Mu'tazilism
Mu'tazilism (
The later Mu'tazila school developed an
The movement reached its political height during the
Etymology
The name Muʿtazili is derived from the reflexive stem VIII (iftaʿala) of the triconsonantal root ع-ز-ل "separate, segregate, retire", as in اعتزل iʿtazala "to separate (oneself); to withdraw from".[22]
The name is derived from the founder's "withdrawal" from the study circle of Hasan al-Basri over a theological disagreement: Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭā' asked about the legal state of a sinner: is a person who has committed a serious sin a believer or an unbeliever? Hasan answered the person remains a Muslim. Wasil dissented, suggesting that a sinner was neither a believer nor an unbeliever and withdrew from the study circle. Others followed to form a new circle, including ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd. Hasan's remark, "Wāṣil has withdrawn from us", is said to be the origin of the movement's name.[23][24]
The group later referred to themselves as Ahl al-Tawḥīd wa l-ʿAdl (اهل التوحيد و العدل, "people of monotheism and justice")[25] and the name muʿtazili was first used by its opponents.
The verb iʿtazala is also used to designate a neutral party in a dispute (as in "withdrawing" from a dispute between two factions). According to the
History
Origin
The Mu'tazili appeared in early Islāmic history in the dispute over
According to Sunni sources, Mu'tazili theology originated in the eighth century in Basra (now in Iraq) when Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭā' (died 131 AH/748 AD) left the teaching lessons of Hasan al-Basri after a theological dispute regarding the issue of al-Manzilah bayna al-Manzilatayn (a position between two positions).[23] Though Mu'tazilis later relied on logic and different aspects of early Islamic philosophy, ancient Greek philosophy, and Indian philosophy, the basics of Islam were their starting point and ultimate reference.[28][29]
The accusations leveled against them by rival schools of theology that they gave absolute authority to extra-Islamic paradigms reflect more the fierce polemics between various schools of theology than any objective reality. For instance, most Mu'tazilis adopted the doctrine of creation
Mu'tazili theology faced implacable opposition from Hanbali and Zahiri traditionalists, on the one hand, and from the Ash'ari school (founded by a former Mu'tazili, Abu al Hasan al-Ash'ari) and Maturidi theologians on the other.[30]
Ahl al-kalām
Scholar
Historical development
Abu al-Hudhayl al-'Allaf (died 235 AH/849 AD), who lived a few generations after Wāṣil ibn ʿAtāʾ (واصل بن عطاء) and ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd, is considered the theologian who systematized and formalized Mu'tazilism in Basra.[35] Another branch of the school found a home in Baghdad under the direction of Bishr ibn al-Mu'tamir (died 210 AH/825 AD);[35] the instigators thought it was the Caliph's own scheme:[36][37][38][39] under al-Ma'mun (813–833), "Mu'tazilism became the established faith."
The Mu'tazilites maintained man's creation
Mihna
The persecution campaign, nonetheless, cost them their theology and generally, the sympathy of the Muslim masses in the Abbasid state. As the number of Muslims increased throughout the Abbasid Caliphate, and in reaction to the excesses of this newly imposed rationalism, theologians began to lose ground. The problem was exacerbated by the Mihna, the inquisition launched under the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (died 218 AH/833 AD).
The movement reached its political height during the Mihna, the period of
Post-Mihna
Under Caliph
The
Beliefs
Part of a series on Aqidah |
---|
Including:
|
The Five Principles
According to a "leading Mu'tazilite authority" of the end of the ninth century (al-Khayyat),[47] and "clearly enunciated for the first time by Abu al-Hudhayl",[2] five basic tenets make up the Mu'tazilite creed:
- monotheism,[48]
- justice and unity,[48]
- the inevitability of the threats and promises of God (or "the warning and the promise"),[48]
- the intermediary position (i.e. Muslims who die without repentance after committing a grave sin are neither mu'mineen (believers), nor kuffar (non-believers), but in an intermediate position known as fasiq),[48]
- the injunction of right, and the prohibition of wrong.[48]
1. Monotheism
All Muslim schools of theology faced the dilemma of affirming divine transcendence and divine attributes, without falling into anthropomorphism on the one hand or emptying scriptural references to those attributes of all concrete meaning.[49]
The doctrine of Tawhīd, in the words of the prominent Mu'tazili scholar Chief Justice
2. Divine justice
Facing the problem of existence of evil in the world, the Mu'tazilis pointed at the free will of human beings, so that evil was defined as something that stems from the errors in human acts. God does nothing ultimately evil, and he demands not from any human to perform any evil act. If man's evil acts had been from the will of God, then punishment would have been meaningless, as man performed the will of God no matter what he did. Mu'tazilis did not deny the existence of suffering that goes beyond human abuse and misuse of their free will granted to them by God. In order to explain this type of "apparent" evil, Mu'tazilis relied on the Islamic doctrine of taklif — "God does not order/give the soul of any of his creation, that which is beyond its capacity." [Qur'an 2:286] This entailed the existence of an "act of god" to serve a greater good, or the existence of evil acts to prevent a far greater evil. In conclusion, it comprised life is an ultimate "fair test" of coherent and rational choices, having a supremely just accountability in one's current state, as well as the hereafter.[citation needed]
Humans are required to have belief,
The test of life is specifically for adults in full possession of their mental faculties. Children may suffer, and are observed to suffer, given the nature of life but they are believed to be completely free from sin and liability. Divine justice is affirmed through the theory of compensation. All sufferers will be compensated. This includes non-believers and, more importantly, children, who are destined to go to Paradise.[citation needed]
The doctrine of '
3. The Promise and the Threat [al-wa'd wa l-wa'id]
This comprised questions of the Last day, or in Arabic, the
4. The Intermediate Position [Al-Manzilah bayn al-manzilatayn]
That is, Muslims who commit grave sins and die without repentance are not considered as mu’minīn (believers), nor are they considered kafirs (non-believers), but in an intermediate position between the two, (fasiq). The reason behind this is that a mu’min is, by definition, a person who has faith and conviction in and about God, and who has their faith reflected in their deeds and moral choices. Any shortcoming on any of these two fronts makes one, by definition, not a mu’min. On the other hand, one does not become a kafir (i.e. rejecter; non-believer), for this entails, inter alia, denying the Creator — something not necessarily done by a committer of a grave sin. The fate of those who commit grave sins and die without repentance is Hell. Hell is not considered a monolithic state of affairs but as encompassing many degrees to accommodate the wide spectrum of human works and choices, and the lack of comprehension associated to The Ultimate Judge (one of the other names in Islam of God.) Consequently, those in the intermediate position, though in Hell, would have a lesser punishment because of their belief and other good deeds. Mu'tazilites adopted this position as a middle ground between
5. The enjoining of right and prohibiting of wrong
These two tenets, like the "intermediate position" follow logically (according to scholar Majid Fakhry) from the basic Mu'tazilite concepts of divine unity, justice and free will, of which they are the logical conclusion.[47] Even though they are accepted by most Muslims, Mu'tazilites give them a specific interpretation in the sense that, even though God enjoins what is right and prohibits what is wrong, the use of reason allows a Muslim in most cases to identify for himself what is right and what is wrong, even without the help of revelation.[citation needed] Only for some acts is the revelation necessary to determine whether a certain act is right or wrong. This is discussed in further details below.
Theory of interpretation
Mu'tazila relied on a synthesis between
إن الكلام متى لم يمكن حمله على ظاهره و حقيقته، و هناك مجازان أحدهما أقرب و الآخر أبعد، فإن الواجب حمله على المجاز الأقرب دون الأبعد، لأن المجاز الأبعد من الأقرب كالمجاز مع الحقيقة، و كما لا يجوز فى خطاب الله تعالى أن يحمل على المجاز مع إمكان حمله على الحقيقة، فكذلك لا يحمل على المجاز الأبعد و هناك ما هو أقرب منه
(When a text cannot be interpreted according to its truth and apparent meaning, and when (in this case) two metaphoric interpretations are possible, one being proximal and the other being distal; then, in this case, we are obligated to interpret the text according to the proximal metaphoric interpretation and not the distal, for (the relationship between) the distal to the proximal is like unto (the relationship between) the metaphor to the truth, and in the same way that it is not permissible, when dealing with the word of God, to prefer a metaphoric interpretation when a discernment of the truth is possible, it is also not permissible to prefer the distal interpretation over the proximal interpretation)
The
The first obligation
Mu'tazilis believed that the first obligation on humans, specifically adults in full possession of their mental faculties, is to use their intellectual power to ascertain the existence of God, and to become knowledgeable of his attributes. One must wonder about the whole existence, that is, about why something exists rather than nothing. If one realises that there is a being who caused this universe to exist, not reliant on anything else and absolutely free from any type of need, then one realizes that this being is all-wise and morally perfect. If this being is all-wise, then his very act of creation cannot be haphazard or in vain. One must then be motivated to ascertain what this being wants from humans, for one may harm oneself by simply ignoring the whole mystery of existence and, consequently, the plan of the Creator. This paradigm is known in Islamic theology as wujub al-nazar, i.e., the obligation to use one's speculative reasoning to attain ontological truths. About the "first duty," ʿAbd al-Jabbar said it is "speculative reasoning (al-nazar) which leads to knowledge of God, because he is not known by the way of necessity (daruratan) nor by the senses (bi l-mushahada). Thus, he must be known by reflection and speculation."[57]
The difference between Mu'tazilis and other Muslim theologians is that Mu'tazilis consider al-nazar an obligation even if one does not encounter a fellow human being claiming to be a messenger from the Creator, and even if one does not have access to any alleged God-inspired or God-revealed scripture. On the other hand, the obligation of nazar to other Muslim theologians materializes upon encountering
Reason and revelation
The Mu'tazilis had a nuanced theory regarding reason, Divine revelation, and the relationship between them. They celebrated power of reason and human intellectual power. To them, it is the human intellect that guides a human to know God, his attributes, and the very basics of morality. Once this foundational knowledge is attained and one ascertains the truth of Islam and the Divine origins of the Qur'an, the intellect then interacts with scripture such that both reason and revelation come together to be the main source of guidance and knowledge for Muslims. Harun Nasution in the Mu'tazila and Rational Philosophy, translated in Martin (1997), commented on Mu'tazili extensive use of rationality in the development of their religious views saying: "It is not surprising that opponents of the Mu'tazila often charge the Mu'tazila with the view that humanity does not need revelation, that everything can be known through reason, that there is a conflict between reason and revelation, that they cling to reason and put revelation aside, and even that the Mu'tazila do not believe in revelation. But is it true that the Mu'tazila are of the opinion that everything can be known through reason and therefore that revelation is unnecessary? The writings of the Mu'tazila give exactly the opposite portrait. In their opinion, human reason is not sufficiently powerful to know everything and for this reason humans need revelation in order to reach conclusions concerning what is good and what is bad for them."[61]
The Mu'tazili position on the roles of reason and revelation is well captured by what
كل معصية كان يجوز أن يأمر الله سبحانه بها فهي قبيحة للنهي، وكل معصية كان لا يجوز أن يبيحها الله سبحانه فهي قبيحة لنفسها كالجهل به والاعتقاد بخلافه، وكذلك كل ما جاز أن لا يأمر الله سبحانه فهو حسن للأمر به وكل ما لم يجز إلا أن يأمر به فهو حسن لنفسه
No sin may be ordered by God as it is wrong and forbidden, and no sin shall be permitted by God, as they are wrong by themselves. To know about it and believe otherwise, and all that God commands is good for the ordered and all that it is not permissible except to order it is good for himself
In the above formulation, a problem emerged, which is rendering something obligatory on the Divine being—something that seems to directly conflict with Divine omnipotence. The Mu'tazili argument is predicated on absolute Divine power and self-sufficiency, however. Replying to a hypothetical question as to why God does not do that which is ethically wrong (la yaf`alu al-qabih), 'Abd al-Jabbar replied:
The thrust of ʿAbd al-Jabbar's argument is that acting immorally or unwisely stems from need and deficiency. One acts in a repugnant way when one does not know the ugliness of one's deeds, i.e., because of lack of knowledge, or when one knows but one has some need, material, psychological, or otherwise. Since God is absolutely self-sufficient (a result from the cosmological "proof" of his existence), all-knowing, and all-powerful, he is categorically free from any type of need and, consequently, he never does anything that is ridiculous, unwise, ugly, or evil.[citation needed]
The conflict between Mu'tazilis and Ash'aris concerning this point was a matter of focus. Mu'tazilis focused on divine justice, whereas the Ashʿaris focused on divine omnipotence. Nevertheless, Divine self-restraint in Mu'tazili discourse is part of divine omnipotence, not a negation of it.[citation needed]
Validity of hadith
During the
According to Racha El Omari, early Mu'tazilites believed that hadith were susceptible to "abuse as a polemical ideological tool"; that the
In writing about mutawatir (multi-isnād Hadith) and
Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ (700–748 CE, by many accounts a founder of the Mu'tazilite school of thought), held that there was evidence for the veracity of a report when it had four independent transmitters. His assumption was that there could be no agreement between all transmitters in fabricating a report. Wāṣil's acceptance of tawātur seems to have been inspired by the juridical notion of witnesses as proof that an event did indeed take place. Hence, the existence of a certain number of witnesses precluded the possibility that they were able to agree on a lie, as opposed to the single report which was witnessed by one person only, its very name meaning the "report of one individual" (khabar al-wāḥid). Abū l-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf (died 227/841) continued this verification of reports through tawātur, but proposed that the number of witnesses required for veracity be twenty, with the additional requirement that at least one of the transmitters be a believer.[66]
For Ibrahim an-Nazzam (c. 775 – c. 845), both the single and the mutawātir hadith reports as narrated by Abu Hurayra, the most prolific hadith narrater, could not be trusted to yield knowledge.[68] He recounted contradictory ḥadīth from Abu Hurayra and examined their divergent content (matn) to show why they should be rejected: they relied on both faulty human memory and bias, neither of which could be trusted to transmit what is true. Al-Naẓẓām bolstered his strong refutation of the trustworthiness of ḥadīths narrated by Abu Hurayra within the larger claim that his ḥadīths circulated and thrived to support polemical causes of various theological sects and jurists, and that no single transmitter could by himself be held above suspicion of altering the content of a single report. Al-Naẓẓām's skepticism involved far more than excluding the possible verification of a report narrated by Abu Hurayra, be it single or mutawātir. His stance also excluded the trustworthiness of consensus, which proved pivotal to classical Mu'tazilite criteria devised for verifying the single report (see below). Indeed, his shunning of both consensus and tawātur as narrated by Abu Hurayra earned him a special mention for the depth and extent of his skepticism.[69]
Atomism
Mu'tazilite ideas of God were underpinned by the Ancient Greek doctrine of atomism. This is the belief that all things and processes are reducible to fundamental physical particles and their arrangements.
Mu'tazilite atomism however did not imply determinism. Since God was ultimately responsible for manipulating the particles, his actions were not bound by the material laws of the universe. This radically sovereign God entailed an occasionalist theology:[70] God could intervene directly in the world to produce contingent events at will. This radical freedom was possible precisely because the world was composed solely of inert matter rather than an immaterial spirit with an independent vital force of its own.[71]
Eschatology
One of the "most sharply defined" issues where the Mu'tazila disagreed with "their theological opponents" was whether
A number of ḥadīth promise that viewing that face of God (wajh Allah) will be part of the reward of the faithful in paradise. However, the Mu'tazila, aside from their skepticism of ḥadīth, argued that if "God was an immaterial substance", as they believed he was, He was "by definition" not visible.[73]
Legacy
Today, Mu‘tazilism persists mainly in the Maghreb among those who call themselves the Wasiliyah. Referring to Wasil ibn Ata the reputed founder of Mu‘tazila, the movement uses the mantle of the Mu‘tazila primarily as an identity marker.[74][75]
The Arab Islamic philosopher Ismail al-Faruqi, widely recognised by his peers as an authority on Islam and comparative religion, was deeply influenced by the Mu'tazila.[76]
The
The Association for the Renaissance of Mu'tazilite Islam (French: Association pour la renaissance de l’Islam mutazilite, ARIM) was founded in France in February 2017 by Eva Janadin and Faker Korchane.[85]
In contemporary
See also
- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
- Ash'ari
- Al-Jubba'i
- Al-Kindi
- Al-Mamun, Caliph
- Al-Mutasim, Caliph
- Al-Wathiq, Caliph
- Bahshamiyya
- Bishriyya
- Abu'l Husayn al-Basri
- Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad
- Abu 'Ali Muhammad al-Jubba'i
- Ibrahim an-Nazzam
- Ibn Sina, also known as Avicenna
- Al-Jahiz
- Islamic rationalism
- Islamic schools and branches
- Non-denominational Muslims
- Jahm bin Safwan
- Jewish Kalam
- Kalam
- Karaite Judaism
- Mihna
- Punishment of the Grave
- Zaidiyyah, a similar school of thought
- Ijtihad
References
- ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica.
- ^ a b c NEAL ROBINSON (1998). "Ash'ariyya and Mu'tazila". muslimphilosophy.com. Archived from the original on 2011-11-20. Retrieved 2012-11-05.
- ^ "Different views on human freedom – Mu'tazilites and Asharites – Authority in Islam – GCSE Religious Studies Revision – OCR". BBC Bitesize. Archived from the original on 2021-06-21. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
- ISBN 9780429844584.
- ^ Fakhry, Majid (1983). A History of Islamic Philosophy (second ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. p. 46.
Almost all authorities agree that the speculation of the Muʿtazilah centers around the two crucial concepts of divine justice and unity, of which they claim to be the exclusive, genuine exponents.
- from the original on 2021-07-19. Retrieved 2021-01-09.
- ^ Abdullah Saeed. The Qur'an: an introduction. 2008, page 203
- ^ ISBN 9780099523277. Archivedfrom the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2015-09-16.
- )
- ^ a b Fakhry, Majid (1983). A History of Islamic Philosophy (second ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. p. 47.
The early Muslim theologians had naturally been unanimous in denying that God could be unjust, but the problem of reconciling the justice of God and the glaring reality of evil in the world does not appear to have disturbed them particularly. And it was precisely this problem that became, from Wasil's time on the crucial issue with which the Muʿtazilah and their adversaries grappled.... [According to the Muʿtazila,] good and evil are not conventional or arbitrary concepts whose validity is rooted in the dictates of God, as the Traditionists and later the Ashʿarites held, but are rational categories which can be established through unaided reason
- ^ Al-Shahrastani, al-Milal, p.31 f
- ^ Al-Baghdadi, Usul al Din, pp.150f
- ^ Al-Baghdadi, A.Q.,Usul al Din, Istanbul, 1928, pp.26f
- ^ Al-Shahrastani, M.,al-Milal wa'l-Nihal, London, 1892, p.31
- ^ al-Ash'ari, Maqalat, p.356
- ^ Oussama Arabi. Studies in Modern Islamic Law and Jurisprudence. page 27–28
- ^ ISBN 978-90-04-10678-9. Archivedfrom the original on 2019-12-17. Retrieved 2019-05-03.
- ^ [1] Archived 2021-06-14 at the Wayback Machine (PDF)
- ISBN 0521337674.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-351-88957-5. Archivedfrom the original on 14 October 2021. Retrieved 14 October 2021.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2020-10-29.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ For example, Quran 18:16, 19:48 and 4:90). According to Sarah Siroumsa, "The verb i'tazala means "to withdraw", and in its most common use, as given in the dictionaries and attested in Hadith literature, it denotes some sort of abstinence from sexual activity, from worldly pleasures, or, more generally, from sin. Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-'Arab, s.v oy.':/ : wensirck, Concordance a indices de la tradition musulmatle, vol Iv, p. 11)7. 'Amr taught his followers to be "the party which abstains" (i.e., from evil: al-firqa al-muʿtazila), asceticism was their most striking characteristic. They were given the name "Mu'tazila" in reference to their pious asceticism, and they were content with this name," http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~stroums/files/MuTazila_Reconsidered.pdf Archived 2011-06-10 at the Wayback Machine[clarification needed]
- ^ ISBN 978-9004098312.
- ^ Martin 1997, p. ?.
- ^ Damayanty, Putry (2023-09-01). "Mengenal 7 Aliran dengan Pandangan Berbeda dalam Islam". liputan6.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-03-26.
- ^ , Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands (1999): "It is an explanation of this kind which today, in particular as a result of the studies undertaken by Nallino ("Sull'origine del nome dei Mu'taziliti", in RSO, vii [1916]), is generally accepted: i'tizal would designate a position of neutrality in the face of opposing factions. Nallino drew support for the argument from the fact that at the time of the first civil war, some of the Companions ('Abd Allah b. 'Umar, Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, etc.), who had chosen to side neither with ʿAli nor with his adversaries, were for that reason called muʿtazila. He even drew the conclusion that the theological Mu'tazilism of Wasil and his successors was merely a continuation of this initial political Mu'tazilism; in reality, there does not seem to have been the least connection between one and the other. But, in its principle, this explanation is probably valid."
- ^ "Different views on human freedom – Mu'tazilites and Asharites – Authority in Islam – GCSE Religious Studies Revision – OCR". BBC Bitesize. Archived from the original on 2021-06-21. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
- ^ Walzer 1967.
- ^ a b Craig 2000.
- ISBN 978-1-4381-2696-8. Archivedfrom the original on 2021-10-14. Retrieved 2021-10-14.
- ^ Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.15
- ^ Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, 1996: p.13-15
- ^ J. SCHACHT, An Introduction to Islamic Law (1964), supra note 5, at 47
- ^ Forte, David F. (1978). "Islamic Law; the impact of Joseph Schacht" (PDF). Loyola Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 1: 13. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 April 2018. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- ^ a b Martin 1997.
- ^ Nawas 1994.
- ^ Nawas 1996.
- ^ Cooperson 2005.
- ^ Ess 2006.
- ^ Schirrmacher, Christine (2020). "Leaving Islam". In Enstedt, Daniel; Larsson, Göran; Mantsinen, Teemu T. (eds.). Handbook of Leaving Religion (PDF). Brill. p. 82. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 January 2021. Retrieved 6 January 2021.
- ^ Adamson, Peter. "Al-Kindi and Mu'tazila: Divine Attributes, Creation and Freedom." Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 1 (2003): 45–77.
- ^ William Thomson, "The Moslem World", in William L. Langer (1948), ed., An Encyclopedia of World History, rev. edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, p.189.
- ^ [2] Archived 2021-06-14 at the Wayback Machine (PDF)
- ISBN 0-946621-38-1.
- ^ William Thomson, "The Moslem World", in William L. Langer (1948), ed., An Encyclopedia of World History, rev. edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, p. 189.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2020-10-29.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ a b Fakhry, Majid (1983). A History of Islamic Philosophy (second ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. p. 46.
Thus according to a leading Mu'talite authority of the end of the ninth century, five basic tenets make up the strict Mu'tazilite creed: monotheism, justice and unity, the inevitability of the threats and promises of God, the intermediary position, the injunction of right and the prohibition of wrong.
- ^ a b c d e Al-Khayyat, A.H., Kitab al-Intisar, Beirut, 1957, p.93
- ^ Jackson 2005.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2021-08-17. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Martin 1997, p. 92.
- ^ "Message Of Quran By Muhammad Asad 039 – WikiMir". 2010-09-26. Archived from the original on 2010-09-26. Retrieved 2021-02-04.
- ^ Martin 1997, p. 58.
- ^ Martin 1997, p. 93.
- ^ Martin 1997, p. 65-6.
- ^ Martin 1997, p. 82, 106.
- ^ Martin 1997, p. 90.
- ISBN 9780099523277. Archivedfrom the original on 2020-12-27. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
- ^ For al-Ghazali's argument see The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Translated by Michael E. Marmura. 2nd ed, Provo Utah, 2000, pp.116–7.
- ^ For Ibn Rushd's response, see Khalid, Muhammad A. ed. Medieval Islamic Philosophical Writings, Cambridge UK, 2005, p.162)
- ^ Martin 1997, p. 187.
- ^ Martin 1997, p. 96.
- ISBN 978-0-41544-958-8.
- ISBN 978-9-00410-678-9.
- ^ see: Ḍirār b. ʿAmr (died 728/815) In his al-Taḥrīsh wa-l-irjāʾ
- ^ ISBN 9781137369925. Archivedfrom the original on 14 October 2021. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
- (PDF) from the original on 10 May 2016. Retrieved 30 March 2018.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-09. Retrieved 2020-12-12.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Racha El-Omari, "Accommodation and Resistance: Classical Muʿtazilites on Ḥadīth" in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 71, No. 2 (October 2012), pp. 234–235
- ^ RMaha Elkaisy-Friemuth, "God and Humans in Islamic Thought Abd Al-Jabbar", Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali, 2006
- ^ William Lane Craig, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz, 2001.
- ^ Smith & Haddad, Islamic Understanding, 1981: p.92
- ^ Smith & Haddad, Islamic Understanding, 1981: p.95
- ^ Byrd, Anthony Robert (27 November 2007). A Euro-American 'Ulama? Mu 'tazilism, (Post)Modernity, and Minority Islam. Archived from the original on 8 March 2021. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
- ^ Van Ess, Joseph (2005). Jones, Lindsay (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 9 (2nd ed.). Detroit: Macmillian Reference USA. p. 6322.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2021-10-14. Retrieved 2020-12-13.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Chapter 74: Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani". www.al-islam.org. September 3, 2015. Archived from the original on April 11, 2021. Retrieved March 11, 2021.
- S2CID 154412966.
- ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.
- ISBN 978-2-226-29040-3.
- ISBN 9780195148039.
- ISBN 1-85168-146-9.
- ISBN 9781851681471.
- ^ Abu Zayd, Nasr (1998). Rationalism in Exegesis: A Study of the Problem of Metaphor in the Writing of the Mutazilites (4 ed.). Beirut and Casablanca.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ "Mutazilisme". mutazilisme.fr (in French). Archived from the original on 22 December 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
- OCLC 797919202.
Bibliography
- 'Abd al-Jabbar (1965). 'Abd al-Karim 'Uthman (ed.). Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsa (in Arabic). Cairo: Maktabat Wahba.
- Brown, Daniel W. (1996). Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521570778. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
- Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (1969). M. M. 'Abd al-Hamid (ed.). Maqalat al-Islamiyin wa Ikhtilaf al-Musallin (in Arabic). Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahdah al-Misriyah.
- Cooperson, Michael (2005). Al-Ma'mun (Makers of the Muslim World). Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1-85168-386-0.
- Craig, W. L. (2000). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. USA: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 1-57910-438-X.
- Ess, J. V. (2006). The Flowering of Muslim Theology. USA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02208-4.
- Gimaret, D. (1979). "Les Usul al-Hamsa du Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar et leurs commentaires". Annales Islamologiques. 15: 47–96. S2CID 259055137.
- Jackson, S. A. (2002). On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al-Ghazali's Faysal al-Tafriqa. Studies in Islamic Philosophy, V.1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-579791-4.
- Jackson, S. A. (2005). Islam and the Blackamerican: Looking Toward the Third Resurrection. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-518081-X.
- Martin, R. C.; M. R. Woodward; D. S. Atmaja (1997). Defenders of Reason in Islam: Mu'tazilism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications. p. 27. ISBN 978-1851681471. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
- Nawas, J. A. (1994). "A Rexamination of Three Current Explanations for al-Ma'mun's Introduction of the Mihna". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 26 (4): 615–629. S2CID 159973328.
- Nawas, J. A. (1996). "The Mihna of 218 A.H./833 A. D. Revisited: An Empirical Study". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 116 (4): 698–708. JSTOR 605440.
- Walzer, R. (1967). "Early Islamic Philosophy". In ISBN 0-521-04054-X.
- Aqeedah 11, An Exposition of Some Schools, Movements and Sects of Islam. West Coast Demarara, Guyana: Guyana Islamic Institute. Retrieved 16 September 2015.