النص المفهرس

however weak, pay no attention to it."" It is clear from this that he accepted
the practice of the people of Madina. It is clear that he held this position
before he had his own school in ijti had and deduction. After that school was
established, you will see that he did not put anything before the hadith except
the Book of Allah. We will explain that point in its proper place, Allah
willing.
The debate about consensus
As already explained, the fuqaha' adopted the opinions of the Companions
when they agreed on an opinion and no one opposed it. All the fuqaha' of the
Islamic community were in agreement on that - both the fuqaha' of opinion
and fuqaha' of hadith. Then we see that Malik took the opinion of the people
of Madina when they agreed on a practice and put it before a single sound
hadith since he considered the fact that the hadith differed from the
transmitted consensus detracted from it because of this unbroken
transmission, based on the hadith, "My community will not agree on
misguidance" and the hadith, "Allah has protected you from three things:
from your Prophet cursing you and thus causing your destruction, from the
people of lies among you overcoming the people of truth, and from your
agreeing on misguidance." Thus consensus was considered to be authoritative
evidence in the Deen and often used in debate.
Ash-Shafi'i accepted the principle of consensus. The people before him had
used it constantly without defining its basis in the Book or the Sunna, which
can in fact be found in the two hadiths which we indicated before. When ash-
Shafi'i studied it, he said that it is clear that its basis is in the Book where the
Almighty says: "But if anyone diverges from the Messenger after the guid
ance has become clear to him, and follows a way other than that of the
believers, We will hand him over to whatever he has turned to, and We will
roast him in Hell. What an evil destination!" ( 4 : 115) "Following the
believers" means not to produce a statement different to that of the
unanimous consensus of scholars.
Ash-Shafi'i found that legal facts obliged him to accept consensus as
evidence. There was no way to avoid acknowledging that. But then he
delimited it and formulated criteria and measures to reveal the falsity of an

unfounded claim. He also found that the claim in debates that consensus
existed was not founded on a scientific basis and that if the debaters were left
holding to the positions they claimed, it would lead to confusion in
knowledge and legal chaos.
Every partisan had his own idea and did not care for any evidence other than
things which supported it. That is why ash-Shafi'i put consensus in the rank
after the Book and the S u n n a. In his view, no one could reject the Book or
the Sunna - even a single report - in favour of consensus. He was severe
towards those who argued with him using consensus to support their claims
to the point that his zeal and vehemence almost led him to deny the very
existence of consensus. He once said in a debate, "Claiming consensus is
contrary to consensus."
Ash-Shafi'i says in al-Umm: "Is it not enough censure of consensus for you
that no one after the Messenger of Allah has laid claim to consensus (apart
from that on which no one differs) except the people of your time?" The
debater stated, "Some claim it." He asked, "Do you praise what they
claimed?" "No," was the reply. He said, "So how can you join in that which
you censure in much of your criticism? Do you not deduce from your method
that consensus consists in abandoning the claim of consensus? Do not think
well of yourself when you say, 'This is consensus' and then find another of
the people of knowledge who say, 'I seek refuge from Allah from this being
consensus!' There is disagreement about what you claim to be consensus
from all parts of the land or among most of those who relate it to us from the
people of different lands." (part 7, p. 158) Ash-Shafi'i admitted the existence
of some consensus, and did not deny its existence altogether. A debater once
asked him in the middle of a debate, "Does consensus exist?" "Yes," he said
"praise be to Allah: often in the sum of obligations of which no one is
ignorant. That is consensus."
We shall now mention briefly the principles of ash-Shafi'i.
What is stated in texts
The disagreement between the fuqaha' was not confined to the bases, ranks
and strength of secondary sources of evidence. It was more intense and

deeper as regards the evidence of the basic texts themselves. That led to
debates about the meaning of particular expressions and how to categorise
their evidence. When the debates moved to the words themselves and what
they meant, confusion vastly increased. The debate grew in intensity and
reliance was placed on certain Arabic linguistic forms to define what was
meant by them according to context and topic. So it was necessary to know
what was meant by the "sunna" or the "usage ('urf)" of the Arabs.
For instance, the imperative in Arabic can indicate permission, direction, a
command which is a recommendation, or a definitive command. When the
usage comes in a Qur'anic text or Prophetic text, it can have any of those
meanings, but will in every case be specified by linguistic usage, tradition,
explanation of the Prophet, or the context. When Allah Almighty says,
"When you have come out of ihram, then hunt for game," (5:2), the use of the
imperative in itself might imply permission, direction or command, but the
context shows that before coming out of ihram, hunting is forbidden by the
ihram of the Hajj, so what is meant in this instance is permission. That is how
every 'command' must be examined.
This led to two types of dispute. One was about the weight accorded to
linguistic usage and its evidence, some taking note of the context and others
ignoring it. That disagreement concerned the understanding of the meaning of
specific texts. The second was about the general rule concerning the
imperative: does it basically constitute a binding command unless there is
evidence to the contrary, or does it basically imply permissibility and
direction unless there is specific evidence that it is a command which is
binding or non-binding? Similarly the negative imperative (nahy) can denote
actual prohibition, or it can merely imply dislike or even guidance. The
context specifies what is meant. Hence scholars differed about specific texts
and also disagreed about the basis of the evidence of prohibition.
Disagreement does not stop at the degree of prohibition but goes deeper and
deals with the nature of the invalidity of a contract made in the face of a
prohibition: is it null and void, or is a forbidden contract which is contracted
spoiled to the extent that people commit a sin if they fulfil it? The Hanafis
say that the contract is contracted but should be considered a wrong action.
Others say that the contract cannot even be said to have been contracted at
all. An example of that is when the Lawgiver forbade divorce in a particular

state: if someone then divorces, does the divorce occur while at the same time
constituting a sin - or does it simply not occur at all because the Lawgiver
has forbidden it? The majority of the fuqaha' of the Community say it occurs
but is sinful. There were also disputes about fixing the meaning of something
with more than one possible meaning. When the Companions and the Ta bi '
u n and those who exercised i j ti h a d wanted to explain the meaning of qar'
where the Almighty says: "Divorced women should wait by themselves for
three menstrual cycles (quru ') "1 (2:228) some Companions explained q a r'
a s referring to purity and some as referring to menstruation. The Tabi'un and
mujtahids disagreed according to the disagreement of the Companions they
followed.
There was also disagreement about the evidence of general texts which could
be taken to refer to several different things, and whether it should be
considered definitive or speculative. The same applied to combining texts
when there were several on one subject, and to qualifying texts which were
otherwise unqualified. There are many kinds of divergences of this nature.
Ash-Shafi'i debated with f u q a h a ' on these subjects and then established
his principles for deriving evidence from such textual sources.
A brief survey of ash-Shafi'i's time
The time of ash-Shafi'i, May Allah be pleased with him, was one in which
various ancient civilisations came into contact with one another. The
civilisations of India, Persia and Greece all met in one region under the
auspices of the new Deen of Islam and a fusion occurred between those
civilisations of distinctly different origins. The different strains came together
in that one generation without confusion or conflict except in the case of a
few people who did not feel at home and were unable to assimilate into that
new situation. They wanted to unsettle and destroy it.
It was a time of much fruitful intellectual endeavour. H a d i t h scholars
applied themselves to distinguishing the sound transmissions from the
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and they set
out rules and criteria by which reliable transmitters could be ascertained. In
this way they removed aberrant transmissions, making it clear what could be
used for evi

1. Quru' is the plural of qar'.
dence in the Deen and what could not. Then they wrote down what they
considered sound according to the criteria they had devised.
These different groups each used the tool of derived evidence to provide
propaganda for their positions and each used the methodology it had devised
to justify its own opinions. Every group had its legal school which it fostered
and according to which it debated, and by which it established its principles
using evidence from the Book and the S u n n a. Ash-Shafi'i mixed with all
the different groups, met with their representatives and debated with them to
clarify their legal proofs and the evidence within their schools. He borrowed
from other scholars anything he thought was sound and could be validly used
for evidence.
Those fu qaha ' and ha dith scholars travelled far and wide in quest of h
a dith, fi qh and knowledge of the Qur'an. Ash-Shafi'i studied with them,
especially in Makka which was a centre of learning where 'ulama' from all
parts studied, met and exchanged various scholarly views, debating in order
to sift out sound opinions from weak ones. The Makkan Haram was where
ash-Shafi'i had lived in his early youth and it was there that he began to study
independently after his first visit to Baghdad when he studied with the people
of opinion, debated with them, and listened to the books of Muhammad ibn
al-Hasan.
So the early fuqaha' of opinion and of hadith met in one place and debated in
order to ascertain the truth. Each of them took from the others while
remaining convinced that they would never agree. We find that the fuqaha' of
hadith used opinion and the fuqaha' of opinion strengthened their opinions
with hadith, or corrected their opinions to coincide with sound h a d i t h they
had found - or else they turned away from some of those opinions because of
hadith they had discovered.
All this came from the knowledge of the Companions who had dispersed
throughout the cities of Islam in the time of the RightlyGuided khalifs from
whom the early fuqaha' learned. The fuqaha' of every place met and
exchanged what they had inherited from the Companions, each having what
he had learned and what had reached him of their knowledge. They studied
those opinions and each f a q i h chose from among those opinions what was

closer to his predilection or stronger in evidence in his view, or what he saw
was sounder for people in his area and time. Next, they debated about what
each of them preferred. Then this fiqh was collected in books and recorded
after the Sunna was recorded; but some fuqa ha' had opinions other than
those that had previously been recorded.
During this time there were also many debates, as we have seen. Fi q h
began to take on a universal tone whereas previously investigation had been
specific and a mu fti or fa q i h would only give a fatwa about actual
events. Fuqaha' now began to give fat was about hypothetical minor cases
and studies began to be directed to the principles on which those minor
rulings were based. After that, they began to formulate the methodology to be
followed and the ways in which different types of evidence related to each
other. In debate the fuqaha's thought was directed to formulating the criteria
of legal deduction and the principles of derivation.
They began to argue about which hadiths should be accepted: should a
mursal hadith be accepted when there was a m u t t a s i l hadith, or only the
muttasil? What is the position of the Sunna in relation to the Book and what
is its strength? Does the S u n n a merely expound the Qur'an or do its rulings
actually add to Qu r'anic rulings? Is it strong enough to abrogate some Qur'
a n i c rulings? They began to speak about abrogation: "When does it
happen? How does it happen?" Such were the universal themes which were
debated. They disagreed about the methods to be used in approaching those
themes, just as they had disagreed about the secondary rulings; but their
disagreement in this case was not as frequent it had been in respect of
secondary rulings. The strength of linguistic expression in evidence was
examined as well as how legal texts are understood and rulings derived.
Ash-Shafi'i, as a man of that time, lived in the midst of that great scholarly
turmoil. He was involved in debates and benefited the whole situation
through the strength of his natural gifts and his profound studies which
produced such remarkable results in scholarship.
The Sects
Ash-Shafi'i met people from various Islamic sects and he received hadiths

from some of them and studied their opinions as we mentioned when
recounting what he said about Muqatil ibn Sulayman. Hence it is appropriate
to briefly indicate the sects which existed in his time, in view of the fact that
he was aware of their opinions.
The Shi'a
The Shi'a were the oldest of the Islamic sects. They appeared with their
political position at the end of the reign of 'Uthman and grew and flourished
in the time of 'Ali, since when he mixed with people that increased their
admiration for his gifts, the strength of his deen and knowledge. Shi'ite
agents exploited that admiration and began to disseminate their sect. In the
Umayyad period, when injustices were perpetrated against the descendants of
Sayyiduna 'Ali and the Umayyads injured them, people's love and
compassion for them increased and they saw 'Ali and his sons as martyrs to
that injustice. So the Shi'ite school expanded and its supporters increased.
The sect was based on two fundamental premises.
. The khalifate is a matter to be decided not by the community but only by
specific individuals. It is the pillar of the Deen and the rule of Islam. A
Prophet would not ignore it and leave it up to the community to decide. The
khalifa must be specified for them and is protected from major and minor
wrong actions.
· 'Ali was the khalifa chosen by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace, and was the best of the Companions.
The Shi'a were not all the same. Some were excessive in their esteem for 'Ali
and his descendants and some were more balanced. The balanced ones were
content to prefer 'Ali to the other Companions without declaring anyone an
unbeliever.
The excessive sects of the Shi'a elevated 'Ali to the rank of prophethood and
some of them even went so far as to deify 'Ali. Some of them claimed that
God was incarnate in the Imams, 'Ali and his sons, in a similar doctrine to
Christian incarnation. Some of them believed that every Imam has divinity
incarnate in him which then transmigrates to the next Imam.

Most of the Shi'ite Rafidites agree that the last Imam did not die but is still
alive and will return and fill the earth with justice as it is now filled with
injustice. One group, the Seveners, claimed that 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is alive
and will not die and another group said that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya1 is
alive and being nourished by honey and water. Various groups claimed that
certain prominent people were not dead or killed but were still alive.
The Twelvers say that the twelfth Imam, Muhammad ibn alHasan al-'Askari,
called al-Mahdi, entered the cellar of his house and disappeared there when
he was arrested with his mother. He is the Mahdi and will emerge at the end
of time and fill the earth with justice, and they are still waiting for him. Every
night they stand after the Maghrib prayer at the door of this cellar and they
bring a mount, call his name, and call on him to come out until the stars a p p
e a r. For evidence they adduce the story of the People of the Cave in the
Qur'an.
Some extreme Shi'a combined these views with social ideas in a very
corruptive manner. They allowed the consumption of wine and carrion,
permitted incestuous marriage, and interpreted the words of Allah, "Those
who believe and do right actions are not to blame for what they have eaten
provided they are godfearing and believe and do right actions, and then are
godfearing and believe, and then are godfearing and do good," (5:93) to mean
that the prohibitions, like carrion, blood and pork, are allusions to people who
must be hated, like Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and Mu'awiya, and that all
the obligations of the Qur'an are allegorical.
1. A son of 'Ali by a wife other than Fatima.
The Kharijites
The Kharijites were the most active of the Islamic sects in defending their
doctrine. They showed immense zeal for their ideas, intense religiousness in
general, and extreme recklessness in defence of their claims and ideas. In
their position they clung to expressions which they took literally, believing
that theirs was the pure Deen from which no believer could be permitted to
deviate. Anyone who followed a different path was someone whose soul
made him incline to lies and moved him to disobedience. Their attention

focused on the words, "Judgement belongs to Allah alone" and they took it as
their motto which they shouted in the faces of their opponents and with which
they ended every conversation.
Whenever they saw 'Ali speak, they shouted these words at him and it is
related that 'Ali said about them when they kept repeating it, "A true word by
which something false is meant. Yes, judgement belongs to Allah alone but
those people are saying, 'Amirate belongs to Allah alone.' There must be a
leader for people whether pious or corrupt ... Through him, booty is collected,
the enemy is fought, the roads are made safe and the strong are made to
provide for the weak - until the pious leader finds rest or the people find rest
from the corrupt leader."
The Kharijites were carried away by the idea of being free of 'Uthman and
'Ali and unjust rulers until that notion overpowered their minds and
perceptions and completely prevented them from ascertaining the truth. They
sometimes acted with those who declared themselves quit of 'Uthman.
Sometimes the disagreement was so intense that it led to a split with them.
Ibn az-Zubayr rebelled against the Umayyads and the Kharijites helped him
and promised to fight on his side. When they learned that he had not declared
himself free of his father, Talha, 'Ali and 'Uthman, they left him.
They were so intense in their zeal and fanaticism that some have compared
their behaviour to that of the Jacobins in the French Revolution. Sincerity for
Islam characterises many people. Sometimes it is accompanied by a crazy
fixation on one idea and this leads to misguidance in understanding the Deen
and mistaking its aims. In their case the lives of any Muslim who opposed
them ceased to be sacrosanct. An example of this is reported by Abu'l' Abbas
al-Mubarrad in a 1 - K a m i 1: "A singular example of their behaviour is that
when they captured a Muslim and a Christian they would kill the Muslim and
spare the Christian. On one occasion they met 'Abdullah ibn Khabbab who
was carrying a Qur'an and was accompanied by his pregnant wife. They said,
'That which you are carrying commands us to slay you.' After asking him
several questions, they killed him."
The views of the Kharijites clearly show their thinking, and simplistic minds,
superficial views and rancour towards Quraysh and all the tribes of Mudar.

· The first and strongest of their views was that the post of khalifa is to be
filled by choosing any free, sane, healthy Muslim man who attends to the
welfare of the Muslims. It is not for one group rather than another and
someone can only remain as khalifa so as long as he establishes justice,
supports the Shari'a and is far from error and deviation. If he transgresses, he
should be deposed or killed.
. They did not think that any of the families or tribes of the Arabs should be
singled out for the khalifate, that the khalifate should be restricted to Quraysh
as others stated, or even that it should be for an Arab rather than an non-Arab.
In their view all were the same. Indeed, they preferred that the khalifa should
not be from Quraysh so that it would be easier to depose or kill him if he
opposed the Shari'a or deviated from truth, since then there would be no
partisanship to protect him, tribe to defend him, or shelter but the shelter of
Allah.
. Najdite Kharijites thought that people did not need a khalifa at all. Muslims
should be equitable in their mutual dealings. They thought that if that could
only be achieved by means of having a khalifa to encourage them to uphold
the truth and establish it, then it was permitted. But in their view the
existence of a khalifa was not an necessary obligation but was merely
permitted when needed for public welfare.
. The Kharijites thought that people who committed wrong actions were
unbelievers. They did not differentiate between a sin which was done with an
evil intention and an error of opinion or ijtihad which led to something
incorrect. That is why they said that 'Ali was an unbeliever when he agreed
to arbitration although it was not his choice. If arbitration was not correct,
then the fact that they needed to say that 'Ali was an unbeliever indicates that
they considered that an error in ijtihad brings a person out of the d e e n. That
was also their view of Talha, azZ u b a y r, 'Uthman and other great
Companions who differed from them in minor matters: they held that they
were unbelievers. They had various justifications for this which were based
on false interpretation of ayats of the Qur'an.
This is the sum of the opinions which most of the Kharijites embraced while
they did not agree on other positions, opinions or views. They frequently
disagreed on the even the smallest of matters. Perhaps this is the secret of the

great number of their defeats. Al-Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra, who defended the
Islamic community against them during the Umayyad era, seized on their
disagreements as a means of dividing them. When they were not divided, he
sent someone to them to provoke disagreement between them. They were
divided into several groups.
The Azraqites. These were the followers of Nafi' ibn al-Azraq alHanafi,
from the Banu Hanifa, one of the tribes of Rabi'a. They were the most
energetic of the Kharijites, the greatest in number, and those with the largest
army. They fought under Nafi' ibn alAzraq against the Umayyad generals
and Ibn az-Zubayr for nineteen years. When Nafi' was killed in battle, they
were led by Nafi' ibn 'Abdullah and then by Ibn al-Faja'a. They became
weak in his time because of people's hatred for them, their reputation for
bloodshed and their internal disagreements. They were defeated on all fronts
until they disappeared. Among their extreme views were considering the
children of their opponents to be idolaters who would be in the Fire forever;
cancelling the hadd punishment for fornication since it is not mentioned in
the Qur'an, cancelling the hadd punishment for slander of chaste men while
making it obligatory on those who slander chaste women; and advocating the
permissibility of major and minor sins for the Prophets.
The Najdites. These were the followers of Najda ibn 'Umaymir al-Hanafi.
They opposed the Azraqites in saying that quiescent Kharijites were
unbelievers and that it was lawful to kill children, and they added that that it
was lawful to kill people with a treaty and dhimma. They were located in
Yamana. They were with Abu Talut al-Khariji and then gave allegiance to
Najda in 66 AH. They became powerful and conquered Bahrain, Oman,
Hadramawt, Yemen, and Ta'if. They then disagreed with Najda over some
matters. One was that he sent his son with the army and they captured some
women and consumed some of the booty before the division had taken place
and he excused them. This disagreement led them to split into three further
groups. One went to Sijistan with 'Atiyya ibn al-Aswad al-Hanafi, one
revolted with Abu Fudayk against Najda and killed him, and one excused
Najda. They continued to be called Najdites. Abu Fudayk led them until
'Abdu'l-Malik ibn Marwan sent an army which defeated him and his head
was sent to the Khalif.
The Sufrites , who followed Ziyad ibn al-Asfar. They were less severe in

some of their opinions than the Azraqites but more so in others. They
disagreed with the Azraqites about someone who commits a major wrong
action: they did not consider him a mushrik. One of them was Abu Bilal
Mirdas, a righteous ascetic man who rebelled in the time of Yazid I in part of
Basra. He did not attack people and he took from the khalif's property only
what he needed. He did not desire war. 'Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad sent an army
against him which put an end to him.
The 'Ajradites. They were the adherents of 'Abdu'l-Karim ibn 'Ajrad, one
of the followers of 'Atiyya ibn al-Aswad al-Hanafi. They were similar to the
Najdites in their position and views.
The Ibadites. These were the followers of 'Abdullah ibn Ibad. They are the
most balanced of the Kharijites and closest to the ordinary Muslims in
opinion and thought and the furthest from excess. They did not consider their
Muslim opponents to be either idolaters or believers. They called them
ingrates (ku ffa r), saying they are ungrateful for blessings. Their property
was not held to be lawful as booty in war except for horses, weapons and
military equipment and they return gold and silver to their owners. They
allowed the testimony of their opponents, as well as marriage with them and
inheritance with them.
There are also many other extreme groups of Kharijites.
The Mu'tazilites
This group originated during the Umayyad period and dominated Islamic
thought in the Abbasid era for a long time. Iraq in the time of the Rightly
Guided Khalifs and Umayyads was home to a number of ethnic and religious
groups of different origins. Some were descended from the ancient Chaldean
inhabitants of Iraq; others were Persians, Christians, Jews, or Arabs. Most of
them became Muslims. Some understood Islam in the light of the ancient
teachings of their own traditions. Some took Islam from its pure source and
imbibed it without alteration. But even then their feelings and whims were
not purely Islamic.
There was an involuntary inclination towards the past, of the kind which
psychologists call "unconscious". That is why when there was much civil war

at the time of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib in Iraq, the ancient sects were awakened and
appeared in Iraq, gathering around the Kharijites and Shi'a. It was in this
midst of this jumble of opinions and confused sects that the Mu'tazilites
made their appearance.
Scholars disagree about when the Mu'tazilites first appeared. Some think that
they began with the people of 'Ali who withdrew from politics and devoted
themselves to the pursuit of knowledge when al-Hasan surrendered the
khalifate to Mu'awiya. Abu'lHusayn at-Tara'ifi said in his book, The people
of Sects and Innovations: "They called themselves Mu'tazilites. When al-
Hasan offered his allegiance to Mu'awiya, they withdrew (i'tazala) from al-
Hasan and Mu'awiya and all people. They were among the adherents of 'Ali.
They kept to their homes and mosques, saying 'We are busy with knowledge
and worship.""
Most sources state that the leader of the Mu'tazilites was Wasil ibn 'Ata'. He
was one of those who attended the gatherings of alHasan al-Basri when a
question arose which preoccupied the minds of many people at that time: the
question whether committing a major wrong action makes its perpetrator an
unbeliever. Wasil said in opposition to al-Hasan al-Basri, who had refused to
become involved in the debate, "I say that the one who commits a major
wrong action is neither a believer nor an unbeliever. He is between the two
positions." Then he withdrew (i'tazala) from alHasan's assembly and set up
another in the mosque. From this you see why he and his people were called
Mu'tazilites. Certain orientalists, however, believe that they were called that
because they were fearful pious men who withdrew from the pleasures of life
as is indicated by their name.
In fact, not all the men ascribed to this group conformed to that description.
Some were suspected of acts of disobedience and some were godfearing.
The doctrine of the Mu'tazilites
According to Abu'l-Hasan al-Khayyat in a 1 - I n ti s a r, "No one can
properly be called a Mu'tazilite unless he holds all the five tenets of their
school: Tawhid, Justice, the Promise and the Threat, the Position between the
Two Positions, and Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong. When
a man has these five, he is a Mu'tazilite. These are the tenets of the

Mu'tazilite school." We will speak briefly about each of them.
Tawhid
This was the core of their doctrine. Al-Ash'ari described their position in his
book, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin:
Allah is one. There is nothing like Him. He is the AllHearing, All-Seeing. He
is neither body nor spirit. He does not have corporeal form or shape, or flesh
or blood. He is not substance or accident. He does not have a colour or taste,
smell or tactility, heat, cold, wetness, dryness, height width, or depth. He
does not have joining or separation, movement or stillness. He has no parts or
components, or limbs or members. He has no directions: no right or left, front
or back, above or below. He is not circumscribed by place nor is He subject
to time .... He cannot be incarnate in any place. He is not described with any
of the attributes of creation which involve contingency nor is He described as
being finite or as being limited. He does not beget and is not begotten. No
quantity can encompass Him; no veil conceal Him; no sense perceive Him.
He cannot be compared to mankind nor does He resemble creation in any
way ... He was First before events in time and before contingent things, and
existed before all creatures. He is Knowing, Powerful, Alive and will always
remain so. Eyes cannot see Him; sight cannot perceive Him; imagination
cannot encompass Him. He is Knowing, Powerful, Living, in a way
dissimilar to all others who are knowing, powerful, living. He alone is
timeless and there is nothing timeless but Him, no god but Him and He has
no partner in His kingdom.
On this basis, the Mu'tazilites asserted that it was impossible to see Allah on
the Day of Resurrection since that would involve corporeality and direction.
The Divine Attributes were nothing other than the Essence. The Qur'an was
created by Allah since He does not (in their view) have the attribute of
speech.
Justice
Al-Mas'udi explained this in Muruj adh-Dhahab:
It is that Allah does not like injustice nor create the actions of people. They
do what they are commanded or forbidden to do by the power which Allah
has created for them and placed in them. He commands only what He wants

and forbids only what He dislikes. He takes charge of every good action He
has commanded, and is free of every evil action He has forbidden. He does
not oblige people to do anything they are incapable of and He does not desire
of them what they do not have the power to do. No one has power to
withhold or give except by the power of Allah which He has given them and
is in their possession. Had He so willed, He could have compelled creation to
obey Him and prevented them from disobeying Him, but He did not do that.
The Jabriyya refuted this tenet and said, "The slave (i.e. the human being)
has no choice in his action."
The Promise and the Threat
This is that Allah repays all who do good with good and all who do evil with
evil. He does not forgive anyone who does major wrong actions if he does
not repent.
1. The pre-determinist school. They claimed that everything was predestined and man had no
responsibility whatsoever for his actions.
The "Position between the Two Positions" (concerning belief and
unbelief)
Expounding the Mu'tazilites' view on the "Intermediate Position", ash-
Shahrastani said, "This position was stated clearly by Wasil when he said that
faith designates the qualities of good and when they are combined in a person
he is called a believer, which is a name of praise. An impious man does not
have all the qualities of good and does not deserve the name of praise. Hence
he is not called a believer - but nor is he an unbeliever absolutely, for the s h
a h a d a and good actions exist in him which cannot be denied. But if he
leaves this world having committed a major sin without repenting for it he is
one of the people who will remain in the Fire forever, since in the Next
World there are only two groups: one in Paradise and one in Hell. However,
the Fire will be alleviated for him and he is above the level of the
unbelievers."
Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong
It is an obligation for all believers to disseminate the call of Islam, guide the
misguided, and direct those in error as much as he can through both
exposition and the sword.

The Mu'tazilites' method of deriving their doctrine
In explaining their doctrine the Mu'tazilites relied on reason and not
transmission. They relied on the intellect, restricting its scope only when it
was a question of the commands of the Shari'a. Every question was logically
examined and they accepted what was logical and rejected what was not
logical.
This rationalistic approach was the result of several factors: their residence in
Iraq and Persia which were influenced by ancient religions and civilisations,
their descent from non-Arabs, their clashes with opponents, the spread of
translations of the ancient philosophers there, and their mixing with Jews and
Christians and others who translated these ideas into Arabic.
One of the effects of their reliance on logic was that they judged that things
were good or abhorrent by reason. They used to say: "All things are
intelligible to the intellect and must be examined by the intellect. Beauty and
ugliness are two essential qualities of good and evil." Al-Jubba'i stated, "Any
act of disobedience which Allah can permit to happen is ugly because of its
prohibition and any act of disobedience which He never permits is ugly in
itself: like ignorance of Him and believing the opposite of that." They based
on this the idea of the existence of the best of all possible worlds. They said
that only good issues from Allah.
Their defence of Islam
Groups of Magians, Sabaeans, Jews and Christians and others entered Islam,
their minds still full of the teachings of those religions, and their
understanding of Islam was necessarily filtered through them. Some
pretended to have faith out fear of the ruler, concealing their old belief, and
began to try to corrupt the Muslims' deen, to make them doubt their own
beliefs, and to introduce ideas and opinions for which Allah had given no
authority. The fruits of their efforts appeared: there were anthropomorphists,
zindiqs and many other groups. The Mu'tazilites tried to defend Islam
and their Five Tenets were the result of their sharp debates with their
opponents. The tenet of Tawhid was formulated to refute the
anthropomorphists; Justice was to refute the Jahmites;1 t h e Promise and

Threat was to refute the Murji'ites;2 and the Position between the Two
Positions was to refute the Kharijites who said that anyone who commits a
sin was unbeliever.
In the reign of al-Mahdi, a man called al-Muqanna' appeared in Khorasan.
He believed in the transmigration of souls. A group went to Transoxania and
al-Mahdi had to fight to overcome him
1. The followers of Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 128/745) who taught that Allah has no attributes and
man had no free will of any sort at all.
2. Opponents of the Kharijites who held that it is faith and not actions which are important
and so suspend judgement on persons guilty of major sins.
This encouraged the zindiqs and he had to seek them out to eliminate them by
the sword. But the sword was not always sufficient to eliminate an opinion or
kill off a school. That is why he encouraged the Mu'tazilites and others to
refute their errors, which is what they did.
The khalif's patronage of the Mu'tazilites
The Mu'tazilites appeared at the time of the Umayyads but the Umayyads did
not oppose them because they did not provoke any discord or declare war.
They were a group who took no action beyond thinking, countering evidence
with evidence and proof with proof, and analysing matters by sound criteria.
They did not involve themselves in politics: their weapons were exposition
and proof, not swords. Al-Mas'udi reported that Yazid II epoused their
tenets.
When the Abbasids came to power, heresy and the zindiqs had become a
flood and the Khalif found in the Mu'tazilites a sword to employ against
zindiqs and left them to combat heresy. When alMa'mun came to power, he
took their side and brought them near to him. He saw that there was a
disagreement between them and the f u q a h a '; and thought that debates
between the two groups would result in the emergence of a single point of
view; but he was completely wrong in this.
Al-Ma'mun then sought to use the power of the state to force the fu q a ha '
and h a d i t h scholars to adopt the opinion of the Mu'tazilites on the Qur'an.
This is not the proper role of the state. If it is forbidden to force people to

embrace the De e n, how can they be forced to accept a tenet the denial of
which does not constitute disbelief? He tried to force the fuqaha' to declare
that the Qur'an was created. Some of them complied out of t a qi y ya and
f e a r, not credal belief and adherence, while others endured violence,
humiliation and long imprisonment and would not say anything other than
what they believed.
That inquisition lasted through the khalifates of al-Mu'tasim and al-Wathiq
after al-Ma'mun. Al-Wathiq tried to coerce people to deny that Allah will be
seen - another opinion held by the Mu'tazilites. When al-Mutawakkil came
to power this inquisition stopped, and things were allowed to take their
course and opinions to evolve naturally and people were left to choose their
own position regarding these matters.
The position of the Mu'tazilites among their contemporaries
The fuqaha' and hadith scholars attacked the Mu'tazilites and so they were
caught between strong opponents on either side: the z i n d i q s and those like
them on one side, and the fu q a h a ' a n d hadith scholars on the other. One
can see in the arguments and discussions of the fuqaha' that they pilloried the
Mu'tazilites at every opportunity. One hears ash-Shafi'i, Ibn Hanbal and
others criticising the science of kalam and those who took knowledge through
the method of the mutakallimun. Why did the fuqaha' dislike the
Mu'tazilites? Both groups were trying to support the Deen and did not spare
any efforts in its defence. Its seems that there were a number of factors which
combined to produce such enmity.
. The Mu'tazilites differed from the method of the righteous Salaf in
understanding the doctrine of the Deen. For the Salaf the Qur'an was the only
source from which the Attributes of Allah can be known and on which all the
articles of faith are based. They do not take them from anywhere else. They
understood their faith from those ayats of the Qur'an which are clear.
Whatever was unclear to them they tried to understand through linguistic
means. If they were unable to understand something, they stopped without
seeking danger, deviation and travelling any path other than that of the Truth.
That was sufficient for the Arabs because they were people without sciences,
logic and philosophy. The Mu'tazilites opposed that method and esteemed

reason above all else. They made it the basis for their analysis and used their
intellects to work out every question. That brought them into conflict with the
fuqaha' who were not familiar with such an approach.
· The Mu'tazilites debated with zindiqs, dualists and others, and every debate
has its own kind of tactics and conflict. In debate one tends to use the means
and weapons of one's opponent and studies his plans, ends and goal. All of
that causes a person to be affected by his opponent's views, ideas and
methods. The Mu'tazilites were influenced to a certain extent by the ideas of
their opponents. Some Hanbalis complained that the process of refuting
heretics led them into heresy.
. The method of the Mu'tazilites lay in defining the logical position. They did
not rely on a text unless the topic of discussion was a legal judgement or was
connected to a legal judgement. Consequently they mostly relied on the
intellect and the intellect has its own shortcomings. Sometimes the
inadequacies of the logical approach led them to fallacious reasoning.
· There were many opponents of the Mu'tazilites among men who held high
positions in the Community.
. One of the Abbasid khalifs was a partisan and supporter of the Mu'tazilites
and embraced their position. He wanted to force people to adopt it and so
harassed the fuqaha' and hadith scholars and imposed an inquisition on them,
but they remained steadfast. The inquisition made people sympathetic
towards the fuqaha' and hostile to the cause of their afflictions which
rebounded against the Mu'tazilites who were responsible for it. Some, like al-
Jahiz, even defended and justified this use of terror.
· Many with heretical opinions found Mu'tazilism to be a nest in which to
incubate their corruptions and from which they could introduce their
innovations into Islam. Ibn arR a wan di , was considered one of them, as
were other notorious individuals who were suspected of making innovations
in Islam and of reprehensible actions. This led people to suspect them.
The suspicions of the fuqaha' and hadith scholars
The fuqaha' and hadith scholars were strong opponents of the Mu'tazilites

and suspected them of deviation. Ash-Shaybani gave a fatwa that anyone
who prayed behind a Mu'tazilite had to repeat the prayer. Imam Abu Yusuf
considered them zindiqs. Imam Malik would not accept the testimony of any
of them. They were suspected of corruption and committing h a r a m acts. In
fact the Mu'tazilite school embraced all sorts of individuals.
Disputes of the Mu'tazilites and the science of kalam
Kalam was used by the Mu'tazilites when debating with their opponents,
whether Rafidites, Magians, or dualists, people of other sects, specialists in
fiqh and hadith, and others. The whole Islamic community took part in these
arguments and debates for about three generations, during which assemblies
of rulers, ministers and scholars flourished and opinions were exchanged.
Internecine fights between the schools and sects caused reverberations that a
ffected Islamic thought as a whole. Islamic thinking became embellished with
Persian, Greek or Hindu ideas. Each faction was distinct in their argument in
specific ways, while often they did not differ in their general position in the
Deen.
The methods of deduction employed by the Mu'tazilites were different from
those of others among the Islamic Community, and their deductive premises
also differed. There were several distinct characteristics in the way they
debated.
1. A notorious free-thinker and sceptic who espoused dualism.
. The Mu'tazilites avoided imitation and were averse to following others
without investigation, examination and comparison proofs and criteria. Their
respect was for opinions and not names, for the truth and not the speaker.
Hence they did not imitate one another; the rule which they followed was that
every responsible person is answerable for the principles of the Deen to
which his ijtihad has led him. Perhaps that is why they split into so many
groups, including the Wasiliyya, Hudhayliyya, Nizamiyya, Ha'itiyya,
Bishriyya, Mu'ammariyya, Thumamiya, Hashimiyya, Jahiziyya, Khayyatiyya
and Jubba'iyya.
. They relied on the intellect to establish their articles of faith, finding support
for their positions in the Qur ' a n . They did not have much knowledge of