Indexed OCR Text

'Ali.
He began to circulate among people that he had found in the Torah that each
Prophet has an heir and that 'Ali was the heir of Muhammad and that he was
the best of heirs as Muhammad was the best of Prophets. Then he mentioned
that Muhammad would return to life. He used to remark, "I marvel at those
who say that 'Isa will return but do not say that Muhammad will return."
Then he went further and attributed divinity to 'Ali.
The Kaysanites
They were the followers of al-Mukhtar ibn 'Ubayd ath-Thaqafi. He had been
a Kharijite and then became one of the partisans of 'Ali. He came to Kufa
when Muslim ibn 'Uqayl came there from al-Husayn to ascertain its position
and report back to him. 'Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad had al-Mukhtar flogged and
then put him in prison until al-Husayn was killed. After this, his sister's
husband, 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar, interceded for him and he was released
provided that he left Kufa. He went to the Hijaz.
It is reported that he stated, "By Allah, I will seek revenge for the blood of
the wronged martyr, the master of the Muslims and the son of the daughter of
the master of the Muslims, al-Husayn ibn 'Ali! I will kill the number of those
who killed Yahya ibn Zakariya to avenge his death!" Then he joined Ibn az-
Zubayr and pledged him allegiance on the condition that he should be
appointed to high office if he was successful and that he would join him in
the fight against the people of Syria. Then he returned to Kufa after Ya z i d
's death and told people, "The Mahdi has sent me to you as his
representative. He has commanded me to kill the heretics and revenge the
blood of the people of the House and defend the weak."
He claimed that he had been sent by Muhammad ibn alHanafiyya, because he
was the descendant most entitled to revenge al-Husayn and because
Muhammad was much loved and esteemed by people owing to his great
knowledge and gnosis. Muhammad proclaimed himself free of al-Mukhtar
before a gathering of people when he heard about his lies, delusions and
hidden aims.

The Kaysanite doctrine did not claim that the Imams were divine. It was
based on the premise that the Imam was a holy person who was owed
absolute obedience and was protected from error. Like the Saba'ites, they
believed that the Imam would return
- either that he had died and would be resurrected or that he was not dead at
all. Another part of their heretical doctrines was that of b a d a ': that Allah
could change His will or decree when circumstances changed. They also
believed in the passing of the soul into a new body.
The Zaydites
This is the group of Shi'ites closest to the Muslim Community. They are not
excessive in their dogma and most of them do not proclaim any of the
Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, to be an unbeliever nor raise any of the Imams to the rank of a deity or
a Prophet.
Imam Zayd ibn 'Ali rebelled in Kufa against Hisham and was killed. His
view was that the Imam is stipulated by description, not by name, and the
qualities which the Imam must have to receive people's allegiance is that he
is descended from Fatima, is scrupulous, the possessor of knowledge,
generous, and that he summons people to himself. Many Shi'ites opposed
him regarding the precondition of craising his banner. His brother,
Muhammad al-Baqir, a rgued him about that and said, "According to your
view, your father was not an Imam because he did not rebel or call for
rebellion."
The Zaydites also held that it is permitted for the less superior to be Imam. So
if a superior Imam possesses these qualities and is more entitled but those in
authority choose and give allegiance to someone not as good, he is a valid
Imam and must be obeyed. This, in their opinion, was the basis for the
validity of the khalifate of Abu Bakr and 'Umar and not proclaiming the
Companions who gave them allegiance to be unbelievers. Zayd thought that
'Ali was the best of the Companions, but the khalifate went to Abu Bakr for a
benefit which the Companions perceived and in order to preserve the
religious principle of suppressing seditions and heartening of the populace.
People might still have resented 'Ali because the blood was not yet dry on his

sword which he had wielded against them.
The Zaydis also believed that there could be two Imams in two different areas
so that each was an Imam in his region. They further believed that the one
who commits a major sin will be in the Fire forever if he does not sincerely
repent. They derived this from the Mu'tazilites because Zayd followed the
Mu'tazilite school as he was connected to their shaykh, Wasil ibn 'Ata'.
The Imamites
The Imamites are those who state that the imamate was confirmed by
stipulation from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, by a
clear text and certainty and that it was a definite and specific appointment.
They cite certain traditions from the Prophet, as well as particular events in
the life of the Prophet, as evidence for the appointment of 'Ali. They agree
that al-Hasan and then al-Husayn were the Imams after 'Ali. At this point,
however, there is disagreement and they divide into groups, the largest of
which are the Ithna 'asharites (Twelvers) and Isma'ilis.
The Ithna 'asharites (Twelvers)
They believed that after al-Husayn, the imamate went to 'Ali Zayn
al-'Abidin, then Muhammad al-Baqir, followed by Ja'far asSadiq, then his
son Musa al-Kadhim, then 'Ali ar-Rida, then Muhammad al-Jawwad, then
'Ali al-Hadi, then al-Hasan al' Askari and then his son Muhammad, the
twelfth Imam. They believe that he has gone into occultation.
The Isma'ilis
They are a branch of the Imamites who take their name from Isma'il ibn
Ja'far. They are also called the Batiniya because of their view about the
"concealed Imam". This group believe that Ja'far designated his son, Isma'il,
as Imam. The result of this is that, even though he died before his father, the
imamate continued among his descendants. So the imamate passed to his son
Muhammad al-Maktum, the first of the concealed Imams, and then to his son
Ja'far al-Musaddiq and then his son Muhammad alHabib, the last of the

concealed Imams, and then to his son, 'Abdullah al-Mahdi, who gained
control over North Africa and from whom the Fatimid dynasty derives.
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 Qur'anic phrase, "Judgement belongs to Allah alone", and
they took this as their motto. They shouted it in the faces of their opponents
and ended every conversation with it.
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, '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, and of 'Ali and 'Uthman, they left him.
Although the Kharijites were sincere in their attack on 'Ali and the
Umayyads after him, there were other factors which led them to rebel one of
the most significant of which was their intense resentment towards Quraysh

for appropriating the khalifate. Most of them were from the tribes of Rabi'a
who had a long-standing enmity towards the tribes of Mudar, of which
Quraysh was one. This enmity preceded Islam. Most of the Kharijites were
Arabs, and very few clients were to be found among them, even though their
tenets should have made the clients eligible for the khalifate. The views of
the Kharijites clearly show their thinking, revealing their 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 k h a l i f a 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 khalif so 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 or 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
khalif 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 khalif at all. Muslims
should be equitable in their mutual dealings. They thought that if that could
only be achieved by means of having a khalif to encourage them to uphold
the truth and establish it, then it was permitted. But in their view the
existence of a khalif was not a 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 i j t i h a d 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, in their opinion, arbitration
was not correct, then the fact that they said 'Ali was an unbeliever indicates
that they considered that an error in ijtihad takes a person out of the deen.

That was also their view of Talha, az-Zubayr, '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 a y a t s 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 even the smallest of matters. Perhaps this is the secret of the
great number of their defeats. They were divided into many groups.
Murji'ites
The Murji'ites began as a political group but, like the other sects, they began
to mix politics with the principles of the d e e n. The basis of their difference
was a negative view of a matter which preoccupied many Muslim minds at
the time: the question of the status of someone who commits a major sin.
This question animated the Kharijites, Shi'ites and Mu'tazilites. However, as
they began politically, we consider them to be a political group.
The first seed which produced this group was sown in the time of the
Companions, at the end of the rule of 'Uthman when there was unrest about
his rule which ultimately culminated in his murder. A group of Companions
remained silent and refused to participate in the civil war which shook the
Muslims profoundly. They held to the hadith reported by Abu Bakr from the
Prophet: "There will be civil strife in which those who sit will be better than
those who walk, and those who walk will be better than those who run. When
it comes, whoever has camels should stay with his camels; whoever has
sheep should stay with his sheep; and whoever has land should cling to his
land." A man said, "Messenger of Allah, what about someone who has
neither camels, sheep or land?" He replied, "He should go to his sword and
blunt its edge with a stone and then save himself if he can."
They refused to become involved in the war between the Muslims and did not
concern themselves with ascertaining who was in the right. They included
Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu Bakra, 'Abdullah ibn 'Imran and many others.
They refused to make a judgement about either group and left the matter to
Allah while other parties were quick to apportion blame.

Then, when there was a lot of discussion about people who commit a major
sin and the Kharijites claimed that such people were unbelievers and made
war on all Muslims, some such people refused to take sides in the argument
and withheld (i r j a ') judgement as they had withheld judgement on other
occasions. Hence they were called Murji'ites ("deferrers"). This time the
deferment of judgement was not a political one as the first had been but a
doctrinal one, implying that belief consists of affirmation, assent, belief, and
knowledge, that an act of disobedience does not impair faith, that faith is
distinct from action.
So the term "Murji'ite" was applied to two groups: one who refused to take
sides in the disagreement between the Companions and which continued into
the Umayyad period and a second group who thought that Allah would
forgive all sins except disbelief and so an act of disobedience did not harm
faith just as an act of obedience was of no benefit without faith.
Unfortunately, there were corrupt people within this school who used the
position as an open door to evil. That is why Zayd ibn 'Ali said about this, "I
am free of the Murji'ites who appease the profligate by the promise of
Allah's pardon."
The Mu'tazilites used the term "Murji'ite" for all those who did not think that
someone who committed a major sin would be eternally in the Fire and held
the position that such people would be punished for a time and then pardoned
by Allah. This is why it was applied to Abu Hanifa and his companions, may
Allah be pleased with him. This is why ash-Shahrastani states in al-Milal w a
'n - Nih a l: "Abu Hanifa and his companions are called 'Murji'ites of the
Sunna'. A number of those who wrote treatises counted him among the
Murji'ites. Perhaps the reason for that was that he used to say, 'Belief is
affirmation with the heart; it does not increase or decrease.' ... There is
another reason for this. He was an opponent of the Qadarites and Mu'tazilites
who appeared early on, and the Mu'tazilites nicknamed all who opposed
them in the question of Qadar 'Murji'ites.""
Many others beside Abu Hanifa and his companions are considered
Murji'ites by this definition, including al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn 'Ali,
Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Talq ibn Habib, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, Hammad ibn Abi
Sulayman, and others. All of them were Imams of f i q h and h a d i t h who
did not say that those who committed major sins were unbelievers or deemed
that they would be in the Fire forever.

The Jabarites
During the time of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, the
question of the Divine Decree and man's will and power in relation to the
will and power of Allah Almighty was a subject discussed by the Muslims
but the nature of the Arab mind and soul, close as it was to the natural state,
prevented them from going too deeply into the matter and becoming obsessed
by it. After their time, however, when the Muslims started to mix with the
people of ancient religions and other intellectual traditions, their schools and
sects multiplied and their investigations expanded and they followed the
methods of the adherents of ancient religions in studying these topics.
One group claimed that man does not create his actions and that no actions
whatsoever can be truly ascribed to him. The basic position of this school
was to deny that the action of the slave had any reality and to ascribe it to
Allah altogether. Since the creature has in reality no 'capacity' of his own, it
must be that he is compelled in his actions without any power, volition or
choice. Allah Almighty creates the actions in him and actions can only be
ascribed to him metaphorically in the same way as they are ascribed to
inanimates, just as a tree produces fruit, a stone moves, water flows, or the
sun rises and sets, and other such things. Reward and punishment are
predetermined and so obligation is also predetermined. It is difficult to
ascertain who was the first to espouse this position, but the idea was certainly
already widespread in Umayyad times so that it became a school of thought.
Although it is difficult to state with certainty who was responsible for the
formation of this position as a school, it is usually attributed to al-Jahm ibn
Safwan because he was the major proponent of it. He also espoused other
views. He claimed that the Garden and the Fire will vanish and that nothing is
eternal, and that when "eternity" is mentioned in the Qur'an, it merely means
"a long time". He also stated that faith was only recognition and that disbelief
was ignorance, and that the knowledge and speech of Allah are located in
time. He went further and stated that Allah cannot be described with any
attributes, even life, and that the Qur'an is created.
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 so their feelings and ideas 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 the
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. At-Tara'ifi states 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 progenitor of the Mu'tazilites was Wasil ibn 'Ata'.
He was one of those who used to attend the gathering of al-Hasan al-Basri at
the time when the question arose which preoccupied the minds of so many
people of the period: the question of whether committing a major wrong
action makes its perpetrator an unbeliever. Wasil said in opposition to al-
Hasan alBasri, 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 al-Hasan'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 - In tis ar, "No one can
properly be called a Mu'tazilite unless he holds to all 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. Only
when a man maintains these five, is he, properly speaking, a Mu'tazilite.
These are the tenets of the Mu'tazilite school." We will speak briefly about
each of them.
Tawhid
A particular understanding of t a w h i d was at 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, Living 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 does He create p e o p le 's actions.
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 anything 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 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.
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 they can by means of 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 in these places, 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.
The Mu'tazilites' 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 necessarily being filtered through them. Some
pretended to have faith out of fear of the r u l e r, 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,
zindi q s 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; the Promise and
Threat was to refute the Murji'ites; and the Position between the Two
Positions was to refute the Kharijites who said that anyone who commits a
sin was unbeliever.
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 espoused 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 ha dith 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 y a and
fear, not true belief and adherence, while others endured violence,
humiliation and long imprisonment and would not say anything other than
what they believed.
That inquisition lasted after al-Ma'mun through the khalifates of al-Mu'tasim
and al-Wathiq. Al-Wathiq tried to coerce people to deny that Allah will be
seen - another orthodox position denied 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 zindiqs 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
when both groups were trying to support the deen and did not spare any
efforts in its defence? It seems that there were a number of factors which
combined to produce such enmity.
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, dualists, people of other sects, specialists in figh
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.
· The Mu'tazilites avoided imitation and were averse to following others
without investigation, examination, comparison, proofs and proper 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.
. They relied on the intellect to establish their articles of faith, finding support
for their positions in the Qur'an. They did not have much knowledge of h a d
i t h s because they did not use them for doctrine or evidence.
. They took from classical scientific sources which were translated in their
time. They borrowed from some of those sciences and used them to support
their arguments in clashes with opponents in the field of k a l a m. They were
joined by many Muslims educated in the foreign education and philosophical
systems which were nurturing the Arab intellect in that time, which is why
there were many distinguished writers and philosophers among them.
. They excelled in language, eloquence and clarity of exposition. Their men

included eloquent orators and debaters who were skilled in debate, knew its
rules and were experienced in its methods and how to defeat opponents. Their
leading figure, Wasil ibn 'Ata', was a notable orator.
Chapter Four The Opinions of Abu Hanifa
In the remaining part of this book we will discuss two matters: firstly, Abu
Hanifa's opinions on questions of politics and dogma which exercised the
minds of many of the scholars of his time, and secondly, his fiqh.
This first chapter will deal with his opinion regarding the khalifate and who
was entitled to have it, and his view about the preconditions for being the
khalif and the basis of allegiance. We will also look at his views on the
articles of faith, the nature of sin and those who commit it, and man's actions
and their relationship to the decree. We will also discuss the issue of " q a d a
r" (decree) which was famous in his time shall also be considered. Then we
will move on to his opinions on social and ethical matters.
Abu Hanifa's political views
Abu Hanifa's view on politics has not been precisely explained and analysed
in the sources examined. We must, therefore, investigate scattered reports
amongst the sources in order to be able to formulate from them a clear picture
of his political thought.
Historical sources make two things evident about his life. One is that he was
biased in favour of the descendants of 'Ali and Fatima and was almost
martyred for his support of them. The second is that, in spite of this, he did
not participate in any of the 'Alawite rebellions, either in the Umayyad or
Abbasid periods. He confined himself to verbal support in his lessons and
giving encouragement if he was asked for a fatwa on the matter, as he did in
the case of al-Hasan ibn Qahtaba. He did not exceed the role of a mufti who
is asked for fatwa and answers in accordance with his conscience without
paying any attention to the authorities. Thus it is certain that Abu Hanifa had
Shi'ite leanings but they did not go beyond that. To which Shi'ite group was
he closest? The question will now examine that question.

Abu Hanifa did not have the kind of Shi'ite perspective which blinds a person
to perceiving the virtues and ranks of the Companions as a whole. He ranked
Abu Bakr and 'Umar before 'Ali, and he mentioned his own esteem and
veneration for the taqwa and generosity of Abu Bakr so that he tried to
emulate him in his generosity and trading practice. He had a silk shop in Kufa
as Abu Bakr had a silk shop in Makka. He placed 'Umar after Abu Bakr but
he did not put 'Uthman before 'Ali. Ibn 'Abdu'l-Barr says in al-Intiqa': "Abu
Hanifa gave preference to Abu Bakr and 'Umar and left 'Ali and 'Uthman."
His son Hammad said, "We love 'Ali more than 'Uthman." But in spite of his
preference for 'Ali, he did not curse 'Uthman. He prayed for mercy on him
when he was mentioned and may have been the only person in Kufa to do so.
He was not known to curse or accuse anyone, as he mentioned when he met
'Ata' ibn Abi Rabah in Makka. ' Ata' asked him, "Who are you?" "One of
the people of Kufa," he replied. "From the people of a city who have divided
their d e e n into parties?" " Yes," he replied. Ata' inquired, "From which are
you?" He replied, "From those who do not curse the Salaf nor hold Qadarite
views and do not consider a person an unbeliever on account of a wrong
action."
Al-Makki reports in The Virtues that Abu Hanifa said, "I came to Madina
and went to Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali (al-Baqir). He said, 'Brother of
Iraq! Do not sit with us.' I sat down and asked, 'May Allah put you right.
What do you say about Abu Bakr and 'Umar?' He replied, 'May Allah have
mercy on both of them!' I said, 'In Iraq they say that you disavow both of
them.' He exclaimed, 'I seek refuge with Allah! They have lied, by the Lord
of the Ka'ba! Do you not know that 'Ali married his daughter, Umm
Kulthum bint Fatima, to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab? Do you not know who she
was, fatherless one? Her grandmother was Khadija, the mistress of the
women of the Garden and her grandfather was the Messenger of Allah, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, the Seal of the Prophets, the Master of
the Messengers, and the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds, and her mother
was Fatima, the mistress of the women of the worlds. Her brothers were
alHasan and al-Husayn, the lords of the young men of the Garden, and her
father was 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, the master of honour in Islam. If he had not
been worthy of her, fatherless one, he would not have married her to him.' I
said 'If you would write to them and refute it ... ' He said, 'They are not up to
writing. I told you directly not to sit with us and you disobeyed, so what will

they do with a letter?""
From this encounter between Abu Hanifa and Muhammad alBaqir, one of the
Imamite imams, we see that Abu Hanifa wanted to deny espousing
distortionate Shi'ite views or disparaging Abu Bakr and 'Umar. Abu Hanifa
believed that 'Ali was always in the right but did not attack or abuse his
opponents. He stated, "No one fought 'Ali without 'Ali being in the right."
He said about the conflict between 'Ali and az-Zubayr, "There is no doubt
that Amir alMu'minin 'Ali fought Talha and az-Zubayr after they had given
allegiance to him and they opposed him." When he was asked about the
Battle of the Camel, he said, ""Ali was right in it. He had the best knowledge
of the Muslims about the sunna of fighting the people of rebellion." He
thought 'Ali was in the right but did not speak ill of his opponents.
In respect of his position regarding the Umayyads, we see that he helped
Zayd ibn 'Ali when he rebelled against Hisham. He was asked about fighting
with him and remarked that Zayd's expeditio resembled that of the
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the Day of
the Battle of Badr. He helped him with money but did not trust his
supporters.
His opinion of the Abbasids after the conflict between them and the family of
'Ali was no better than his opinion of the Umayyads. We see that he inclined
to Ibrahim when he rebelled against al-Mansur. Al-Makki says in The Vi rt u
e s: "Ibrahim ibn Suwayd stated: 'I asked Abu Hanifa, whom I respected,
when Ibrahim ibn 'Abdullah ibn Hasan rebelled, "Which do you prefer after
the obligatory h a j j: going forth with this man or h a j j?" He replied, "After
the obligatory h a j j, a military expedition is better than fifty h a j j 's.""' A
woman came to Abu Hanifa in the time of Ibrahim and said, 'My son wanted
to join this man but I forbade him.' He said, 'Do not forbid him.' Hammad
ibn A'yan said, 'Abu Hanifa encouraged people to help Ibrahim and told
them to follow him."" (pt. 2, p. 84)
Political inclination was not the only sign of Abu Hanifa's ties to the family
of the House of the Prophet. There was also an evident scholarly connection.
That may well have been the reason for the political inclination. He studied
with some of their eminent imams. It is also clear that he thought that the
khalifate should go to the descendants of 'Ali and Fatima and that the khalifs

contemporary with him were usurpers. So what did Abu Hanifa consider the
correct means of choosing the khalif?
Reviewing Abu Hanifa's statements on this subject, we find an illustration
which indicates that he thought that a general acclaim of the khalif should
precede his taking power. Ar-Rabi' ibn Yunus, the w a z i r of al-Mansur, met
with Malik, Ibn Dhu'ayb and Abu Hanifa and asked them about his being
khalif. Malik said something mild and Ibn Dhu'ayb said something harsh.
Abu Hanifa said, "The one who seeks guidance in his deen is slow to anger.
If you are true to yourself, you will know that you have not gathered us out of
desire for the pleasure of Allah. You want the populace to know that we
affirm you out of fear of you. You assumed the khalifate without two of the
people eligible to give fatwa agreeing on you. The khalifate is by the
agreement of the Muslims and consultation with them." (Virtues, al-Bazzazi,
pt. 2, p. 16)
His opinions on issues of kalam
As we have already mentioned, Abu Hanifa studied the positions of the sects
of his time and debated with them. He used to undertake journeys for the sake
of this debate. His scholarly life began with the study of these sects before he
moved on to fiqh and became the undisputed imam of the people of opinion.
He continued to argue with the various sects when that was necessary. That is
why some opinions are reported from him which were dealt with by the
mutakallimun of his time. There are, for instance, his opinions about the
reality of belief, about the status of someone who commits a sin, about the
decree (qadar), and about the relationship between man's free will and the
will of Allah.
These opinions have reached us by two means: through scattered
transmissions, both strong and weak, which must be scrutinised and through
certain books which are ascribed to him. Abu Hanifa is listed in the I n d e x
of Ibn an-Nadim as having written four books: al-Fiqh al-Akbar, the Scholar
and the Student, the Letter to 'Uthman ibn Muslim al-Batti (which is about
belief and its connection to action) and the Refutation of the Qadariyya. All
of them are on the science of kalam and dogma.

Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is a small treatise of which there are a number of versions.
One is that of Hammad ibn Abi Hanifa. Another is the variant of Muti' al-
Balkhi known as al-Fiqh al-Awsat, with a commentary by Abu'l-Layth as-
Samarqandi and 'Ata' ibn 'Ali alJurzjani. There are others, including that
ascribed to al-Maturidi, which is used for and against the argument of the
Ash'arites. This indicates without a doubt that it is later than al-Ash'ari
although they were contemporaries, since al-Maturidi died in 332 AH and al-
Ash'ari in 334.
Scholars do not agree about the ascription of this work to Abu Hanifa. When
he discusses al-Fiqh al-Akbar, al-Bazzazi says in The Virtues, "If you were to
say that Abu Hanifa did not write any book, I would say, 'That is what the
Mu'tazilites say. They claim that he wrote nothing on the science of kalam.
By that they desired to deny that al-Fiqh al-Akbar and the Scholar and the
Student were by him because he clearly stated in them most of the principles
of the people of the S u n n a and Community. They want to advance their
claim that he was one of the Mu'tazilites and that the book was by another
Abu Hanifa. This is a clear error: both books were written by Abu Hanifa.""
We must briefly look at its contents and ascertain whether it can all be
correctly ascribed to Abu Hanifa or whether there is some doubt about it. If
we look at the order of the best of people after the Prophets in the Indian
edition we find that it is Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and then 'Ali. But all
transmissions in the various books of Virtues agree that Abu Hanifa did not
put 'Uthman before 'Ali.
We also see that this book deals with issues which were not dealt with in his
time nor the time before it. For instance, in his time and before, people did
not discuss the difference between a sign (ayat), karama (miracle as a mark of
honour) and temptation (istidraj). However, this is discussed in this book.
Therefore there must be some additions to the book which do not come from
Abu Hanifa.
Faith (Iman)
There are different transmissions about what Abu Hanifa says about faith.
The one we can be most sure about is: "Faith is affirmation and