Mu’tazila and Other Schools of Thoughts in Islam

Mu’tazila

            Although it is the primary criterion that differentiates us from animals, reason is a  burdensome thing, a curse as much as it is a gift. In some cases ignorance is truly a bliss. Maybe that is what Allah is trying to teach us with the ayeh “If We had sent down this Qur’an upon a mountain, you would have seen it humbled and coming apart from fear of Allah” (Hasr 21). Monotheism or tawhid is pretty straight forward and reasonable concept, up until one starts to contemplate about the essence of the Creator. The difficulty is essentially stemming from trying to comprehend infinite with the finite tools of senses and reason. In a weak hadith it says “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, his essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”[1]

In Turkey, it is pretty common to have children memorize the statement: “We are Hanefi in practice and Maturidi in akidah.” Everybody generally knows what being a Hanefi is about but very few people know what Maturidi is. An ordinary Muslim with average religious knowledge doesn’t really question or care about the matters that differentiates Maturidism from Ash’arism, or Mu’tazila. I have specifically chosen this topic because I have been wondering these details for a long time.

Mu’tazila is a movement that goes back to the beginning of the second century after the Prophet (PBUH). As it is told, Wasil bin Ata, a follower of Hasan al-Basri (d. 110-728) left the latter’s circle upon a confrontation. During one of the gatherings a man asked from Hasan al-Basri to clarify the status of a sinner in Islam. He said Kharijites think a sinner is doomed for hell forever, whereas others like Murji’tes think, his sins will not harm his faith, just like an unbeliever’s good deeds will not help him in the hereafter. Before Hasan al-Basri could answer the man, Wasil bin Ata stood up and said “a sinner who commited a grave sin is neither a believer nor unbeliever, his status is somewhere in between.” And later, he walked away and left Hasan al-Basri’s circle for good. It is told that the term Mu’tazila comes from the word “i’tizalah,” meaning, he separated (from us).

From the very beginning, Mu’tazila movement was associated with rationalism. In the story, before Hasan al-Basri could answer the question based upon his knowledge of the orthodox tradition at the time, Wasil used his reason to answer it, not even wondering what Quran or Hadith would say about the issue. So, the basic characteristic of Mu’tazila is that it chooses reason over tradition. We don’t know whether Wasil was influenced by Greek Philosophy or not; but, rationalism started to influence Islamic thought after Greek classics were started to be translated into Arabic during the reign of the second Abbasid Khalifa al-Mansur (d. 158-775).

Eleventh century Mu’tazila scholar, Qadi Abd al-Jabbar explains why one should choose reason upon Quran, Hadith, and “ijma,” general consensus:

Some might find this ranking strange and think that the sources should be limited to Quran, Sunnah, and Unanimous Consensus (ijma). Or they might think that reason, as a source of knowledge, should come after (these sources). But this is not true. For God The Exalted only addressed the people of reason (ahl al-aql). And it is on the basis of reason that we know the Quran to be authoritative; likewise with the Sunnah and Unanimous Consensus. Thus, the reason is the primary source (al-asl). And we only speak of Quran being primary inasmuch as it alerts us to the dictates of reason.[2]

As good as this sounds, it dismisses the fact that reason is limited and restricted to several variables such as time, place, age, intelligence, culture, and most importantly the prior knowledge of persons.

            Therefore, Mu’tazila tried to explain expressions in the Quran which didn’t make sense to them, such as God’s eyes or hands, by allegorical interpretations (tawil), that they should mean God’s knowledge and generosity. They also dismissed any hadith which they deemed to be unreasonable as fake and considered any “ahadi” hadith authentic which made sense to them, regardless of authenticity of the hadith’s chain.

            Sherman Jackson enumerates Five Principals (al-usul al-khams) that constitutes the articles of Mu’tazila as the following:

1- Monotheism (tawhid) emphasizes the impossibility of coeternals. On the basis of this doctrine, Mu’tazila denied that God had attributes, since these attributes have to be coeternal with God.

2- Divine omnibenevolence (adl) was the basis on which the Mu’tazila affirmed human efficiency, since a just God could neither sponsor human evil nor reward and punish people for actions over which they exercised no effective control

3- Divine promise and threat (al-wa’d wa al-wa’id) was the basis on which repentant believers were said to be bound to be rewarded and unrepentant believers were bound to be punished in the afterlife.

4- The status between the two states (al-mazilah bayna al-manazilatayn) applied to miscreant believers.

5- The duty to command right and forbid wrong (al-amr bi’l ma’ruf wa’n nahy ani’l-munkar) translated into a certain commitment to socio-political activism.[3]

Among these five principals the first two especially the second one, divine omnibenevolence (adl) was the main characteristic that Mu’tazila associated themselves with. Although they often called themselves as the community of al-tawhed wal-adl, they helt al-adl, as the main attribute over the other attributes. The main distinction between Mu’tazila and the other movements which were born as a reaction to Mu’tazila rationalism was also arising from this characteristic. Mu’tazilah deemed God’s omnibenevolence (adl) as His primary attribute, whereas Ash’arites, Maturidis, and Traditionalists deemed his omnipotence (qudrah) as His primary attribute.

“If God has power over all things, how can we explain that humans are also under the impression that they have power over their own actions? Do humans have power (qudra) to carry out their own actions, or is God the force actualizing this power? And if God solely possesses this power, why does the human earn God’s blame for bad actions and His reward for good ones?”[4] In order to resolve this contradiction they took al-adl as their reference point. And that was the main point that they distinguished themselves from ortodox Islam. Their approach was a reaction to the predeterminism,  jabriya. “They attributed creatures the power to carry out their own acts. They argued that if humans did not have the power to choose and create their own acts, there would be no point to the rewards and punishments promised by God to humans in the next life. They claimed that God was a just God and that it was inconceivable that God would reward or punish humans for acts over which they had no power or control.”[5]

Their understanding of God’s omnibenevolence, al-adl is quite problematic just like their approach to reason. They assume God must be good and exonerated from all evil, ignoring the fact that the concepts of good and evil are also relative concepts, depending on time, place, culture, and knowledge, in the same sense like reason. For example killing a person unrighteously is wrong and evil, but killing an animal in order to benefit from its products is not. What constitutes which one is evil, and which one is not other than God’s decree? They try to explain Quranic terminology such as God’s hands or eyes with allegorical expressions, because God’s is beyond our imagination but when it comes to God’s omnibenevolence they hold God accountable for humanistic understanding of good and evil.

Because of this “They are accused of being dualists and of having their origin in Zoroastrianism because, in terms of their interpretation of goodness and badness, they believe that God is absolutely good and therefore cannot be the source of evil, and that there shall be a source for evil, which is other than God.” [6]

Mu’tazila had a bizarre understanding of tawhid, the Oneness of God. They thought, deeming the attributes of God such as his knowledge and speech as eternal, would mean ascribing eternity to other things than Allah, thus it would constitute shirq.  So they introduced the concept of created Quran, again contradicting to the orthodox Islam which deemed Quran as Allah’s eternal speech. In a sense Mu’tazila was a movement of extremes. Here one can easily see the conflict in their ideas. On one hand, they ascribe qudra to humans to carry out their own actions, on the other hand they refrain from believing God’s speech and knowledge was eternal with him. Instead they would say His attributes were part of His essence and cannot be perceived as separate from his zhath.

It is unfortunate that the first thought crime persecution of Islamic history took place on such a superficial argument; whether Quran was the eternal speech of Allah or was it created later. If they knew time was a relative thing, and it was created itself by God, and God was above and beyond time, they would probably not insist on a created Quran in time. “At the political level, the espousal of the Mu’tazila cause by al-Ma’mun, which in 827 and 833, instituted the notorious Mihnah to test the adherence of religious judges (qadis) to the Mu’tazila maxim of the created Quran,.”[7] For fifteen years (833-848) many scholars were questioned and tortured by inquisitions run by Mu’tazila “qadis.”

The most famous scholar who stood up against this intellectual tyranny was Imam Abu Hanbal (d. 855). He was the most influential jurist at the time whose teachings later constituted the school of Hanbali in practice. He is also considered as the founding father of Traditionalist movement in terms of aqidah. He was imprisoned and tortured for several years. Because of his uncompromising stance against the tyranny of the state, he became a monumental personality in Islamic history. His case is another peculiarity of the Islamic History that Sunni Islam always enjoined to be obedient to the state, and whomever had courage to stood up against oppressive governments were pelted as ahl al fitna during their lifetimes and were venerated much later, generally they passed away.

Mu’tazilah became the dominant school of thought at the early stages of Abbasid Caliphate and stood that way over a century, generally associated with Hanafi. Ash’arism and Maturidism came into being concurrently in the different parts of Islamic Empire as a reaction to Mu’tazila. Ash’arism was established by one of the Mu’tazilah followers, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 936). Its foundation is also associated with an anecdote between Al-Ash’ari and his teacher, famous Mu’tazila scholar Al-Jubbai (d. 915). According to the anecdote, As-Ashari asked his teacher about the fate of three brothers:

One being a believer, the other being an infidel and still another being a child who is not obligated of Divine injunctions and asked him, “what is their aftermath?” al-Jubbai answered, “The believer would be in the men of rank and file and the infidel would be in the men of doom and perdition and the child would be in the men of salvation”. Al-Ash’ari went on asking further, “Could the child be among the men of rank and file” ? Naturally al-Jubbai’s answer was negative, upon hearing it, al-Ash’ari interrogated ‘why’. Al-Jubbai asserted that the believer had earned this status while the child had not. Al-Ashari made a pertinent remark saying that the death of the child in his early age was not of his choice, he died as God willed him to die. Al-Jubbai answered that God knew the fate of the child that he would grow as a sinner and He, therefore , deemed it fit in his well-being to let him die in the childhood. Al-Ash’ari, then, remarked that the infidel would ask God as to why He did not care for his well-being even after having the knowledge of his fate of growing as an infidel and did not let him die as a child. Al-Jubbai was then silent.[8]

            As the story indicates, Ash’aris as well as Maturidis reject the notion of dictating humanistic concept of morality onto God. God is not only omnipotent, in the sense of having qudrah, that He can do whatever he wills; but also He is not bound to any humanocentric moralistic boundaries, that he can choose to punish or reward whomever He wishes. According to Ash’aris and Maturidis an action is not good or evil in its essence but should be valued according to the Divine revelation. For example swine meat is not haram because it disgusting, but it is disgusting because Allah designated it to be disgusted.

            Another anecdote between Mu’tazila scholar, Qadi Abd al-Jabbar and one of the major Ash’ari scholars Abu Ishaq al-Isfara’ini is noteworthy:

Said Abd al-Jabbar: “Glorified be He Who is above commuting evil.” Said al-Isfara’ini: “Glory be He in whose dominion nothing occurs without His permission.” Said Abd al-Jabbar: “Does our Lord will that He be disobeyed?” Said al-Isfara’ini: “Could our Lord be disobeyed against His will?” Said Abd al-Jabbar: “If He denies me guidance and decrees my perdition, does He commit a good or evil act?” Said al-Isfara’ini: “If He denies you something that belongs to you, then He commits an evil act. But if He denies you something that belongs to Him, He simply singles out for His mercy whomsoever He pleases.”[9]

            However Ash’aris and Maturidis did not deny free-will at all. In order to explain humans’ evil acts without challenging God’s omnipotence, they introduced the concept of kasb. “With kasb, in other words, God grants only a specific power for a specific action at a specific instant, namely the instant at which a human being wills an act.”[10] Basically, when a human commits an evil act, the will so thus the responsibility belongs to the human and God creates the action.

Not far from Ash’ari in aqidah, but far in distance, Maturidism was established by Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 944) in Samarkand. Although Al-Ash’ari and Imam Maturidi were contemporaries there is no indication that they met each other. Considering the communication resources at the time, it is hard to think that Ash’ari thought would reach Samarkand concurrently. In a sense Maturidism can be considered a middle way between Mu’tazila and Ash’arism. The main characteristic that differentiates Maturidism from Ash’arism is their emphasis of God’s wisdom, hikmah. God’s unlimited wisdom plays the same role as God’s justice plays for Mu’tazila in restricting God’s omnipotence. According to Maturidis God can create evil as long as it suits his eternal wisdom.

Although Ash’arism and Maturidism emerged as a reaction to Mu’tazilas’ hardcore rationalism, it is impossible to say that these movements were lacking reason. Rather than denying rationalism or reason they are just alternative ways of thinking about God’s omnipotence and humans’ free will. It is amazing to see how intellectually vibrant was the Islamic geography during the tenth to twelfth centuries despite of political upheavals. I believe how and why the Islamic civilization lost this vibrancy and started to decline in intellectualism and sciences should be analyzed thoroughly.

Bibliography

[1] Daily Hadith Online, “Think about wonders in creation, but not Allah’s essence,” Accessed December 16 2018, https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2017/02/14/hadith-on-reflection-think-about-wonders-in-creation-but-not-allahs-essence/

[2] Qadi al-Jabbar, Fadl al i’tizar wa tabaqat al-mu’tazila, ed F. Sayyid (Tunus: al-Dar- al-Tunusiyah li Nasrg, 1974), 139; quoted in Sherman A. Jackson, Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 49.

[3] Jackson, Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering, 50.

[4] Griffel, Frank. al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 124.

[5] Khan, Dewan. Mu’tazilaism: An Introduction to Rationality in Islam, “International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences”, Volume-4, Issue-10, October 2017.

[6] M. Kamal, “Mu’tazilah: the rise of Islamic rationalism,” Australian Rationalist 62 (Autumn 2003), 27.

[7] Fakhry, Majid. Islamic Philosophy A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: One World Publications, 1997, 57.

[8] Ataur Rahman. “Contribution of Al-Ash’ari to Islamic Thought and His Influence on the Later Ilm al-Kelam.” (PhD Diss., Aligarh Muslim University, 2002), IX.

[9] Al Subki, Tabaqat al-Safi’iya, 4:261-62, also al-Taftazani, Sharh, 82; quoted in Sherman A. Jackson, Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering , 49.

[10] Jackson, Sherman. Islam and The Problem of Black Suffering, 89.