Mu'tazili?

[DT Strain]

I'm very ignorant of many things about Islam, but can someone tell me if they know anything about the Mu'tazili philosophy. I have some basic ideas, having read the article at Wikipedia, but I was wondering...

1) Is it was completely extinct?

2) Are there any current efforts to revive it as an active school of thought? If so, are they online?

3) What are most Muslim's general impression of Mu'tazili? Do they hate it, think of it with disdain, indifferent to it, think of it as sinful, like it, ignorant of it?

Thanks

 

[Out There]

I'm very ignorant of many things about Islam, but can someone tell me if they know anything about the Mu'tazili philosophy. I have some basic ideas, having read the article at Wikipedia, but I was wondering...

1) Is it was completely extinct?

2) Are there any current efforts to revive it as an active school of thought? If so, are they online?

3) What are most Muslim's general impression of Mu'tazili? Do they hate it, think of it with disdain, indifferent to it, think of it as sinful, like it, ignorant of it?

Thanks

the word mu'tazilah is derived from the root i'tazala which means to leave or to abandon...and a mu'tazilah is the one who has abandoned or the isolated one. The mu'tazilah emerged during the time of the tabi'een. A certain Imam Hasan expelled them from his circle due to their deviant behaviour and understanding. They later fragmented into 20 different sects each pronouncing kufr on the rest ...their common ground however was the over-emphasis of the use of rationalism in deducing rules which is strongly condemned by the majority of Muslims. There's nothing wrong with using one's mind and it's actually encouraged but so long as you do not over do it. Unfortunately the mu'tazilites over did it....they relied too much on logic and over used the science of ta'wil(hermeneutics) in interpreting Islam. There is very little apparent differences between Mu'taziliyyah and As'ariyyah...some of the beliefs of mu'tazilah that goes against the majority are as follows:
-It is lexically permissable to ascribe creation of deeds to human beings.
-The attributes of Allah are not eternal
-Muslims will not be able to see Allah in the hereafter

Despite their deviancy, they did have some accomplished works in the brances of Islamic sciences that deserve recognition. e.g. Al-kashaf the exegesis authored by Zamakhshari who was a mu'tazilite. There are reports however that he recanted of his attachments to mu'ziliyyah before his death.

 

[farhan]

Thanks for your question DT Strain.

1) Is it was completely extinct?

Well like all other kind of muslim intellectualism , they are present only in libraries.

2) Are there any current efforts to revive it as an active school of thought? If so, are they online?

In the islamic world....I dont think so . There are bigger problems in these regions, like food, water & ...... resisting invasion . Though you will find a lot about Islamic philosophy here .

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/index.html

An article on Mutazila

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ei/mu-tazila.htm

Ashraite, Mutazilite, & Sufi philosophy/theology are available on this site. Donot miss Averroes' Incoherence of incoherence. You might also find some books by Avicenna & Ibn Arabi .

3) What are most Muslim's general impression of Mu'tazili? Do they hate it, think of it with disdain, indifferent to it, think of it as sinful, like it, ignorant of it?

Mostly ignorant of it . Others are indifferent , a few hate them . Only a small number have actually read these books .

 

[DT Strain]

Thanks to both of you, Aidyl and Farhan, for your responses and information. What do each of you think are the chances that this form of Islam might be able to be rekindled? Do you think it would help in combating radical extremism within Islam?

(I am not meaning to suggest with this question that non-Muslims don't need reforms too)

Thanks

 

[DT Strain]

I hope the reason there's been no response so far on my above post is because it's considered offensive. If so, that certainly isn't intended.

 

[cyberpi]

their common ground however was the over-emphasis of the use of rationalism in deducing rules which is strongly condemned by the majority of Muslims.

That is not judged against nearly enough... it is a rampant problem. A lot of laws are called Islam because someone deduced they were righteous, but they are not Allah's (swt) will. When having faith and doing a good deed, a person has to seek his neighbor to determine and agree what a good deed is and what a bad deed is. From that comes a law or an agreement, but here is a verse to consider:

16:116
Yusufali: But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.
Pickthal: And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed.
Shakir: And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper.
Khalifa: You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is lawful, and this is unlawful," to fabricate lies and attribute them to GOD. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to GOD will never succeed.

 

[farhan]

What do each of you think are the chances that this form of Islam might be able to be rekindled? Do you think it would help in combating radical extremism within Islam?

Extremism/Terrorism comes from of 2 things. Oppression & Illiteracy. You kick somebody out of his home, he will fight back, you bulldoze somebody's wife & children, it’s obvious you aren’t leaving any reason for him to live, he will definitely blow himself up killing a few women & children of the opposite side. You dismantle somebody's democratically elected government & substitute it with a puppet; people will definitely destroy anything related to you. When you impose government on people that don’t represent them, that oppress them & that doesn’t let them live according to their wishes freely, then you create extremism. Extremism is just people's wishes, a bit intensified. You kill them, you create terrorism, which is again people's wishes, intensely intensified .
Now the tactics that these so called terrorists use, if they had a decent knowledge of Quran & Sunnah , they wouldn’t have been doing all that they do . But since most of the Islamic education institutions are labeled "Radical", this door gets closed. Secondly if they had precision guided missiles, & the technology to kill soldiers only, even with their limited knowledge of Islam , they wont have been killing civilians .
If you see into the history of Islamic extremism , the first wave started during or soon after colonization ( like the famous Wahhbi movement , or Ikhwan ul Muslimeen ) , the second wave was after the formation of Israel ( believe me a land grab remains a land grab , & an apartheid remains an apartheid, no matter what name you give it ) , the third after Americans attacked Iraq . I don’t know what your media is telling you, but according to non-western media, Israel & America have managed to create so much "terrorists" among Lebanese in three weeks that all mullahs weren’t able to create in 50 years. The same thing has been happening all over the world.
Philosophy on the other hand is for people with a comfortable sofa, a beautiful family, & an assurance of the safety of their blood, money, & honor. Unless these "luxuries" are assured, its impossible to rekindle any kind of intellectualism in any community. What Muslims are facing right now is a threat to their very existence & their way of life (that can be considerer as their psycho-spiritual existence). They are stuck at the first level of existence; the realm of philosophy is way beyond that region.

BTW when I say you I don’t mean you , I mean people who are doing it .

 

[DT Strain]

Thanks for the comments Farhan,

Extremism/Terrorism comes from of 2 things. Oppression & Illiteracy. You kick somebody out of his home, he will fight back, you bulldoze somebody's wife & children, it’s obvious you aren’t leaving any reason for him to live, he will definitely blow himself up killing a few women & children of the opposite side.

I can see that oppression causes people to fight. I can also see that losing ones family and life could cause a person not to want to live anymore. I can imagine not wanting to go on living, and I can imagine wanting to fight the forces oppressing me. I can even imagine, in my efforts to attack military targets in warfare, that I might accidentally kill civilians at times.

But, what I cannot imagine is ever, under any circumstances, intentionally targeting and killing innocent women, children, and babies in a public civilian location to illicit terror among the populace, with no military targets involved. This is terrorism, and this is categorically a different type of behavior than all other conflict or warfare. To do such a thing requires some sort of (twisted) ideology which I do not possess.

Secondly if they had precision guided missiles, & the technology to kill soldiers only, even with their limited knowledge of Islam , they wont have been killing civilians.

First, terrorism is different than collateral damage. When militias attack U.S. military in Iraq, even if they use suicide bombers and such, this is not terrorism (even if civilians are killed in the process) because they are attacking military targets. In Lebanon, when Hezbollah launches missiles into Israel, the Israelis themselves have said that Hezbollah is trying to hit strategic tagets, but their missiles are simply innacurate, and Hezbollah has said they don't target civilians. If true, then these rocket attacks are acts of warfare - not terrorism, even though civilians are killed by accident due to imprecise weapons. When british bombers flew over German cities in World War II, many civilians were killed, but the aim was to hit German centers of production to make it more difficult to carry out the war. This was a tactical target and the technology simply didn't allow avoidance of civilian casualties. This too, was not terrorism.

But, when a suicide bomber goes into a cafe and blows up random women, children, and nonmilitary civilians as their actual target, this is terrorism. As such, it cannot be excused, allowed, or condoned for any reason - and is cannot be blurred or muddied together with other forms of combat. It is not true that all wars of independence (such as the American war of independence) used policies of terrorism. They used sabotage and other forms of guerilla attack, but not the intentional slaughter of children as a tactic. This has never been acceptible behavior in modern European society, although terrorism is more in tune with Medieval (dark ages) thinking. Terrorism is distinct and unique among all other forms of conflict and war. The admonition against it applies no matter how just the cause and no matter how badly oppressed the terrorists are. There can never be any excuse for such behavior, no matter the circumstances.