#mutazilites

It is very important to determine the contributions of the Mu’tazila in the area of Islamic thought in general and in the area of hadith-sunna in particular. This similarly goes for judging the opinions of the Mu’tazila in light of the present day and taking stock of how the intellectual heritage of the Mu’tazila can contribute to help Muslims in today’s society orient themselves in their own way.

The Mu’tazila scholars are the first to have done research in the area of Islamic epistemology. The Mu’tazila scholars have developed an epistemological basis and methodology with which basic concepts of the Islamic faith could be proven. This methodology was developed because in those days, in part thanks to philosophers, opinions were spread about revelation (wahy): revelation could not be a source of knowledge and could not be proven with empirical methods. Furthermore, Mu’tazila scholars have exerted themselves to defend the fundamentals of Islam against non-Muslims and heretical groups.

The Mu’tazila view on hadith cannot be summarised in a general sense. The reason of this is that, since the existence of the Mu’tazila (at the start of the second century according to the hijra calendar) its leaders have continued to bring forth different opinions. The first scholars belonging to the Mu’tazila group have not written books on the subject of hadith methodology and hadith interpretation. Instead, they have usually recorded their methodological opinions vis-á-vis hadith, hadith interpretation and related areas in books about usul al-fiqh and kalam. It is clear, however, that the position of  ʿaql (rational capabilities) has played a major part in hadith interpretation. According to them, in situations where there is a contradiction between ʿaql and naql (Quran and the hadith-sunna) ʿaql is usually to be preferred over naql, on the condition that this ʿaql conforms to certain conditions.

Based on this description it is not entirely correct to paint the Mu’tazila as a madhhab which rejects the sunna as evidence. It is a given, however, that the Mu’tazila deviates from the ahl as-sunna in certain fundamental aspects, both in terms of acceptance of hadith as understanding of hadith texts.

In today’s parlance, individuals who stick to the past are called “traditionalists” (sunnatī). The word Sunnī which means sunnatī refers to the one who follows the tradition (sunnah) and does not subscribe to thinking (fikr) and intellection (taʿaqqul). However, since the sunnah was associated with the Prophet’s Sunnah, the terms acquired a sense of sanctity. [...]

The Sunnīs as they are called today are not the opposite of the Shīʿah. We think that the Sunnī is he who believes in Abū Bakr as the Prophet’s (S) immediate successor and the Shīʿah is he who does not believe in it. It is not so. In the beginning, the word Sunnī was not in contradistinction to Shīʿah; it was in contradistinction to Muʿtazilah. When it was said, “He is Sunnī ,” it meant that he was not a Muʿtazilite. But today we call both Muʿtazilites and Ashʿarites “Sunnīs.”

At that time which was the time of the Imams, the Shīʿah were with the Muʿtazilites in this respect and not with the Ashʿarites. The word Sunnī was juxtaposed against Muʿtazilah, but since the Shīʿah shared some things with the Muʿtazilites [the] word Shīʿah was later juxtaposed against Sunnī after the Muʿtazilites were persecuted and, among the advocates of intellection, only the Shīʿah remained. Thereafter, a way of thinking emerged which perhaps associated the word Sunnī to the question of caliphate although it has nothing to do with its root. Yet, the word gradually acquired this meaning.

In the millennium congress on Shaykh al-Ṭūsī held in Mashhad, Ᾱqā Ḥajj Mīrzā Khalīl Kamare’ī made an interesting observation on the word Sunnī, a good word applied by the Ahl al-Sunnah to themselves. He said:

“They defrauded us in the dark. They came and chose this beautiful name for themselves, saying, “We are Sunnis which means that we follow the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S) and that others do not follow the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S).” This is while the contention is not about the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S) in that one would say, : The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S) is authoritative” while other would say it is not authoritative. Even the Muʿtazilites would not say, “We do not accept the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (S).” The contention is on the quality of inference and treating the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the intellect. If we set aside the intellect, we cannot also understand the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and this argument is correct.”

[...]

The Shī ʿah world was immune from this [Ibn Ḥanbal’s] literalism and the reason for this, as I have explained, was that this movement emerged during the time of the Imams (A) who were very close to the Muʿtazilites in this respect such that in history the Shīʿah and the Muʿtazilites are mentioned together and are called ʿadliyyah (justice-advocates). Many people even called the Shīʿah Muʿtazilites and called the Muʿtazilites Shīʿah.