Surviving Mu'tazilism and its possible development

How could have Mu'tazilism survived ? And then, how will it actually develop as a political and judicial framework ?

I've been re-reading again on Mu'tazilism, and while I think I still don't have sufficient grasp of the subject I shall throw this anyway for feedbacks. Ideally, Mu'tazilites still put revelation as the highest authority. However, they effectively set aside precedents as well as mandate immense weight on personal interpretation. The later part might seem sugary and ideal. But remember that Mu'tazilites came to be vilified for its association with Mihna, the initiative of Caliph Al Ma'mun of the Abbasids to centralize authority on the expense of traditional scholars. It might will stimulate flowering of natural science. But I doubt it will do so for political liberalism. Not immediately in medieval era at least. Mu'tazilist dismission of the old interpretations and and authority of scriptures can mean that power can get pretty personal and concentrated. What will we get from this ? Some sort of Islamic legalism ? Or do we get something similar to proto-Khomeinist Platonism out of the necessity for a cabal of reasoning experts ?
 
Last edited:
The problem with Mu'tazalites is that they deny that the Quran is the eternal word and that it was uncreated, therefore the word of Allah was not eternal, against the belief in the Quran being the eternal word by the Ulema of today and then. Mu'tazalism really never got off the ground however, almost everyone who was a Mu'tazalite was some sort of innovator or some hidden noble who the outside world thought was crazy. Thus I am not really sure how you get this school to be dominant, whenever it is completely parallel to the key orthodox concepts of Islam.



To do so however, you would need Mu'tazalism begin earlier and preferably during the early Umayyad caliphate. This would allow for a certain Caliph to establish it as orthodoxy, before a true tradition can be gained.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the ol' days

How could have Mu'tazilism survived ? And then, how will it actually develop as a political and judicial framework ?

I've been re-reading again on Mu'tazilism, and while I think I still don't have sufficient grasp of the subject I shall throw this anyway for feedbacks. Ideally, Mu'tazilites still put revelation as the highest authority. However, they effectively set aside precedents as well as mandate immense weight on personal interpretation. The later part might seem sugary and ideal. But remember that Mu'tazilites came to be vilified for its association with Mihna, the initiative of Caliph Al Ma'mun of the Abbasids to centralize authority on the expense of traditional scholars. It might will stimulate flowering of natural science. But I doubt it will do so for political liberalism. Not immediately in medieval era at least. Mu'tazilist dismission of the old interpretations and and authority of scriptures can mean that power can get pretty personal and concentrated. What will we get from this ? Some sort of Islamic legalism ? Or do we get something similar to proto-Khomeinist Platonism out of the necessity for a cabal of reasoning experts ?

I've read a few of them, though I think Al Ghazali really stuck it to them ion Incoherence. Mutazalites were essentially steeped in Hellenism. I don't see how it encourages legalism.
 
My impression of the Muˁtazilâ has always been that its key conceit (apart from the man-made and non-eternal nature of the Qur’ān) was that reason is the key to revelation. If they can play up this angle, maybe bring some of the emerging philosophers into their camp under this aegis, they may find wider acceptance. Perhaps a philosopher can come along and reconcile Muˁtazilī intellectual liberalism with the political liberalism that was en vogue among the more theologically conservative movements at the time.

For that to happen, however, you'd have to avoid the Miḥnâ. The quick and dirty short term fix for this is to kill Caliph al-Ma’mūn a few months ahead of schedule, as the Miḥnâ was largely his personal initiative. However, that doesn't prevent one of his successors from getting a similar idea, and the Muˁtazilī establishment may want something of the sort done anyway in order to safeguard their tenuous position of favor at the court... I also have a bit of a soft spot for al-Ma’mūn, so perhaps there's another way... :p
A more long-term solution may be to change al-Ma’mūn's approach to boosting the Muˁtazilâ in the realm. Maybe he decides that reason, rather than force, will win over the traditionalists. Instead of imprisonment and torture of Ibn Ḥanbal, dialogue with Ibn Ḥanbal and his ilk. This of course may not be enough to bring the arch-conservatives into the fold, but it may be enough to nudge the next generation of Islamic theologians and philosophers in a more Muˁtazilī direction.
 
Mark Soon in the other place brought something i made a fatal mistake for forgetting : Ijtihad!

The biggest difference of all, is that the Islamic Jurisprudence will keep evolving instead of waiting until Tanzimat to get picked up again.

And of course, continuation of Hellenic studies will induce more adoption of Greek ideas and even systems. But I suspect it'll be more Platonic Republic then Athenian democracy. Also keep in note that Ibnu Rusyd was one of the early proponents of enlightened absolutism.
 
Last edited:
I might be uncreative, but I just can't see an Islam without the orthodox views on the Quran. Also, I feel if the Abbasids were to go full out Mu'tazalite, you can expect severe repercussions perhaps even worse then the rebellions that they received in otl.

I also don't know how the Ulema would take this shift and how they would take to any form of government outside of the example of prophethood, this early. I seriously doubt that such a branch, could last for a long time and not be labelled a Kuffar by the Ulema, as what is said about them today by nearly all sects and madhabs in Islam.
 
I might be uncreative, but I just can't see an Islam without the orthodox views on the Quran. Also, I feel if the Abbasids were to go full out Mu'tazalite, you can expect severe repercussions perhaps even worse then the rebellions that they received in otl.

I also don't know how the Ulema would take this shift and how they would take to any form of government outside of the example of prophethood, this early. I seriously doubt that such a branch, could last for a long time and not be labelled a Kuffar by the Ulema, as what is said about them today by nearly all sects and madhabs in Islam.

Well it's still worth exploring, no ?

There's no doubt that entrenched Mu'tazila will going to provoke opposition. And I'm pretty sure they won't have ideological appeal much outside the big cities, especially places where mysticism and fatalism runs strong like in remote backwater areas. It might mean strengthened Sufi activism and challenge against Mu'tazilite domination. Also, effective autocracy don't last forever and soon the ulema will exert controlling influence. There might even be schism with in Mu'tazilite current itself, with defiant rationalists critical of the regime appearing. My prediction though is that Mysticism will be the ultimate winner, but Mu'tazilites can still survive underground if they were given at least few centuries time to grow large enough, and wait to rise for another time.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit dubious about the possibilities of Mu'tzailism to last as a strong school.

Morally and structurally, they weren't much different from other ulamas and they still had to compete with them when they had more broad social support.
Al Ma'mun didn't tried to enforce it out of blue, but because it was the most efficient way to build a religious (and therefore legal) support to his rule in an era where Abassid authority was far from being largely accepted, evein within the theoritical limits of the empire.

His religious policy shouldn't be separated from his whole reign, both corresponding to a reinforcement of the caliphal authority.

Now, maintain of mihna under al-Mu'tasim and al-Watiq obviously didn't managed to reinforce the Abassid position...
But going "soft" on ulamas to impose Mu'tazilism in a context of Persian Renaissance and Abassid decline isn't going, IMO, to help much. If something, it could weaken al-Ma'mun more than IOTL.

Could Mu'tazalites survive falling in disfavour without Mihna, as Ridwan Asher proposed? They could, but I wonder about how strongly and how long : the fortune of the important Islamic schools dependent a lot of them being supported by the political power : there's countless exemple of tendencies falling into oblivion because they were marginal (geographically and socially wise).

Without support from the court (meaning that political and religious elites would not form important pro-Mu'tazilist circles, being too dependent on the caliphal favour), without great echoes in masses (the elitist and educated nature of Mu'tazilism while associated with rationalism is reminiscent of the XIV/XVth Christian reformers, on this regard), it may decline into irrelevance.

The obvious necessary change would be to have another dynasty harbouring, if not supporting it. Which one, however, is a good question : with the Persian Renaissance, I doubt it would recieve much echo in the eastern AI world and the dominance of Malikism is a problem in the westernmost parts.
Maybe Ifriqiya or an Egyptian entity (that would mean an earlier Abassid collapse, or Samarran Anarchy equivalent)? I must admit it's more a choice by default than real convinction.

Maybe that without Ghilman and Turkic growing influence, the context would be more politically favourable for Abassid support. That said, it would ask for a PoD in the late VIIIth/early XIth, which could possibly butterfly away al-Ma'mun efforts.
 
Could we see Mutazil'a in Fatimid Egypt/Idrisid Maghreb? I know both are Shi'a; an early enough PoD butterflies away Ismail, and therefore Ismailism...
 
Being Shi'a isn't that of a problem : up to Fatimid hegemony in North Africa and Palestine, Shi'a and Sunni distinctio wasn't always clear and you had a lasting mutual influence on some schools.

Early Ismai'ilism could be somewhat compatible with some forms of Mu'tazilism, while I'm not sure about most rationalist and less mystical parts. Still, an influence on Fatimid ulamas could happen with a reasonable suspension of disbelief, if you manage to get rid of most obvious mystical parts (which wouldn't too much hard to partially butterfly).

Idrissids are simply too marginal, IMO, to have a lasting influence. A pity, as Zaidi schools are probably more close of Mu'tazilism than Isma'ilism (mostly because they cut out from main Orthodox schools before the great theological definitions, and keep most of shared features. Which without a radical distinction between Sunnism and Shi'a, was maintained trough centuries).

Best of both worlds would be having a Berber dynasty pulling a Fatimid, but being more influenced by Zaidi Islam or having an Isma'ilism more close to to Zaidi. Once in Egypt, permeability to a less militant Mu'tazilism (without Mu'tazili being radically opposed to the cult of Imam and Alist pretentions)...I could see that happening.

Basically, not only we don't need to butterfly away Ismail, but we may need it (somehow) as it appeared in a similar (if not the same) cultural background. I must admit I never tought it this way : I'm being conviced you may be on something there.
 
Well it's still worth exploring, no ?

There's no doubt that entrenched Mu'tazila will going to provoke opposition. And I'm pretty sure they won't have ideological appeal much outside the big cities, especially places where mysticism and fatalism runs strong like in remote backwater areas. It might mean strengthened Sufi activism and challenge against Mu'tazilite domination. Also, effective autocracy don't last forever and soon the ulema will exert controlling influence. There might even be schism with in Mu'tazilite current itself, with defiant rationalists critical of the regime appearing. My prediction though is that Mysticism will be the ultimate winner, but Mu'tazilites can still survive underground if they were given at least few centuries time to grow large enough, and wait to rise for another time.



True. Another reaction I can see, is a stronger Shurha movement, one that challenges the rationalism and elitism of Mu'Tazilism. Successful and more violent Zanj and Khawarij rebellion. Either ways contrary to popular belief, I feel Mu'tazilism despite its advances in science and unique theology and jurisprudence, would have further weakened the authority of the Abbasids. I also see no reason for Ifriqiya to just become Mu'tazilite just because. They need a sufficient reason, which there was not, Mu'tazalism was tied to the house of wisdom and other innovative centers and institutions during the Abbasid caliphate. That bring another problem; their ties to Bidaa, which the official Sunni stance is that Bidaa is ok with a secular area, so in a practical invention, however it is gravely condemned in the sense religious sense because it innovates and adds to prophethood which was not needed before. The Mu'tazalites did not understand this line and at the time (unless Islam is changed hugely) would either fadeaway or create a separate sect and madhab based on Bidaa and would thus be labelled Kuffar by the Ulema.
 
Top