Talk:Mu'tazilism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Mutazilite are NOT Sunnite

The Mutazilite are a distinct group NOT Sunnite. I edited it and described the relation between them and the Sunni and Shia Islam, three Caliphates were Mutazilite in the Abbasid empire, Al-Ma'mun, Al-Mu'tasim and Al-Wathiq, then the Caliphates supported the Sunnite again since Al-Mutawakkil. Atheerkt (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends on whom one asks. According to the Royal Ahl al-Bayt Institute in Jordan, Mu'tazilah are technically considered a sub category of Sunni. Even IBn Taymiyyah, a polemical dogmatist who is the figurehead of declaring other Muslims to be heretics, conceded that Mu'tazilah can be considered Sunni depending on the context in which the word "Sunni" is used. I think it would be better to represent that difficulty in delineating sects in the text. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MezzoMezzo. I add we should avoid losing reality behind boxes. People can be many things at once, and these terms should not be so concrete to preclude that possibility. e.g. Sunni and Sufi. --Inayity (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, and a very good point. With Sufi it's clear, I think like 90% are within Sunni Islam. Mu'tazila can get sticky but we still need to avoid boxes. For example, the Zaidi branch of Shi'ism is often associated with I'tizal. Likewise, the Ibadhiyyah in Oman - the third extant branch of Islam - is referred to as Kharijite by Sunnis but a Sunni friend of mine who lives in Oman said they consider themselves close to Mu'tazila. Then you get Sunni Mu'tazilites like Ibn al-Jinni the liinguist, Zamakhshari the Hanafi, and so forth.
Actually...we could just go for what reliable sources say. The Royal Ahl al-Bayt Institute (Jordanian establishment) holds Mu'tazila as a sub-branch of Sunni. That ought to be included. There are probably academic sources noting that this is disputed. That can be included as well. We just present to the reader what the sources say; readers will make up their minds for themselves, and invariably they will not all come to the same conclusions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a terrific upgrade MezzoMezzo - There will be no end of quibbling over it. However, I am curious, about such a designation excluding the Qaraite Jews. Qaraim themselves, according to this with whom I've explored this topic, readily admit to the influence of Mu'tazila in their approach to Hebrew canonical texts and Halakha. I would offer that the distinctions of who was Jew, Khajarite, Sunni, Shi'a, Ismaili, etc, became more rigid at a later date. Just kicking down some feedback. Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading, I have found that the distinctions between sects started even in the time of the Rashidun Caliphate. Kharijites were spoken of in a tradition attributed to Muhammad, and those who murdered Ali were also branded as Kharijites, among them the Haruriya about whom A'isha spoke against. The Qadariyya, Jabariyya and Murji'ah also appeared very early. Sunni-Shi'a existed from the time of Abu Bakr, though much of the mainstream Shi'ite creed would be developed later, yes. But I don't know of any time when the distinction between a Jew, Karaite or other, and a Muslim, wasn't rigid; can you provide reliabgle sources?
As for supposed quibbling over the inclusion of Mu;tazila roughly within Sunni Islam, then this is historical fact supported by multiple reliable sources we can all bring if we only take the time. Let sectarians quibble but Wikipedia is here for accurate representation, not how Muslims would like to view themselves and their divisions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
academic support
! Even the Mu'tazilis themselves, would disagree vigorously! Can you show me any source or reference from the books of the Sunnis or even the Mu'tazilis, throughout the entire Islamic history, in which any scholar said that the Mu'tazilis are Sunnis?!

The

Karramis
. 

In contrast to the Mu'tazilites (who are not Sunni), al-Ash'ari held that the Attributes are not simply words (lafz) or modes (ahwal), but real things (ashya') subsisting in God from eternity.[1]

The founders of the major Sunni theological schools:

Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a (the People of the Sunna and the Majority/Consensus/Community/Collective), while the Mu'tazilis referred to themselves as Ahl al-'Adl wa al-Tawhid (the People of Justice and Monotheism).--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No it's not fringe and you have provided no evidence that the "vast majority of sources" say anything. You have provided just one reliable source and a mere handful of not particularly reliable sources to make your point, just as I myself have provided three sources to make the opposite point. However, you have provided absolutely no basis for which to describe the characterization of the Mutazilites as part of the broad Sunni umbrella as fringe. I do not disagree that there is some variation among the sources on the subject, but, as it stands, the only thing that is exceptional here is your entirely unevidenced claim that what I am suggesting based on sources is fringe.
Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • People of the sunna and the community: The Sunnis are the majority of the umma, and they include the Ash'arites, the Maturidi, and the Salafists who follow the four schools of jurisprudence and others, in contrast to the Mu'tazilites and Kharijites.[3]

  • Mu`tazilism is no longer a sect or school of thought in Sunni Islamic societies and therefore cannot become a minority or a majority. While it is true that some Shia scholars have been influenced by Mu`tazilism, Sunni Muslims have shunned Mu`tazilism since the end of the inquisition (Mihna), on account of the caliph's enforcement of reason-based doctrines from Mu`tazilite thinkers.[4]

  • Though Sunni Muslims regarded the Mu'tazila as heretical, their ideas continued to influence Shi'i thinkers in Persia.[5]

  • The other significant group is the Mu'tazila, a historical group who flourished in the 9th and 10th centuries, and for some centuries thereafter. They are rejected by the Sunnis because, in their view, the Mu'tazila overstress the role of reason.[6]

  • Since then, the vast majority of Sunni scholars have considered the Mu'tazila as heretical.[7]

  • Eventually Sunnis rejected the theories of the Mu'tazilites, while the Twelver and Zaydī Shī'īs accepted a large part of them[8]

  • Although Sunnis considered Mu'tazilism to be a heresy, Mu'tazilite legal theory and its perspective on hadiths had a major impact on Sunni legal theory.[9]

  • In the same way that the Mu'tazilites opposed the Sunnis in theology[10]

  • Gimaret (1980) has written a detailed study on Mu'tazilite and Sunnite thought on the subject of human acts and the arguments theologians used to defend their positions.[11]

  • Reacting to the practical social consequences of the Kharijite view of sin, other Islamic factions—Mu'tazilites, Shi'ites, Murji'ites, and Sunnis[12]

    --TheEagle107 (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So there is immediately some ambiguity even among these quotes, such as: "Mu`tazilism is no longer a sect or school of thought in Sunni Islamic societies...", which by inference implies Mu'tazilism once was a sect or school of thought in Sunni societies. More generally, the problem with most of this statements, taken out of context, is that they provide no sense of the time periods that they address. Now obviously when Ash'ari was studying under a well-known Mutazilite, they probably weren't considered "heretical". Then the theology went through a bad patch after
Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There are fundamental differences between the Mu'tazilis and the Sunnis, especially in
'aqidah (Islamic creed) and Usul al-Din (the principles of religion), and these differences are not just minor differences. In addition, as I said above, the Mu'tazilis themselves did not consider themselves to be Sunnis. There is no disagreement or dispute about this throughout the Islamic history! The only thing common between the Mu'tazilis and the Sunnis is in the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as the Mu'tazilis used to follow the Hanafi school
of thought.

  • In the late eighth and ninth centuries, a Hanafi-Murjia orientation was strong in Isfahan, Rayy, and Khurasan, while in Baghdad some Hanafis were Mutazilis and others were Sunnis.[13]

  • Because many thought the rationalism of the Mu'tazilites was extreme, Sunni Muslims often regarded them as heretics (Watt 1985, 55). Their ascendancy ended with the rule of the Sunni caliph al-Mutawakkil, who destroyed their movement.[14]

  • The Sunnis distinguished themselves from the Mu'tazilis who usually conducted more reasoning by leaving aside some hadiths which were considered irrelevant and weak, da'if. In some cases, such as on the issue of anthropomorphism, the latter eliminated some hadiths opposing their doctrine, although the hadiths were reliable, sahih. Consequently, while the Mu'tazilis were widely influenced by the ideas of philosophers, the Sunnis were completely impressed by those of the Ashab, and the salaf al-salih, and the reliable 'ulama' in the medieval period as well.[15]

Each branch of Islam has some central beliefs (Usul al-Din). Sunni Muslims follow the six articles of faith ("It is to believe in Allah (God), His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, and that you believe in preordainment (destiny), its bad and good consequences.") and Shi'a Muslims follow the five roots of Usul al-Din (see: Twelver theology). However, all Mu'tazilis regardless of their differences agreed on five foundational doctrines or principles (Usul al-Din). These principles were:

  • (1) al-tawhid or the oneness and uniqueness of God,
  • (2) al-'adl or the justice of God,
  • (3) al-wa'ad wa al-wa'id, or the promise and threat of God,
  • (4) al-manzala bayn al-manzilatayn, that the grave sinner that has not yet repented cannot be designated with belief (iman) nor disbelief (kufr),
  • and finally (5) al-amr bi-al-ma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al-munkar, commanding good and forbidding wrong.

For more details on these issues, see:

  • Kitab al-Mughni fi Abwab al-Tawhid wa al-'Adl (Book of the plenitude on the topics concerning monotheism and justice) by
    al-Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar (d. 415/1024). He also wrote a work on the five principles entitled Kitāb al-Usul al-Khamsa and dictated a commentary for it entitled Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsa. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ISBN 9780230106581
    .
  2. ISBN 9781532646799
    .
  3. ISBN 9780755635931
    .
  4. ISBN 9781000389654
    .
  5. ISBN 9781472569462
    .
  6. ISBN 9781000560015
    .
  7. ISBN 9781135008925
    .
  8. ISBN 9781780746869
    .
  9. ISBN 9781786073082
    .
  10. ISBN 9780791474747
    .
  11. ISBN 9789004117266
    .
  12. ISBN 9780195131697
    .
  13. ISBN 9780521514309
    .
  14. ISBN 9780801884016
    .
  15. ISBN 9783110901283.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )

Rename to Mu'tazila

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mu'tazili → Mu'tazila
– Not only Mu'tazila is the correct form of the Arabic معتزلة, it is also more popular, compare here:

  • I think the article mostly tackles the theological beliefs of the group and not the population as such. Even if the latest is true we should rather use the plural form per
    WP:PLURAL, (see Germans, Jews
    ...)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stating that the Muʿtazila were celebrated.

As stated before, this is an opinion that is stated via a farfetched website based on economics.

The first 3 website that appear on google regarding the Mu’tazilites don't mention anything regard them being celebrated. I would rather take the BBC, Britania, or the Oxford Bibliographies that give a neutral introduction over a random quote from a random website chosen to cherry-pick the editor in questions opinion. The person who kept changing this and called me a "troll" even admitted it was a minority opinion on the edit history page. If I wanted I could also find a million sources stated the Muʿtazila were hated - but I am not biased so I would not.

Please removed the "celebrated" comment, because as stated above, the main sources regarding the Muʿtazila do not mention this.

The is no doubting to the fact that the Mutazalites were a very well known group during the Islamic Golden age, but the cited source is not a reliable one. I have removed that claim from the the article for now. Thank you. Mosesheron (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Hadal (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

common, e.g. Google Scholar yields 347 results for "Mutazilism" vs 1,850 results for "Mu'tazilism". This is of course also consistent with what we have at Ash'arism. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:

WP:RMEC: initiated by a sockpuppet, and no other support for the move request at this time. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:COMMONNAME
.

And for consistency with former Islam-related sects such as Kharijites, not "Kharijism", Kaysanites, not "Kaysanism". Kermanshehi (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Religion has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This article is about the school of Islamic theology rather than its individual adherents. See Atharism and Ash'arism for reference. Skitash (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles Kharijites and Kaysanites are not for individual adherents, but for the historical sects. Same in this case. Also, in contrast to Ash'arism, Atharism, Maturidism, the Mu'tazilites are variously described as a theological school, a rationalist sect or something else. Any thoughts about Mu'tazilites being WP:COMMONNAME? Kermanshehi (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermanshehi (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Oppose: I tried to raise the issue about the inconsistency in the titling of articles about Islamic denominations in May 2023 at the WikiProject Islam (later the discussion was moved to the Manual of Style talkpage). In my opinion, we should opt for the title with the suffix "-ism" since the article is about the school of thought and not about its adherents as a group of people ("-ites").--Æo (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mu%27tazilism&oldid=1196459816"