Mutazila
Mutazila
Mutazila
who was identified with Baghdād, and by was co-eternal with him. Among the
Abū Alī al-Jubbāī (d. 303⁄915), who was standard Mutazilī arguments was q 2:106,
identified with Bara; the latter was fol- which was also the qurānic basis for the
lowed by his son Abū Hāshim (d. 321⁄933), doctrine of abrogation (q.v.). The
the founder of the so-called Bahshamiyya centrality of this doctrine for the Mutazilīs
or Bahāshima. The last innovative school can be seen from the numerous titles of
within Mutazilism originated with Abū works on khalq al-Qurān listed by Ibn al-
l-
usayn al-Barī (d. 436⁄1044), who devel- Nadīm (fl. fourth⁄tenth cent.) in the section
oped independent theological views that of his Fihrist devoted to the Mutazila (Ibn
set him apart from the school of Abū al-Nadīm-Dodge, i, 388-9, 391, 393, 395,
Hāshim. Despite much criticism by the 396-7, 401, 412, 414-6, 418, 425, 429-30). It
Bahshamiyya and later heresiographers was basically this insistence of the Muta-
that he introduced philosophy (see zilīs — on the createdness of the Qurān,
philosophy and the qurn) under the in the sense of its temporality, and their
cover of theology, Abū l-
usayn’s views accusation that the opponents, in fact, held
were successful to the extent that his to the eternity of the Qurān — which
school established itself side by side with provoked the traditionists to combine their
the Bahshamiyya. In some areas the denial of the createdness of the Qurān
Mutazila persisted until the Mongol inva- with the affirmation of its eternity or pre-
sion at the beginning of the seventh⁄ existence. This line of argumentation was
thirteenth century. Mutazilism was also first formulated by Amad b.
anbal
adopted by the Zaydiyya and the Twelver (d. 241⁄855). In the pre-mina period (see
Shīa (see shism and the qurn) and inquisition), by contrast, the conflict over
determined their respective theological the nature of the Qurān was not con-
outlooks for centuries to come. cerned with the question of its temporality
versus its eternity. Rather, the discussion
The nature of the Qurān was whether God speaks in a literal sense,
Because of their uncompromising inter- i.e. whether the Qurān is the speech of
pretation of God’s unity (tawīd) as God, as the upholders of an anthropo-
expressed in q 27:26, q 112, etc., the morphic concept of God held (see
Mutazilīs were strictly opposed to the anthropomorphism), or whether God
admission of anything co-eternal with God does not speak in a literal sense but rather
(see eternity). This applied first and creates the sound of speech which can be
foremost to God’s essential attributes, heard, as was the view attributed to Jahm
which must be identical with him and not b. afwān (d. 128⁄745). Both positions
different eternal attributes or entitative implied the temporality of the Qurān.
determinants. This also applied in their Another discussion on the nature of the
view to the Qurān — the speech of Qurān in the pre-mina phase associated
God (kalām Allāh, see word of god; with Abū
anīfa (d. 150⁄767) and Imām
speech) — that cannot possibly be co- Jafar al- ādiq (d. 148⁄765) revolved
eternal with God but was necessarily around the issue of whether the Qurān, in
created in time (see createdness of the accordance with the commonly accepted
qurn). Thus they accused those denying dogma that everything besides God is cre-
that the Qurān had been created of ated, is also created (see creation).
asserting its eternity and of destroying Whereas Imām al- ādiq reportedly
God’s unity by claiming that something rejected this conclusion, arguing that the
mutazila 468
Qurān is neither creator nor created, but miraculous inimitability of the Qurān
rather the speech of God, Abū
anīfa arises from its intrinsic quality, others
apparently accepted the argument and denied this and argued that it is due to
held that the Qurān indeed is created. God’s preventing humankind from match-
Again, those who denied the createdness ing it. The latter position was known as the
of the Qurān in this second discussion doctrine of prevention (arfa). The view
refrained from combining their view with that God deprived the people of the power
the notion of the uncreatedness or even to match the Qurān is usually ascribed to
eternity of the Qurān. It was therefore Abū Isāq al-Naām (d. around 221⁄836),
only after the mina and as an immediate who was apparently the first to consider
result of the Mutazilī argumentation on the Qurān a miracle. Another early repre-
this issue that the conflict turned on the sentative of the arfa doctrine was al-Jāi
question of the createdness of the Qurān, (d. 255⁄869), who also composed a book on
in the sense of its temporality, versus its the choice and arrangement of words in
uncreatedness in the sense of its eternity. A the Qurān (Kitāb fī l-itijāj li-nam al-
further difference to the pre-mina period Qurān), as did Ibn al-Ikhshīd (d. 326⁄937;
was that, unlike the Jahmiyya, the Muta- Kitāb Nam al-Qurān, see form and struc-
zilīs did not deny that God really speaks, ture of the qurn; literary struc-
and they affirmed that the Qurān is in- tures of the qurn; language and
deed the speech of God. The difference style of the qurn). Al-Jāi’ contem-
between human and divine speech is that porary Abbād b. Sulaymān (d. ca. 250⁄
God, because of his omnipotence (see 864) and the latter’s teacher Hishām al-
power and impotence), does not need Fuwa
ī (d. ca. 218⁄832) are reported to
instruments when he produces speech. It have still denied that the Qurān is to be
was only Muammar (d. 215⁄830) among considered as a miracle proving Muam-
the Mutazilīs who deviated from this view. mad’s prophetic mission, although both
According to him, God does not actually subscribed to the doctrine of arfa (van Ess,
speak nor does he have actual speech. He tg , iv, 7, 41, 609). The arfa-doctrine was
also maintained that the Qurān is brought held by most of the representatives of the
forth (mudath) — not truly created — by school of Baghdād. The majority of the
the substratum in which it inheres. For the later Baran Mutazilīs rejected the doc-
Qurān is an accident and God does not trine of prevention, arguing that the ini-
create accidents. mitability of the Qurān was based on the
The majority of the Mutazilīs, like al- rhetorical uniqueness of the book (q.v.) and
most all theological schools, considered the the excellence of its style (see rhetoric of
Qurān as the principal miracle confirming the qurn). Abd al-Jabbār (d. 415⁄1025),
Muammad’s prophethood (see prophets for example, who devotes an entire volume
and prophethood; miracle). The proof of his Mughnī to the issue of ijāz, explains
of its miraculous character was human the miraculous inimitability of the Qurān
inability to match the Qurān despite the with its intrinsic stylistic excellence and its
challenge to do so (e.g. q 10:38; 11:13; eloquence ( faāa) and argues against the
52:33-4; also q 2:23-4; 17:88; see inimit- doctrine of prevention. The earliest Muta-
ability). They differed among themselves, zilī treatises on the issue of the miraculous
however, on the question of why those who inimitability of the Qurān were composed
were challenged were unable to match it. as early as the second half of the second⁄
While some Mutazilīs maintained that the eighth century by two students of al-
469 mutazila
van Ess, tg , iv, 236-7). Extensive systematic (d. 310⁄923) Jāmi al-bayān an tawīl āy al-
commentaries on the Qurān were com- Qurān, although the possibility that the lat-
posed by Abū Bakr al-Aamm (d. 201⁄816), ter was familiar with the work cannot be
Abū Alī al-Jubbāī (d. 303⁄915), Abū excluded, nor is there any mention of his
l-Qāsim al-Kabī al-Balkhī (d. 319⁄931) commentary in Abd al-Jabbār’s Kitāb
and by Abū Muslim Muammad b. Bar Mutashābih al-Qurān or in Abū Jafar al-
al-Ifahānī (d. 322⁄934; cf. Ibn al-Nadīm- ūsī’s al-Tibyān. To judge from the pre-
Dodge, i, 76), whose Jāmi al-tawīl li- served fragments, al-Aamm endeavored to
mukam al-tanzīl (or Jāmi ilm al-Qurān) is develop a comprehensive qurānic theol-
reported to have consisted of 14 or 20 vol- ogy, dealt with the issue of abrogation, and
umes, or even more (Sezgin, gas , i, 42-3; formulated an original view on the distinc-
Kohlberg, Medieval Muslim, 203-4, no. 231). tion of clear (mukamāt) and ambiguous
Although, again, none of these tafsīr works (q.v.) verses (mutashābihāt), both of which
is preserved, ample quotations from them can be grasped rationally; the only differ-
survive in the extant works of later au- ence is that in the latter case deeper reflec-
thors, such as al-Tafsīr al-kabīr of Fakhr tion is called for. Quotations from the
al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606⁄1210), the Imāmī multi-volume commentary of al-Kabī are
exegetical works of Abū Jafar al-ūsī preserved in the Amālī of al-Sharīf al-
(d. 459⁄1067; al-Tibyān fī tafsīr al-Qurān) Murtaā (d. 436⁄1044) and possibly in the
and of al-abrisī (Majma al-bayān) and, Kitāb al-Tawīd of al-Māturīdī (d. 333⁄944).
most importantly, al-
ākim al-Jushamī’s In particular, later commentaries preserve
(d. 494⁄1101) al-Tahdhīb. Al-Aamm appar- ample quotations and paraphrases of Abū
ently dealt in his commentary on the Alī al-Jubbāī’s exegesis; this is especially
Qurān with historical and philological true of al-Tibyān of Abū Jafar al-ūsī and
issues as well as with doctrinal matters (van Majma al-bayān of Abū Alī al-abrisī
Ess, tg , ii, 403-7; v, 198-202 [texts nos. among the Imāmīs, of al-Tafsīr al-kabīr of
15-21]). The work was consulted by Abū Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and, most signifi-
Alī al-Jubbāī and fragments of it are pre- cantly, of al-Tahdhīb fī l-tafsīr of the
served in Abū Manūr al-Māturīdī’s Mutazilī, later Zaydī, scholar al-
ākim
(d. 333⁄944) Tawīlāt ahl al-sunna, in Amad al-Jushamī, which still awaits critical
b. Muammad al-Thalabī’s (d. 427⁄ editing. On the basis of this material,
1035-6) al-Kashf wa-l-bayān fī tafsīr al- Daniel Gimaret ( Jubbāī) and Rosalind
Qurān and particularly in al-Tahdhīb fī W. Gwynne (The “Tafsir”) have tried to
l-tafsīr of al-
ākim al-Jushamī (d. 484⁄ reconstruct Abū Alī’s commentary.
1091); the latter usually gives al-Aamm’s Against the exegeses of Abū Alī al-Jubbāī
view together with those of Abū Alī al- and Abū l-Qāsim al-Kabī, Abū l-
asan
Jubbāī and Abū Muslim al-Ifahānī. Al- al-Asharī (d. 324⁄935) wrote his Tafsīr al-
Aamm’s commentary is also often quoted Qurān wa-l-radd alā man khālafa l-bayān min
by Abū l-Futū al-Rāzī (first half sixth⁄ ahl al-ifk wa-l-buhtān wa-naqd mā arrafahu
twelfth century), by his contemporary al- l-Jubbāī wa-l-Balkhī fī talīfihimā (Sezgin,
abarsī and later on by Fakhr al-Dīn al- gas , i, 604 no. 10), of which only the
Rāzī, although it may be assumed that introduction (muqaddima) and fragments
those later authors received al-Aamm’s are preserved.
commentary through intermediary Of the apparently very large commen-
sources. No mention of al-Aamm’s Tafsīr tary, al-Jāmi fī ilm (or tafsīr) al-Qurān, of
is to be found, by contrast, in al-abarī’s Alī b. Īsā al-Rummānī (d. 384⁄994), a fol-
471 mysterious letters
lower of the school of Ibn Ikhshīd, who Ibyārī, Cairo 1380⁄1961; vol. xvi, Ijāz al-Qurān,
himself had abridged the commentary of ed. A. al-Khūlī, Cairo 1380⁄1960; id., Mutashābih;
Gimaret, Jubbāī; Ibn al-Nadīm-Dodge; Rum-
al-abarī (Ibn al-Nadīm-Dodge, i, 76), mānī et al., Rasāil.
only a small portion is extant in manu- Secondary: M. Bernard, La méthode d’exégèse
script (Sezgin, gas , viii, 112-3). It was coranique de Abd al-Ǧabbār à travers son
highly regarded by later authors and has Mutašābih, in Mélanges de l’Univeristé St.-Joseph
50 (1989), 87-100; I.J. Boullata, The rhetorical
been used extensively by al-ūsī in his interpretation of the Qurān. Ijāz and related
Tibyān, the latter being, according to topics, in Rippin, Approaches, 139-57; J. Bouman,
Daniel Gimaret, “un plagiat pur et simple Le conflict autour du Coran et la solution d’al-Bāqillānī,
Amsterdam 1959; id., The doctrine of Abd al-
de celui de Alī b. Īsā ar-Rummānī”
Djabbār on the Qurān as the created word of
(Gimaret, Jubbāī, 23). A contemporary of Allāh, in Th.P. van Baaren (ed.), Verbum. Essays on
al-Rummānī, Abū Alī al-Fārisī (d. 377⁄ some aspects of the religious function of words, dedicated
987), composed a work entitled Kitāb al- to Hendrik Willem Obbink, Utrecht 1964, 67-86;
J. van Ess, Mutazilah, in er , x, 220-9; id., tg ;
Tatabbu li-kalām Abī Alī al-Jubbāī fī l-tafsīr, Goldziher, Richtungen, 99 f.; R. Ward Gwynne,
which is lost (Sezgin, gas , viii, 110). Also The “Tafsir” of Abu Ali al-Jubbai. First steps
lost is a work of Amad b. Muammad toward a reconstruction, with texts, translations, bio-
al-Khallāl al-Barī (alive in 377⁄987) enti-
graphical introduction and analytical essay, Ph.D. diss.,
U. Washington 1982; M.S. al-Juwaynī, Manhaj
tled Mutashābih al-Qurān, excerpts of which al-Zamakhsharī fī tafsīr al-Qurān, Cairo 1968;
are preserved in writings of Ibn āwūs E. Kohlberg, A medieval Muslim scholar at work. Ibn
(d. 664⁄1266) (Kohlberg, Medieval Muslim, āwūs and his library, Leiden 1992; W. Madelung,
Imāmism and Mutazilite theology, in T. Fahd
292-3, no. 457). Various exegetical works (ed.), Le Shīisme imamite, Paris 1970, 13-30; id.,
authored by representatives of the Bah- The origins of the controversy concerning the
shamiyya, notably of Abd al-Jabbār, are creation of the Koran, in J.M. Barral (ed.),
Orientalia hispanica sive studia F.M. Pareja, vol. i⁄1,
extant; to these belong his Tanzīh al-Qurān
Leiden 1974, 504-25; A.A. Makram, Tafsīr al-
an al-maāin, which was published twice Kashshāf li-l-Zamakhsharī, in al-Fikr al-islāmī
before the discovery of its author’s summa 1⁄4 ([Beirut] 1970), 73 f.; R.C. Martin, A Muta-
theologica during the 1950s in Yemen (Cairo zilite treatise on prophethood and miracles being probably
the Bāb alā l-nubuwwah from the Ziyādāt al-shar
1326, 1329) and his Mutashābih al-Qurān by Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī, Ph.D. diss., New York
which is concerned with the ambiguous 1975; id., The role of the Basrah Mutazilah in
verses, i.e., those that apparently convey formulating the doctrine of the apologetic
meanings incongruent with Mutazilī posi- miracle, in jnes 39 (1980), 175-89; U. Rudolph,
Al-Māturīdī und die sunnitische Theologie in Samar-
tions. By contrast, Abd al-Jabbār’s most kand, Leiden 1997; Sezgin, gas ; M. Siddiqi, Some
extensive commentary, apparently entitled aspects of the Mutazilī interpretation of the
al-Muī, seems to be lost. The most signifi- Qurān, in Islamic studies 2 (1963), 95-120; W.M.
Watt, Early discussions about the Qurān, in mw
cant Mutazilī work of exegesis after Abd
40 (1950), 27-40, 96-105; B.G. Weiss, Medieval
al-Jabbār was al-Tahdhīb fī l-tafsīr of al- Muslim discussions of the origin of language, in
ākim al-Jushamī, a student of Abū zdmg 124 (1974), 33-41.
āmid Amad b. Muammad b. Isāq
al-Najjār (d. 433⁄1041), who in turn was a
student of Abd al-Jabbār. Mysterious Letters