Talk:Mu'tazilism/Archive 1

Archive 1

There is a significant mistake under the "origin" section

the article says Wasil Ibn Ata walked out of "ibn Kathir"'s class. That would take some considerable talent since Ibn Kathir came almost 500 years after. The article means to say ibn Ata walked out on Hasan al Basri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.157.247 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

While I am not an Islamic scholar, it seems to me that it would be better to use the name Allah in this article than the word God, which is an inaccurate rendering of the Arabic Allah. God is used in other religions, whereas Allah is a proper name particular to Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groucho (talk • contribs) 09:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A truly dinky article on what is possibly the most influential group of scholars in human history.

It's always hard to know whether to slant an article for beginners, as this one is, or get into the depth. I believe with history it's always best to write for beginners, and with science it's always best to write for experts. Other ideas?

The articles Muslim philosophy and early Muslim medicine should cover the growth of ideas more exactly, but still historically. They should be linked to from philosophy and medicine wherever a detailed explanation of the Muslim influence is required. That's often, since they were so influential.

---

I have rewritten the article from scratch, and provided the historical context for this school's development, as well as why they started and why they failed. The original article was inaccurate. It confused philosophers with Mutazilis. They are two different things altogether. Ibn Rushd was never ever a Mutazili, but the last great philosopher of Islam. Al Kindi, Farabi, Avicenna, Ibn Rushd, are all philosophers and were never Mutazilis. The same error is made in Ashari articles as well. When I have time I will correct that too.

As for Muslim philosophy and Muslim medicine, they have nothing to do with Mutazilis, but with Philosophy. -- KB 03:26, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

---

Too amusing! that Muslims so casually refer to this school of thought as "the deserters"— Mu'tazili— without even the least whisper of a suggestion that this pejorative denigration is a biased insult that violates NPOV, etc etc! One can only imagine the reaction to an educated Westerner referring to these philosophers as "the deserters." Howls of dismay!

Not a word of this in the entry, needless to say. The justifications might be enlightening too! Otherwise excellent! excellent! but carry on... --Wetman 02:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this article does not cover the etymology of the term in more detail - if it had, you would have been aware that the name "Mu'tazila" (those who withdraw) was sometimes used by the Mu'tazila themselves, in reference to the anecdote later mentioned involving their founder and Hasan al-Basri - although they more frequently called themselves by the somewhat POV term "people of unity and justice". Your speculation is duly noted, however. For fuller details, you could resort to the rather more detailed article at muslimphilosophy.com, according to which it originally designated "a position of neutrality in the face of opposing factions" - justifying the frequently found translation "Isolationists". - Mustafaa 18:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To add to what Mustafa said; the word, both in the [reflexive] verb form iʕtazal and adj. muʕtazil, has no derogative connotations. It is closer in meaning to "to seclude oneslef". In fact the meaning tilts to the other way round, if the performer of the action does so because he believes the rest to be lesser than him, or radically different as to not be able to communicate with, which is the case in the anecdote usually given as explanation of the name's origin. --A. Gharbeia (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

moatazilla.com is a very odd site to say the least. I suggest we remove the reference to it. I also suggest we work together to add information on how the movement affected Aquinas and Europe. On the flip side, I am troubled by the fact that I find nothing bizarre about their position. There has to be something that accounts for their demise, other than their intellectualism and rigour. Perfect length for the article though. User:Mohan_ravichandran.

We cannot understand the origin of this school of thought by detail discussion of its etymology, but by the historical background of its origin. I have added a section on this topic, in the Origin section. averroist 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding Averroist (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration

Could someone add transliterations to المعتزلة and اعتزل along the lines of the transliterations found in the article Qur'an? Also, is it most correct for the article to say "Mu'tazili theology originated in the 8th century in al-Basrah when...", or should the name of the city be changed to the modern "Basra" (which is where the article actually resides)? --Quuxplusone 20:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basra (the English name) and al-Basrah (the Arabic name) are interchangeable; this is purely a matter of taste. - Mustafaa 18:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: AlBasra is still the name of the city in Arabic to this day. It is only shortened to Basra by English news reporters. --Alif 18:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Basra. Arabists will understand either term, and it will be a stumbling block to some monoglots; so assist the student, not the master. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning

seeing the etymology section, would it be correct to translate mu'tazili as "apostates"? dab (ᛏ) 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Title in singular

The title of the article adopts the singualr Arabic form of the word, but isn't it more likely that an English reader will encounter the name in the plural as the collective name of the school/group as a whole?

also, somewhere it reads:

thus he and his followers were labelled Mu'tazili

If the writer means that "..he (Wasel) and each of his followeres were called Mu'tazili" then this would be correct, but again isn't it more obvious to speak about them as a group and call them Mu'tazila?

The article then proceeds to speak of the group using the English plural (+s) which is made from the singular Arabic form. What is the custom here? --Alif 18:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Famous Figures

Surely it is POV to call someone "a literary genius"? Ackie00 09:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Al nazar?

"al nazar" is mentioned but without explanation as to what it is. What is it? --Ephilei 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of nazar

It is speculative reasoning. "Speculative" because the issue is not self-evident enough to induce knowledge by way of necessity.

---

As a Mutazili Muslim from Turkey who abandoned the foolish dogmas and barbaric absurdities of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaah, who is fed up with secularist state-control toward Islam, and who perhaps is the last of the adherents of a revolutionary 'dead sect' that made such notable contributions to a logical and consistent monotheistic creed based on Quranic revelation, I must confess, I was overjoyed to discover the great theological and philosophical reasoning of Mutazilah the first time I encountered it early this year. Never before in any Islamic text or school had I seen such clarity and sophistication in thinking regarding ontological matters. The question of free will and existence of evil in the world were elucidated to such a level that no question or doubt remained. Even now, to my astonishment, I read to explore how Mutazilah has successfully answered all issues of faith, law, justice, morality, etc... in Islam more than a thousand years ago.

Equally, I am baffled as to how a rational, intellectual, meritorious, virtuous, well-principled school of Islamic thought as Mutazilah could fade away. Is it because of Asharite slanders against the magnanimously upright tenets of Mutazilah for centuries? Or the hatred caused by the Mihna unfairly attributed to Mutazilah? Was it Al-Gazali who delivered the final blow with his inconsistence and irrationalism? The downfall and demise of this sect is shrouded in mystery. Whatever the cause, Mutazilah is too precious a phenomenon to neglect in Islamic history. This article is most lacking, given the importance of Mutazilah in the development of methodologic inquiry and application of scripture.

I must say, the relationship between Islamic philosphers and Mutazilah is negatively portrayed. I have already read in Muhammad Ammara's work: "Mutazilah and the Question of Human Free Will", that Avicenna (or was it Ibn Rushd?) says Mutazilah is the only sect in conformity with the philosophers on the matter of predestination and free will. Surely, the fact that Islamic philosophy and sciences declined at the same time as Mutazilah cannot be a haphazard occurence.

Ozan Yarman

Origin section

In the origin section, the final sentence of the first paragraph, it says: It was the latter, not the Muslim theologians in general, who took Greek philosophy as the starting point and the master conceptual framework for analyzing and investigating reality.

Who is the "latter" in the article? I find the sentence confusing. __earth ^(Talk) 06:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How do other muslims view it?

I think this article could really use a section on its relationships with other segments/traditions/groups within Islam. How does it look at them? how do they look at it? zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. On this note, I, for example, find the statement "They are usually not accepted by other Sunni Muslims, though their theology parallels Shi'a Islam, such as their belief in the indivinity of the Qur'an." confusing. This must be elucidated. How much of the Sunni theology is different from it, and how much of the Shi'a theology is similar to it? I found the claim about the Shi'a theology too strong, and hence I added the words "some of." Utnasudra (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside of proper context (which the article isn't providing) the line doesn't make much sense at all, but there are important parallels between the Mu'tazili and Twelver Shi'a theologies. We really need some massive editing. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sunni" and "Shia" are not religious designations (though commonly - but wrongly - considered as such), but political designations. The Mutazilites were "Sunnis" in regard of politics (i.e. they accepted the early caliphate and cooperated with later ones), but they were the opposite of the traditional and orthodox, so-called "Sunni madhhabs". That's why they share many common beliefs with the so-called "Shias", i.e. the madhhabs that derive from early anti-caliphal movements (Ali's party, Khurramites, etc). Tajik (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unify the terminology

The plural noun is in various places Mu’tazili, Mu’tazilis, Mu’tazilite and Mu’tazilites. Would it be possible to pick one form and stick to it? —Wegesrand (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Similar to the situation at Talk:Hanbali, some people might get prickly about it. Personally, I'm all for sticking with one terminology; did you have any one of them in mind we could use as a standard? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding citation tags

I'm even finding the addition of Template:Citation needed to all necessary spots a bit laborious. I can't even imagine what it will be like to find citations for all this.
This is an extremely important article about a philosophy whose story was often told by its enemies. Still, if citations can't be found, it might be best to cut the article down and simply build from scratch based on what resources can be found. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I can locate the references needed, just don't be so quick on the trigger to delete large sections. I am bewildered by your suggestion that the story of the Mu'tazila is told by its enemies. In my tradition, the impact upon Sa'adya Gaon cannot be overstated especially when he was compelled to formulate "Qalam al-Yahudi" to stem assimilation. Thank you for the constructive suggestions. Perhaps you have references as well? Jaim Harlow 17:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It even mentions here in the lead of the article that most of what we know about the Mu'tazila were written by their enemies, though. Almost everything we have was written by Sunnis in polemical works so obviously it will have a negative slant. If you have something which isn't totally against them, that would be great.

I can search for some sources, but the point of concern is that it will take time. A great deal of this article consists of blocks of texts with no sources at all, and it needs quite a bit of attention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I will help next week; I turn into a pumpkin soon and will re-emerge on Monday. Be well, MezzoMezzo Jaim Harlow 22:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright man, take your time. I assure you there won't be any rush to cut content - slowly but surely, we can find sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Jimharlow99, how are you? While searching for sources for another article, I found this on Google Books. Seems like it would be a good source for some of the statements already found in this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I find that the article is still in terrible shape. Much of it is unreferenced, and the little part that is referenced, is often incoherent, if not based on outright misrepresentation of what is in the sources cited (in the instances where this is even verifiable). It is a very good idea to reduce this mess to a coherent account of what little information we are in fact positive about. This will have the added bonus that people will actually bother to read any of it instead of just skimming over it. I suggest that the Encyclopedia of Islam article, online here, has more than sufficient material that is well-referenced and coherent to fix this. But this will only work if we are willing to rigorously throw out all that is incoherent or not properly referenced.

I am intrigued by Jaim Harlow's suggestion of being "bewildered" by the "suggestion that the story of the Mu'tazila is told by its enemies": our sources are positive about this movement having flourished during the 8th to 10th century. As in, it has ceased to flourish a millennium ago, and has pretty much been used as a charge of "heresy" since. Harlow seems to suggest that Mu'tazila was influential on Saadia Gaon, a 10th-century rabbi. Well, if it was, I am sure this would be an interesting addition, even though the well-developed article on Gaon so far does not seem to be aware of it at all. But I fail to see how the movement's suggested influence on rabbinic writing is supposed to make it viewed with less hostility in Muslim theology. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: Hey man, are you still around? I just noticed this now. You're right: this article is still a mess. To cut out the unsourced content is really, really bold, but...maybe that's what we need in order to build an actual properly referenced piece? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ayin transliteration

I'm going to rename the article, replacing the "grave accent" with "modifier letter left half ring" (see Ayin#Transliteration). --Djadjko (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved (not by me). --Djadjko (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Re section "Muʿtazilism today"

This section smacks of original research and I am not in a position to evaluate the sources cited. However it seems likely that they do not support the claims made here. The contributor all but concedes that the named scholars do not (or did not) regard themselves as Mu'tazili. So why are they here? Is this section here to support the ambitions of an obscure Islamic modernisation group in France? (The group's name appears at the end of the section.) -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)