A COMPENDIUM OF EXPLANATIONS

ON

THE HERESIES OF THE MUTAZILITE MOVEMENT

FROM CLASSICAL WORKS OF THEOLOGY

Researched and Written by: AbuuHaashim M. A. BOLAJI

SHA’BAAN, 1441AH

(APRIL, 2020)

INTRODUCTION

            Every man that tends to arrogate knowledge to himself would not be considered for anything except with some level of circumspection. In fact to some, he is already at the verge of destruction! The detrimental effect of such is even worse if it has to do with divine injunctions. This is akin to the situation of the Mutazilites; as they rationalise every injunction presented to them in the religion. Thus, with a view to discussing their beliefs and deviations, this treatise will In Shaa Allaah expound this movement’s creedal origin; relate its resultant deviations; show the weakness of the arguments of its proponents for such deviations; and affirm the sound and proven refutations against every heresy of theirs from available classical works of theology.

THE BELIEFS AND THE DEVIATIONS OF THE MUTAZILITES

            Though the linguistic connotation of the term Mu’tazilah points to mean ‘those who withdrew’, its initial creedal implication speaks of the doctrine of the intermediate state between ‘Eemaan and Kufr (Philip’s Mislamic Sects Part). A number of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺsuch as Sad b. Abi Waqqaas and Usaama b. Zayd were referenced as the first to merit the term of ‘itizaal (withdrawing) due to their taking a middle course during the resulting turbulence after the ascension of Ali b. Abi Taalib as a Caliph of the Muslims shortly after the death of Uthman b. ‘Affan – the third orthodox Caliph (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam).

            However, Wasil b. ‘Ataa, who withdrawn himself from the circle of al-Hassan al-Basri could be seen, possibly as the first and clear initiator of the Mutazilite movement (Sharif, 1981). He did not only express the doctrine of the movement but also acted upon it. ‘Amr b. ‘Ubayd who was also in al-Basri circle of knowledge followed him on this (Philips, 2008). In terms of beliefs, this movement denied the divine attributes of Allaah; disregard the belief in the predestination of man’s actions and; claimed that Hell is due for every sinner that once engaged in a Major sin (Ibid).

            Indeed ‘Deeds are based on the intentions [propelling their executions] and it is for every man that which he intended’ (Sahih al-Bukhari). One cannot plant rice with the expectation of getting beans at harvest time! Thus, it was not surprising that the Mu’tazilites came up with lots of deviations in the religion having got it wrong from their faulty creedal orientation.

            The majorly referenced beliefs and deviations of the Mu’tazilites were coherent with their five principal doctrines thus listed below:

One, Oneness (tawheed): This, to the Mu’tazilah, means the nonexistence of plurality and attributes for Allaah.

Two, Justice (‘adl): This, according to the Mu’tazilite’s creed, indicates that Allaah constantly upholds justice and that He never gives in to oppression in relating with all His creatures.

Three, Divine Reckoning (al-wa’d wa al-wa’id): With this, the Mu’tazilites hold Allaah as the Determiner and Giver of due recompense for the submissive and retribution for the rebellious, and that it is impossible for this not to be certain. Therefore, Heavenly exoneration is conditional to sinner’s repentance, because it is impossible for the sinner to be forgiven when he is yet to repent.

Four, Manzilah bayna al-manzilatayn (a position between the two positions): This means that a fasiq (that is, one who commits one of the “Kabaair (Major sins),” such as adultery, usury-taking, false-witnessing, and so on) is neither a believer (mu’min) nor a disbeliever (kaaffir). In other words, fisq, according the Mu’tazilite’s creed, is ago-between position between belief and disbelief.

Five, Al-‘amr bil ma’ruuf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar (that is, commanding good and forbidding evil):  Though the Mu’tazilah hold this to be an Islamic duty, their opinion on it gives Shari’ah no totality. To them, Shari’ah is not the exclusive means of identifying the ma’ruf and the munkar; human reason can, at least to a degree, independently classify the different types of ma’ruf and munkar (Khan, 2017).

ARGUMENTS AND REFUTATIONS ON MU’TAZILITES’ BELIEFS AND DEVIATIONS

            Sprees of supports have been showcased as arguments for the beliefs and deviations of the Mu’tazilite Movement. Equally, refutations against these beliefs and deviations are also not inaccessible from classical works of theology that have, in many occasions, termed them heresies.

            The first deviation of the Mu’tazilites was recognised with Wasil’s argument at showing the unsuitability of applying neither of the Quranic descriptions of a believer nor that of a disbeliever to a believer who committed grave sins. Following from the above was the deviation that hinged on providing a way out to the scenario created above. Though ordinarily that is seen as the Mu’tazilah’s fourth doctrine, it remained the most prominent as it was noted as their first physical display of their creeds. Thus, the affirmation of a middle course (Philips’ Mislamic Sects Two)!

            Acquisition of ‘Ilm Kalaam (Philosophy/Rhetorics) was another deviation that this movement was noted with. They were given to argumentation. This is in conformity with the fifth doctrines of theirs. Consequently, the Abbasid caliphs became advocates of this knowledge and even provided opportunities to display its scholarship in their courts. These materialised  in debates that ultimately led to the birth of hypothetical fiqh. The debaters asserted lots of energies as prizes were abound with the Caliph watching to amuse himself and to compensate the winning group (Abu Ameenah, Bilal Philip, Evolution of Fiqh). In adjunct to above are the views concerning judging good and evil by the intellect, and that justice is whatever the intellect judges to be just. With an extension to the Qur’aan, they argued that it is a complete explanation of everything exclusive of the Hadeeth and that its verses directing obedience to the Messenger (‘alayhis-Salaam) were actually ordering the Muslims to obey the Qur’aan which Allaah had revealed through the Messenger – Muhammad (‘alayhis-Salaam).

            The appellation of Ahl al-Tawheed wa al-‘Adl ("People of Divine Unity and Justice") was another of the deviations of Mu’tazilites. This combines both the first and second core principles of the Mutazilite movement. They upheld this mysticism seeking to smear the discretion of Islamic creedal system (The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam). Almost all of the Mutazilites upheld the necessity of rationalising Islamic belief system. They thereby reckon greatly on the two crucial concepts of divine justice and unity (Tariq, 2008). Their acclaimed ‘Tawheed’ is, in fact, ‘Ta’teel’ because instead of upholding the belief in the attributes of Allaah what they did was to negate and deny them (al-Fawzaan, 2003).

            In relation to their third tenet on the claim of no forgiveness for sinners who did not repent, it is clear that this is an extreme position not substantiated by Islamic injunctions and texts. Islaam holds only associating of partnership with Allaah (Shirk) as the only unforgiving sin after death. Thus, Allaah says:

“Verily, Allaah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him (in worship), but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He wills; and whoever sets up partners with Allaah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin” (Al-Nisaa’, 4:48).

            Further refutations were provided by Imaam Ibn Taymiyah against the belief of the Mu’tazilah on their creed of holding a position between two positions. They were proven to be legislatively incorrect and intellectually wrong. Also, their declaration that the conviction of the heart never changes is in opposition to the right mind. It is a general knowledge that certainty of the heart is knowledge-driven, and definitely, knowledge differs; and this is as a result of its different sources. The trustworthiness to be accrued to information relayed by two fellows cannot be in pal with that from an individual (Al-Baqarah, 2:282).

CONCLUSION

Putting the intellect before and above heavenly injunctions has not brought any substantiated progress to its proponents from time immemorial. The Mutazilite movement has not fare well either. Consequently, they have been challenged and refuted openly of their heresies from the time of Imaam of the Ahlu as-Sunnah wal Jama’ah – Ahmad b. Hanbal. Consequently, this treatise has concluded, following its look on the movement’s creedal origin and the provision of refutations against their beliefs as well as the irrationality of their heresies, that the correctness of anyone’s Islaam could only be deemed serious if it is in conformity with the understanding of its pious predecessors whose beliefs and actions never derided the Qur’aan nor the Sunnah.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al Milal wan-Nihal by Al Shahrastani (D. 548 AH) (1/43-46)

Khan, D. T. (2017). Mu'tazilaism: An Introduction to Rationality in Islam. International Journal ofEngineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS). ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-4, Issue-10, October 2017.

Philips, A.B. (2008). A Commentary on Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisee’s The Radiance of FaithLeading to the Path of Guidance. islamiconlineuniversity.com/Aqeedah 102.

Philips, A. B. (1985). Edited Translation on Ibn al-Jawzee’s The Devil’s Deception, bais.islamiconlineuniversity.com/Aqeedah 202.

Philip’s Mislamic Sects Part Two. bais.islamiconlineuniversity.com/Aqeedah 202.

Saalih al‐‘Uthaymeen, M. (1970).Explanation of a Summary of al‐‘AqeedatulHamawiyyah of ibnTaymiyyah.Retrieved from kalamullah.com.

Sharhul-'Aqeedatit-Tahaawiyyah by Ibn al-Izz al-Hanafi (D. 792 AH) (p. 521-522)

Sharif, M. M. (1981). A History of Muslim Philosophy, Volume I. Karachi.

Muhammad T. A. & Muhammad M. K. (2009).The Translation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language.Madina, Saudi Arabia: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’aan

Tariq, M. M. (2008). The Ideological Background of Rationality in Islam. Al-Hikmat. Volume 28.

The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam.