What made the Mutazilla Unique

A lot of narrow minded Muslims say the Mutazilla restricted themselves to Hellenism. However, what the fail to see is that the Mutazilla on the contrary, came out to defend Islam.
Shaykh Abu Zahra in the biography of Abu Hanifa (ra) writes

"Groups of Magians, Sabaeans, Jews and Christians and others entered Islam, their minds still full of the teachings of those religions, and their understanding of Islam necessarily being filtered through them. Some pretended to have faith out of fear of the ruler, concealing their old belief, and began to try to corrupt the Muslims’ deen, to make them doubt their own beliefs, and to introduce ideas and opinions for which Allah had given no authority. The fruits of their efforts appeared: there were anthropomorphists, zindiqs and many other groups. The Mu‘tazilites tried to defend Islam, and their Five Tenets were the result of their sharp debates with their opponents. The tenet of Tawhid was formulated to refute the anthropomorphists; Justice was to refute the Jahmites; the Promise and Threat was to refute the Murji’ites; and the Position between the Two Positions was to refute the Kharijites who said that anyone who commits a sin was unbeliever. "

(Abu Zahra, 46)


Also what really impressed me was there unique methodology which separates them from all the Islamic schools.

Shaykh Abu Zahra discusses the unique methods applied by the Mutazilla. He states

The methods of deduction employed by the Mu‘tazilites were different from those of others among the Islamic Community and their deductive premises also differed. There were several distinct characteristics in the way they debated.
Point 1

The Mu‘tazilites avoided imitation and were averse to following others without investigation, examination, comparison, proofs and proper criteria. Their respect was for opinions and not names, for the truth and not the speaker. Hence they did not imitate one another. The rule which they followed was that every responsible person is answerable for the principles of the deen to which his ijtihad has led him. Perhaps that is why they split into so many groups.

Point 2

Also They relied on the intellect to establish their articles of faith, finding support for their positions in the Qur’an. They did not have much knowledge of hadiths because they did not use them for doctrine or evidence.

Point 3

They took from classical scientific sources which were translated in their time. They borrowed from some of those sciences and used them to support their arguments in clashes with opponents in the field of kalam. They were joined by many Muslims educated in the foreign education and philosophical systems which were nurturing the Arab intellect in that time, which is why there were many distinguished writers and philosophers among them.

Point 4

They excelled in language, eloquence and clarity of exposition. Their men included eloquent orators and debaters who were skilled in debate, knew its rules and were experienced in its methods and how to defeat opponents. Their leading figure, Wasil ibn ‘Ata’, was a notable orator." (Abu Zahra, 46)

In comparison to uniqueness of the Mutazilla I give a preference to them on the 3 out of the 4 points above. I think all school today suffer from at least one of the above. When it comes to imitation, the Ahle Sunnah and 12rs are both proponents of it. Today both schools followers consist of followers who are blind followers of taqleed. On the contrary, the Zaydis, have not suffered from this problem, since their school of opinions is not restricted to one monolithic group or on the basis of taqleed.

When it comes to ahadith, I would have to speak against the Mutazilla for lacking education in the area of ilm-e-rijal. The 12rs try to substitute this area, by simply applying rational reasoning(aql) toward ahadith. On the contrary, if this is the case then there can always be opinions on the contrary. For example in Nahj al-Balagha the sermon of Shiqshiqiyya is widely quoted by the 12r to dismiss the legitimacy of rule held by Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthmaan (ra). Since, Nahj al-Balagha, has no chain the only method they use to authenticate this sermon is through their rational reasoning. On the contrary, the Mutazillah have recognized this sermon through their rational reasoning came to another conclusion. Ibn Abi al-Hadid al Mutazilli (ra) recognized al-Khutbat al-Shiqshiqiyyah as genuinely attributed to al-'Imam
Ali (as), he, however, tried to interpret it in accordance with Sunni belief in the legitimacy of al-Khilafat al-Rashidah. The Zaydi in the area of ilm-e-rijal are still unknown to the majority of the Muslim world. On the issue of Imam Ali (as) caliphate not all of them say Imam Ali (as) position is was an explicit one. However, through his merits they point out that Imam Ali's (as) position of caliphate was implicit which is not disagreed by many of the Scholars of Ahle Sunnah. Both Shia sects Zaydi and 12rs invite the Sunni schools to recognize the Imam of the time. The 12th Imam of the 12rs has left the world for over 1000 years. Until he doesn’t appear people really have no “infallible imam” to rely on. This mean the 12rs expect Muslims to follow a system of imamate which is no longer functioning. Zaydis on the contrary also suffer from a high level weakness in this area. Their main weakness is that they have not established their schools in the Western nations. Their main imams of knowledge can only speak in Arabic and have sources which are also restricted in the Arabic language.


When it comes to scientific knowledge, once again I believe the Muslim world lack in this area. Today’s society of Islam is either filled with Muslims of worldly knowledge or Muslims of religious knowledge. There seems to be no balance between the two.
Shaykh Tahir Ul Qadri in the clip below identifies the roots of terrorism within Muslim lands.




Next Shaykh Hakim al Quick lists the weakness of the Muslim scholars.



Imam Al Asi points us that we have more fiqhi scholars in comparison to scholars who are scientist. He says the Quran has more hints toward science as comparison to fiqh.



As for the last point, I believe the early Mutazillah were closer to the school of Ahlul Bayt (as). However, the later Mutazilla started to deviate toward the wrong direction. Orators are needed the Muslim world, but if they lack scholarly knowledge then they are not different than the non-Muslim who present their ideas.

Aql is haraam in your madhab ? Hadith Acceptance/Interpretations!

I recently was on the shiachat forum, and I was debating with a shia member. He posted some points, and I shot some points back. All of sudden the 12r shia became emotional and responded by saying "I know 'aql is haraam in your madhhab". Where did he get this strange idea ? Now the 12rs shias love quoting Bukhari when they are debating. However, who said all Sahih hadith is binding on the sunni Madhab ? The sunnis have different schools of thoughts. Also, the 12r shias themselves have 2 schools of hadith known as a Akbari school and an Usooli schools. Since Akbaris have a different method of choosing hadith, does this mean they lack aql ? Give me a break. As for 12rs, they too have authentic hadith which are questionable. A 12rs can reply by saying we don't consider everything to be sahih. Personally, I don't even think majority of the 12rs know what sahih mean. Now, that's another topic. However, I would like to give an example of an illogical hadith which the 12r shia marja act upon in Iran.
عدة من أصحابنا عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب، عمن ذكره، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام أنه نظر إلى بعض أصحابه وعليه نعل سوداء فقال: مالك وللنعل السوداء أماعملت أنها تضر بالبصر وترخي الذكر وهي بأغلى الثمن من غيرها وما لبسها أحد إلا اختال فيها.
(Furoo' al-Kafi, Chapter: Shoe Colors, #12591)

I entered on Abu Abdallah [as] wearing a black shoe, and he said: Why are you wearing a black shoe? Did you not know there are three characteristics in it? The narrator said: I said, what are they, may I be your ransom? He [as] said: It weakens your vision, loosens your penis and brings you depression. On top of that, it is part of the arrogant apparel. Wear the yellow shoes, for in it is three characteristics. The narrator said: I said, what are they? He [as] said: It sharpens the vision, strengthens the penis and puts away the depression, and furthermore, it is part of the Prophets [as] apparel".

The same hadith is quoted by esteemed shia scholar Shaykh al-Sadouq' said in his book 'al-Khisaal' on page 99.
"my father -may Allah be pleased with him- told us: Ahmad ibn Idris told us: Muhammad ibn Ahmad told me: on the authority of Musa ibn Omar, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Jibillah, on the authority of Hanan ibn Sudayr, he said: I entered on Abu Abdullah -peace be upon him- wearing a black sandal, so he said: 'What's with you wearing a black sandal? Did you not know that it has three traits?' I said: 'what are they, may I be sacrificed for you?' He said: 'it causes weak eyesight, loss of the erection, and anxiety, and in addition to (all) that it is the wear of the arrogant;...'!!!! [and 'Abu Abdullah' went on:] ',..so wear yellow sandals, for they have three traits'!!! I said: 'What are they?' He (Abu Abdullah) said: 'sharpens eyesight, hardens the penis, and expels anxiety, and in addition to (all) that its the wear of prophets -peace be upon them'".

Also, here are pics of shia marjas who are acting upon this hadith.












Anyway, not all 12r shias agree with this hadith. However, the point I am trying to make here is that both schools have hadith which are questionable. For example in Bukhari we have



sahih bukhari:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

Also there are distrubing hadith about breast feeding, and many others. I think the readers get the point. In reality criticising Bukhari or Muslim is not a crime for sunnis. The great Ahle sunnah Imam Daraqutni wrote a book weaking the sahih hadith found in Bukhari. Also, Imam Tirmithi weakened a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari (his teacher), the hadith of the two stones.
In fact, here is one of many similar statements by the Ulama of Hadith, this one is by Hafeth Ath-Thahabi said in his Siyar vol 14/133:

ولم يكن أحد في رأس الثلاث مئة أحفظ من النسائي. هو أحذق بالحديث وعلله ورجاله من مسلم ومن أبي داود ومن أبي عيسى. وهو جار في مضمار البخاري وأبي زرعة إلا أن فيه قليل تشيع وانحراف عن خصوم الإمام علي كمعاوية وعمرو، والله يسامحه

which means: " No one at the head of the 3rd century was more of a Hafeth (of Hadith) than An-Nasa'i. He is more knowlegdable in Hadith, its illal, and narrators than Muslim, and Abu Dawood, and Abu Isa (tirmithi). He is running in parallel with Bukhari and Abu Zur'a, but there is a little Tasha'yu' (= liening towards Imam Ali), and harshness against the enemies of Imam Ali such as Muaw'yah and Amru, Allah forgive him".

Here is how Ath-Thabi considered that no Hadith scholar in the 3rd century was more knowledgable than Imam Nasa'i, not even Muslim, let along ABu Dawood, or Tirmithi. May Allah be pleased with them all. this is how the Ulama looked at Bukhari and Muslim, with admiration but also criticised what they thought is right. There are also similar statements about Imam Bukhari himself, etc.. They are all great in what they did. Yet they are not infallible. Criticising their Asaneed, narrators, Ahadith, methodology is fair game for the expert SCHOLARS.


From the 12rs side we have al Mufid who criticized the works of his own scholar Shaykh Saduq. Then we have Shaykh Al Tusi who was shocked at what the 3rd mujadid of the 12rs al Kulyani attributed to Ilm-e- Jafr. Difference exist within shia and sunni scholar. Are we going to waste our time mocking each other ? Or are we going to focus on intellectual debates ? I've been on shiachat and kr-hcy for years. Personally, I'm sick of topics which are based on mocking. This is why I have decided to focus my energy on this blog.