Talk:Mu'tazilism

Mutazilite are NOT Sunnite

The Mutazilite are a distinct group NOT Sunnite. I edited it and described the relation between them and the Sunni and Shia Islam, three Caliphates were Mutazilite in the Abbasid empire, Al-Ma'mun, Al-Mu'tasim and Al-Wathiq, then the Caliphates supported the Sunnite again since Al-Mutawakkil. Atheerkt (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that depends on whom one asks. According to the Royal Ahl al-Bayt Institute in Jordan, Mu'tazilah are technically considered a sub category of Sunni. Even IBn Taymiyyah, a polemical dogmatist who is the figurehead of declaring other Muslims to be heretics, conceded that Mu'tazilah can be considered Sunni depending on the context in which the word "Sunni" is used. I think it would be better to represent that difficulty in delineating sects in the text. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MezzoMezzo. I add we should avoid losing reality behind boxes. People can be many things at once, and these terms should not be so concrete to preclude that possibility. e.g. Sunni and Sufi. --Inayity (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, and a very good point. With Sufi it's clear, I think like 90% are within Sunni Islam. Mu'tazila can get sticky but we still need to avoid boxes. For example, the Zaidi branch of Shi'ism is often associated with I'tizal. Likewise, the Ibadhiyyah in Oman - the third extant branch of Islam - is referred to as Kharijite by Sunnis but a Sunni friend of mine who lives in Oman said they consider themselves close to Mu'tazila. Then you get Sunni Mu'tazilites like Ibn al-Jinni the liinguist, Zamakhshari the Hanafi, and so forth.

Actually...we could just go for what reliable sources say. The Royal Ahl al-Bayt Institute (Jordanian establishment) holds Mu'tazila as a sub-branch of Sunni. That ought to be included. There are probably academic sources noting that this is disputed. That can be included as well. We just present to the reader what the sources say; readers will make up their minds for themselves, and invariably they will not all come to the same conclusions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a terrific upgrade MezzoMezzo - There will be no end of quibbling over it. However, I am curious, about such a designation excluding the Qaraite Jews. Qaraim themselves, according to this with whom I've explored this topic, readily admit to the influence of Mu'tazila in their approach to Hebrew canonical texts and Halakha. I would offer that the distinctions of who was Jew, Khajarite, Sunni, Shi'a, Ismaili, etc, became more rigid at a later date. Just kicking down some feedback. Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In my reading, I have found that the distinctions between sects started even in the time of the Rashidun Caliphate. Kharijites were spoken of in a tradition attributed to Muhammad, and those who murdered Ali were also branded as Kharijites, among them the Haruriya about whom A'isha spoke against. The Qadariyya, Jabariyya and Murji'ah also appeared very early. Sunni-Shi'a existed from the time of Abu Bakr, though much of the mainstream Shi'ite creed would be developed later, yes. But I don't know of any time when the distinction between a Jew, Karaite or other, and a Muslim, wasn't rigid; can you provide reliabgle sources?

As for supposed quibbling over the inclusion of Mu;tazila roughly within Sunni Islam, then this is historical fact supported by multiple reliable sources we can all bring if we only take the time. Let sectarians quibble but Wikipedia is here for accurate representation, not how Muslims would like to view themselves and their divisions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ping: As you can see, this has been discussed before, and while it is obvious that the Mutazilites were at variance with Sunni orthodoxy, they are not viewed as being outside of Sunnism in general. To add to the above points and references, there are various other sources one can cite that show the position of Mutazilism relative to Shi'ism: Template:Tq Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought, Template:Tq [1], Template:Tq [2] - the latter in particular highlights the intrinsic POV in stating in Wikivoice that Mutazilites are not a part of the Sunni tradition, when in fact Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari himself first studied under the Mutazilite Al-Jubba'i - a context in which the assertion that Mutazilites were not Sunni would be quite extraordinary. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping Any controversial statements should be attributed to whoever made them. Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. With all due respect, this is UNDUE and a fringe theory that has no academic support! Even the Mu'tazilis themselves, would disagree vigorously! Can you show me any source or reference from the books of the Sunnis or even the Mu'tazilis, throughout the entire Islamic history, in which any scholar said that the Mu'tazilis are Sunnis?!

The vast majority of sources do not consider them to be Sunnis, even though they were followers of the Hanafi school of thought, exactly just like the Karramis.

Template:Tq, al-Ash'ari held that the Attributes are not simply words (lafz) or modes (ahwal), but real things (ashya') subsisting in God from eternity.

The founders of the major Sunni theological schools: Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324/936), Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333/944) ALL OF THEM strongly criticized the Mu'tazilis and did not consider them to be Sunnis. The formal name of the Sunni Muslims is the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a (the People of the Sunna and the Majority/Consensus/Community/Collective), while the Mu'tazilis referred to themselves as Ahl al-'Adl wa al-Tawhid (the People of Justice and Monotheism).--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

No it's not fringe and you have provided no evidence that the "vast majority of sources" say anything. You have provided just one reliable source and a mere handful of not particularly reliable sources to make your point, just as I myself have provided three sources to make the opposite point. However, you have provided absolutely no basis for which to describe the characterization of the Mutazilites as part of the broad Sunni umbrella as fringe. I do not disagree that there is some variation among the sources on the subject, but, as it stands, the only thing that is exceptional here is your entirely unevidenced claim that what I am suggesting based on sources is fringe. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote

• Template:Talkquote--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

So there is immediately some ambiguity even among these quotes, such as: Template:Tq, which by inference implies Mu'tazilism once was a sect or school of thought in Sunni societies. More generally, the problem with most of this statements, taken out of context, is that they provide no sense of the time periods that they address. Now obviously when Ash'ari was studying under a well-known Mutazilite, they probably weren't considered "heretical". Then the theology went through a bad patch after al-Ma'mun promoted it in a somewhat authoritarian manner and then al-Mutawakkil repudiated it. But right there in the middle though, Mutazilism was the theology officially supported by the caliph. Most of the above quotes, without their context, don't really explain what the periods are that they are talking about. In modern times, there is also plenty of confusion about what the classical Mutazilites argued and what 'neo-Mutazilites' today argue, as outlined quite succinctly in the abstract here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There are fundamental differences between the Mu'tazilis and the Sunnis, especially in 'aqidah (Islamic creed) and Usul al-Din (the principles of religion), and these differences are not just minor differences. In addition, as I said above, the Mu'tazilis themselves did not consider themselves to be Sunnis. There is no disagreement or dispute about this throughout the Islamic history! The only thing common between the Mu'tazilis and the Sunnis is in the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as the Mu'tazilis used to follow the Hanafi school of thought.

• Template:Talkquote
• Template:Talkquote
• Template:Talkquote

Each branch of Islam has some central beliefs (Usul al-Din). Sunni Muslims follow the six articles of faith ("It is to believe in Allah (God), His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, and that you believe in preordainment (destiny), its bad and good consequences.") and Shi'a Muslims follow the five roots of Usul al-Din (see: Twelver theology). However, all Mu'tazilis regardless of their differences agreed on five foundational doctrines or principles (Usul al-Din). These principles were:

• (1) al-tawhid or the oneness and uniqueness of God,
• (2) al-'adl or the justice of God,
• (3) al-wa'ad wa al-wa'id, or the promise and threat of God,
• (4) al-manzala bayn al-manzilatayn, that the grave sinner that has not yet repented cannot be designated with belief (iman) nor disbelief (kufr),
• and finally (5) al-amr bi-al-ma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al-munkar, commanding good and forbidding wrong.

For more details on these issues, see:

• Kitab al-Mughni fi Abwab al-Tawhid wa al-'Adl (Book of the plenitude on the topics concerning monotheism and justice) by al-Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar (d. 415/1024). He also wrote a work on the five principles entitled Kitāb al-Usul al-Khamsa and dictated a commentary for it entitled Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsa. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Rename to Mu'tazila

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Mu'tazili → Template:No redirect – Not only Mu'tazila is the correct form of the Arabic , it is also more popular, compare here:

• "Mu'tazila" -Llc 396
• "Mu'tazili" -Llc 380

  Note here that "Mu'tazili" is simply the genitive case of "Mu'tazila", just like "Ahmadiyya" and "Ahmadi" for instance. Rafy talk 12:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Not the genitive case but the -īy derivative adjective. The true genitive, before spoken Classical Arabic dropped its final short vowels, would have been Mu'tazilati with a short final 'i'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You are correct it is a masculine singular adjective "أنا معتزلي" but also a masculine plural genitive case "استقبلت معتزلي المدينة".--Rafy talk 10:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Hello Rafy, I agree with your proposition to rename this page to more accurately reflect it's linguistic and historical usage and context.Jimharlow99 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• In short, Mu'tazili is the adjective, Mu'tazila the noun: a Mu'tazili scholar belongs to the Mu'tazila. The question, therefore, is which is the subject of the article; the men or the school. Weakly oppose therefore; as the article is now written, it is about the men, not the movement. JCScaliger (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think the article mostly tackles the theological beliefs of the group and not the population as such. Even if the latest is true we should rather use the plural form per WP:PLURAL, (see Germans, Jews...)

• Support, per wp:commonname. "Mu'tazila" gets more results on Google Books. Compare [3] to [4]. It is the more common term when referring to this school of thought. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stating that the Muʿtazila were celebrated.

As stated before, this is an opinion that is stated via a farfetched website based on economics.

The first 3 website that appear on google regarding the Mu’tazilites don't mention anything regard them being celebrated. I would rather take the BBC, Britania, or the Oxford Bibliographies that give a neutral introduction over a random quote from a random website chosen to cherry-pick the editor in questions opinion. The person who kept changing this and called me a "troll" even admitted it was a minority opinion on the edit history page. If I wanted I could also find a million sources stated the Muʿtazila were hated - but I am not biased so I would not.

Please removed the "celebrated" comment, because as stated above, the main sources regarding the Muʿtazila do not mention this.

The is no doubting to the fact that the Mutazalites were a very well known group during the Islamic Golden age, but the cited source is not a reliable one. I have removed that claim from the the article for now. Thank you. Mosesheron (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Hadal (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Mutazilism → Template:No redirect – Template:PbThis page was recently moved from Mu'tazila to Mutazilism with the rationale "The current page title is a collective noun for adherents of the theological school, not the noun for the theological school itself, and needs to move to the format consistent with its peers: Atharism and Maturidism".Template:PbI agree with the rationale, but omitting the straight apostrophe in the move target was a mistake: the version with the apostrophe is much more common, e.g. Google Scholar yields 347 results for "Mutazilism" vs 1,850 results for "Mu'tazilism". This is of course also consistent with what we have at Ash'arism. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The apostrophe represents the first consonant of ’-z-l, the triliteral root of the word. Makes no sense not to include it. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 21:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Yes, standard transliteration, not controversial. Could have been a technical move. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, Template:U, back in the day I executed the move from Mu'tazila to Mutazilism as a technical move on your behalf [5]. It did feel a tad strange at the moment omitting that apostrophe, but as I'm not well versed with Arabic 'ayins and whatnots, I figured out you knew what you were doing. :) No such user (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Don't have a good answer to that. Bad/hasty call on my part? Obviously both spellings do exist, but I guess I oscillate a bit between thinking Wikipedia prefers the basic transliteration-equivalent words and transliterative orthodoxy. It's a bit of a scattershot across the platform. My mission last month was purging bare adjectives and I guess I just went with what I thought might be less objectionable/controversial technical move. But this is such a niche topic, and the source weight is now so obvious (alongside it being the more precise transliteration) that yeah, with the wider support for it, it absolutely makes sense to use that spelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
      • This would have been very hard to know without looking at the numbers. It's not like ayn or hamza are always conserved in common transcriptions. There are, for example, 793.000 hits for "Quran" vs 417.000 hits for "Qur'an", so we still have Quran despite Qur'an being pretty popular (especially in scholarly literature). I already figured that I could just do a bold move (citing the numbers in my edsum) and I would have, except that Mu'tazilism is a redirect with more than one revision, and so I would have needed to post at WP:RM/TR, where it would perhaps be objected that the page has just been moved and so that it is not uncontroversial. Hence the full RM. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:RMEC: initiated by a sockpuppet, and no other support for the move request at this time. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Mu'tazilism → Template:No redirect – per WP:COMMONNAME.

• JSTOR: "Mu'tazilites" 1,416 results - "Mu'tazilism" 417 results
• Brill Publishers: "Mu'tazilites" 997 results - "Mu'tazilism" 250 results
• Taylor & Francis: "Mu'tazilites" 259 results - "Mu'tazilism" 60 results
• Google results: "Mu'tazilites" 149,000 results - "Mu'tazilism" 35,900 results

And for consistency with former Islam-related sects such as Kharijites, not "Kharijism", Kaysanites, not "Kaysanism". Kermanshehi (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Religion has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is about the school of Islamic theology rather than its individual adherents. See Atharism and Ash'arism for reference. Skitash (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  The articles Kharijites and Kaysanites are not for individual adherents, but for the historical sects. Same in this case. Also, in contrast to Ash'arism, Atharism, Maturidism, the Mu'tazilites are variously described as a theological school, a rationalist sect or something else. Any thoughts about Mu'tazilites being WP:COMMONNAME? Kermanshehi (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermanshehi (talk • contribs)

• Oppose: I tried to raise the issue about the inconsistency in the titling of articles about Islamic denominations in May 2023 at the WikiProject Islam (later the discussion was moved to the Manual of Style talkpage). In my opinion, we should opt for the title with the suffix "-ism" since the article is about the school of thought and not about its adherents as a group of people ("-ites").--Æo (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.