mutazilah or Rational

7/28/2019 mutazilah or Rational

1/9


2/9


3/9

of the traditionalist Muslims. It may be trie that the we must consider the case ofthe existence of two sub-Mu'tazilah followed the heretic Christians in their stances that are absolutely alike. But such substancesviews, but the traditionalist Muslims followed the cannot be called two unless, in addition to their

however, is crystallised in five major theses, such as Orthodox Clwistians, believingin the reality and eter-the Unity of God, or the relationshp between the nity of the divine attributes. To the traditionalistDivine attributes and the essence of God; al-qadar or Muslims, the unity of God is a relative term; theyhuman free will; the creatednessof the Qur'an; the accept the eternity of the attributes, recognising theintermediate position of the grave sinner; and com- ontological status of each attribute as somethmg thatmanding the right and forbidding the wrong. One really exists eternally and is in the essence of God.of the major theological issues discussed by the Subsequently,tlieessence of God becomes a container

was the reality and eternity of the divine for many eternal, real entities apart from Him; thisattributes and their relationship view accepts the plurality ofwith the essence of God. Beforewe begin to explain the views ofe Mu'tazilah, it is necessary to

understand the roots and thebackground of this issue in Judeo-Christian theology. The belief inthe reality of the divine attributesis generated by the Christiandoctrine of the Trinity and wasdiscussed by Christian theo-ogians before the rise ofMu'tazilah. Yahya b. Adi, one of other than God and is eternal, orthe Chri st ian theologians , else knowledge will becomeremarked that the triad of the another independent, eternalTrinity-the Father, the Son and being. In this way, the Mu'tazilahthe Holy Spirit-corresponds to believe in the unity of God. Thisthree attributes of God, namely concept of unity is used for bcColife, wisdom and power; however, purposes:there are different opinions on the nature of the last i) It is used in the sense ofi~mericalunity or absolutetwo attributes.15Some Chistian thinkers believe that unity, which is the denial of the existence of morethey are mere names or qualities of God and not real than one God. This meaning of the mity is in agree-things as such, whereas the orthodox Christians ment with the Qur'anic notion of monotl~eism.accept these two attributes as real things, distinct from ii)It is used in the sense of internal unity and sim-God but not independent of Him. The problem that plicity, as that God's essence is free from essentialarises is the question of whether these attributes are and composition.created by God or CO-eternal with Him. The ortho- If we go back to the history of Judeo-Christiandox Christians admit that, as God is eternally living, theology, we find that the argument for the unity ofeternally omniscient and eternally omnipotent, there Go d W as propo und e d by J U d a eu S Phi1ois no reason for the denial of the eterrutyof the second (20 BCE4O CE), and then restated by Spinozaand third attributes. On the other hand, other Chris- (1632-1677 CE) in h s pantheistic philosophy, for thetians reject this claim on the grounds that anything same purposes. For Philo, eternity is an essentialeternal is to be called God, therefore the three attrib- quality of God; no other kind of being except Himutes shall be called three gods, which is polytheism. is eternal. This view represents the established Judeo-(14) Hence we conclude that the Christians are Christian and Islamic principle of monotheism. Itsdivided into two groups: the first group believes ~ I I denial is the rejechonof these three Semitic religions.the reality and eternity of the three attributes, and the Spinoza supported the Phxlonic principle by puttingsecond rejects this belief and argues for the unity of the argument into a better logical form, saying thatGod. l6 if there are two substances like immaterial God and

The claim that the Mu'tazilah was inspired by the world, either they should be absolutely differentChristian theology comes from this simxlarity or absolutelv same. If there are two absolutely dif-betwcen the views of their school and some Christ- ferent substances with nothing in common, oneian theologians, but this is unjust, because a similar cannot become the cause ofthe other."If the exis-influence is traceable even on the theological views tence ofhvo differentsuibstancesis not possible, then

'Mu '~uz~~u~S the firstrUti0naliSti~ chool inthe h StOry of Islamicthought. It interprets

the dogmas ofreligion

eternals. Against h s view, theMu'tazilah explain a new rela-tionship between the essence ofGod and the attributes by sayingat God does not possess the~attributes and they are not in Hisessence, but rather that the divineessence and the attributes areidentical and the same. For

example, we cannot say thatGod'sknowledgeissomething


4/9


5/9

him to safety.'29Still, this does not assert the eternityof the Qur'an, simply because eternity belongs to Godonly, and notlung else can be eternal or uncreated.If we accept the eternity of anything except God thenwe approve polytheism and negate monotl~eism.

In our discussion of the problem of the divineattributes, we said that the ~u' tazi lahreject the eter-nity as well as the reality of the attributes. The issueof the uncreatedness of the Qur'an seems to be dif-ferent. No doubt, the Mu'tazilah do not agree withthe traditionalist Muslims on the eternity of the Wordof God, but they donot deny the realityof the Qur'an andadmit that there wasa real Qur'an, whichexisted before itsrevelation in a pre-served tablet. They

also insist that Godeyen crea ted i tbefore i t wasrevealed, and hencethere was no roomfor the belief in itseternity. It was alsoinferred from theQur'anic verse 'thuswe narrate to you.the accounts of whathas gone before', inorder to prove that

and segregation. To reiterate, the act of producing aword or the speech of God is either mediated bynature (for example the sound came from the bushto Moses), or bv choice, as in the case of otherprophets, who have been given power by God toexpress the divine law, Relying on al-Mu'ammar'sview, the Qur'an belongs to the second category, ahuman production but divine in its characteristics asit reveals the will of God.

Another theologcal problem to be discussedhere is free will: whether human beings are free or

the ~ u r ' ~was produced after the events mentionedin this text.30Inaddition to t h s view, al-Nazzam andal-Mu'ammar have gone further by advocating theidea that God's word is not communicable.Al-Nazzam also denies the preservation of theQur'an on a tablet, saying that the word is createdin air in the form of a combination of articulate soundsat the time of its revelation. Al-Mu'ammar believesthat the Qur'an is neither the Word of God nor Hiswork, but the production of nature, because God

creates only substances and not accidents, and thesubstances are capable of producing accidents." Ifthe Qur'an is an accident, it is not created by God butproduced by a natural body,wluch is located in spaceand time. Al-Baghdadai also reports that al-Mu'am-mar does not ascribe to God the eternal attributes,nor can he believe that God's word is His work,because God does not create accidents.32In this wayfor al-Mu'arnmar, God created bodies, and the acci-dents are the products of the bodies, as fireproduccsburning, and the sun heat, and the moon colorationof things; things are produced by thjs, or by choice,like animals produce motion and rest, aggregation

their actions deter-mined by God;whether Islam iscompatible wi.ththedoctrine of free willor not. Majid Fakhrista'tes that mostMuslim historj.ansbelieve that thisproblem is the firstabstract issue onwhich the theolo-gians began toargue. 33The confu-s ion regardinghuman f reedomarose because theMuslim theologiansfound verses in theQur'an for as well asagainst vredestina-V

tion. It also happened that in the lustory of politicalIslam, in particular during the Umayyad period, thepredestinarian verses were given preference over theverses 111 favour of free will, for political.reasons.Thepredestination theory does not hold human beingsresponsible for their actions and consequently the doc-trine, with its political implication, provides a.ground for the justification of any kind of oppressivemeasures and actions taken by the rulers agai.nstthepeople. Many Mus1j.m rulers were able to suppressthe voices of the intellectuals and the movementsagainst social injustice with the help ofsome Musl.imscholars by putting emphasis on the verses insupport ofpredestination;

In the Qtir 'a~zthere are verses that affirmpredes-tination, for example:

'Those who disbelieve, whether you forewarn themor not, they ~villnot have faith. God has set a sealupon their hearts and ears; tl~ejright is dimmed andgrievous punishment awaits them.'3"'Say: "

I possessnopov7er [togive]benefit for myself,nor power to hurt save by God's leave. Had I tlne


6/9


7/9

omnipotent Being, who is capable of controlling say that God has no power to do evil then it wouldhuman actions? mean His power is limited.

Inopposition to the doctrine ofpredestjnation, the b) Divine Tustice postulates human freedom, for if~u'tazilah,perhaps under the influence of Ma'bad human beings are not the authors of their lives thenal-Jahani and Ghail.anal-Dimashqi, who advocated they should not be held responsible for their deeds.the doctrine of free will before the rise of the God promises to punish the sinners and this sig-Mu'tazilah,school, try to discuss the possibil.ityof free nifies that human beings are free. Otherwise, itwill under the umbrella of theism. They believe that would be unfair for God to punish human beingspredestination is a mere absurdity for sins not created by them, orbecause it implies imperfection in that they were compelled tothe essence of God, and describes c o n ~ t .Ifwe were to believe thatGod as being uniust. Also, it con- human action is determined bvtradicts the hotion of ~ix7ineret- 1 Nietzsche and Sartre, 1 GO^, human beings wouldribution. Before we begin this deserve no blame and no pun-argument, let's examine Low theMu'tazilah explain the causalrelationship between God and theworld. This is analysed in two

ways: some of the Mu'tazilahagree on the direct causal rela-tionship between God and theworld, whereas al-Nazzarn andal-Mu'ammar believe in the exis-tence of a chain of intermediaries

between God and the events thattake place in the world. But both

presupposes the

denial of the existence

of God, but how does

a Muslim thinkerargue for human

freedom?,goups exclude human action 1from this causal relationship,applying the law of causation only to the pl~ysicalphenomena and events in the world. Unlike the tra-ditionalist Muslims, they have made a distinctionbetween human actions and the events in thenatural world, and kept the latter only under thedomain of the causal determination.Allactions madeby human beings, for the Mu'tazilah, flow out ofhuman will and an awareness of the situation.Humanbeings, unlike animals and physical objects, knowthemselves and know what they are doing. On thebasis of this description, human beings will be heldresponsible for their bad deeds. In brief, the argu-ments for free will made by the Mu'tazilah can be

summarised as follows:The first argument deals with the conception of

Divine Justice, which can be subdivided into twoparts:a) The Mu'tazilah maintain that God is good and just,

and that evil and injusticeshould not be refereedto Him. If God creates evil He should be evil, andif He creates justice, then He would be just. But

as God is absolutely good and just, evil and injus-tice cannot be attributed to Him." The moral per-fection of God, however, does not sigmfy that God

ishrnent. Human freedom iithena logical requirement of DivineTustice. Human beings arecapable of acting freely and

hence they are morally respon-sible. In Kitab al-Usul a2-Khamsn,'Abd al-Jabbar states that: 'It isthe knowledge that God isremoved from all that is morallywrong (qabih)and that aUHis actsare n~orallygood (hasana).This isexplaii~edby the fact that you

1 knbw all human acts of injustice(zulin), transgression (jawr) andthe Like cannot be of His creation (min khalqilzi).Wl~oeverattributes that to Him has ascribed toHim injustice and insolence (safah) and thusstravs from the doctrjne of j~stice.'~"Thesecond argument, which is originally given by

Wasil b. 'Atta, emphasises the ability of human beingsto thinkand to choose: 'Man knows that he possessescapacity and actions within himself and whoever

denies that, he denies necessity.' Human capacity is

interpreted as will and knowledge, which are the onlydistinctions between man and the other livingbeings and non-livingentities in the world. Then, asWasil says, 'It is possible for a man who is seated to

stand up, for the man in motion to come to rest, andfor the man who is speaking to remain silent.'51

Thirdly; human bejngs are conscious, can choose,but other kkds ofbeings are deprived of this priv-ilege. The natural objects and events are determinedby transient causatioi~.For example the chair is movedby my hand, which is moved by me. The movementsof the chair and my hand belong to two differentkinds of causation, and the latter can be called imma-

nent because it is by me as an agent. Wasil's idea is

similar to Aristotle's concept of the Prime Mover,

has no power to do evil, but consi2s i this, that which describes God to be & a position, as an agent,He has power to do everything, and exerts this to make the events happen; the agent is not deter-power only in doing what is good; if we were to nined by a transient cause.


8/9


9/9

Australian Rationalist. . . ., . ' '

. Editor ' . ..., .

. . . ,, . .

Elise Jones . " ,, .Assistant~ditoi.' . , . ' , . .. . ., . .

, , .Don Hurnphrey. ., : . ., . , . .,,: .

Editorial ConsultantIon Robinson

Business Manager "Dovid McKenzieContributions in the form of articles, letters,etc, ore welcome and should be sent to:The EditorAustralian Rationalistc/- 277 Punt RoadRichmond Victoria 31 21email: [email protected] and other business mattersshould be sent to:

1 h i s SweetRSA Secretary42 RuskinAvenueCroydon Victoria 3136Tel: (03)9723 2792Fax: (03) 9725 8577email: [email protected] Membership application form i s enclosed.Copyright restrictions apply unless otherwisestated. Views expressed by contributors arenot necessarily those of the RSA.

Publication details:Australian Rationalist

(ISSN 1036-8191)is published by the Rationalist Associationof Australia Ltd on behalf of the RationalistSociety of Australia.

ACN 0041 21 1 1'7Registered off ice:42 RuskinAvenue,Croydon Victoria 3136Australia

Printed by IPP8 (03) 9428 2958.Distributed byGordon & Gotch.Print Post approved 349069/00042.

Editorial 2

On the ground in Iraq: an eyewitness account 5Scilla Elworthy's Baghdad diariesPrisci l la E Iwor thyTen things to know about the Middle East 14

Stephen ZunesTHEIMPACT OF ISLAMIN 'THEMODERN WORLD 19Islam, its origins and impact on

western thoughtRodne y BlackhirstMu'tazilah: the rise of Islamic rationalism 27

M u h a m m a d K a ma lDe-demonising IslamPhoebe Ah me d

OPINION

Don't panic!

A soldier's viewpoint on surviving chemical,nuclear and biological attacks

Red Thomas

A just war in Iraq?

lan M c H u g hDOCUMENT

The US and Iraq:an

alternative view 45from America

Dennis ,I Kucinich

Cover by Simon Kneebone.Illustrations by Waldemar Buczynski.Cartoons by John Kolm and Simon Kneebone.

.- .. . . .

TheRationalist Society of Australia prefersreason toprejudice, science to superstition,

evidence to faith; promotes secular ethics andeducation; holds lectures, conferences and

social activities.

Documents

mutazilah or Rational