.‘’