The Mutazilites have often been misunderstood and sometimes have been confused with some of the more secular “philosophers” who also sprang from the Rationalist strain in medieval Islam but then became so enthralled by ancient Greek dogmas that they were almost materialist freethinkers. In fact, the Mutazilites were devout Muslims eager to serve their faith by making it accessible and compelling to educated non-Muslims. They have been described as providing a middle path between “the right” (i.e., the antirational Muslims) and “the left” (i.e., secular or non-Muslim philosophers).
Their contributions were impressive. By defining human beings as free and autonomous agents who have the capacity to understand God and His creation, they laid out some of the basic ideas that we today call “modern” and even “liberal.” Their ideas, in the words of an American law professor, indeed “appear to share—indeed to anticipate—many principles associated with Western law,” such as “rationality, objectivity, principles of individual liberty and equality.”
An interesting example of this was the extension of the free-will doctrine that the Mutazilites and their predecessors, the Qadaris, upheld. This idea led them to conclude that the world must be a free place so that humans would have “the power to choose” (al-tamakkun wa-l ikhtiyar). Thus, the whole world, they argued, had to be seen as an Abode of Trial (dar al-ibtila), where people are tested on whether they are willing or unwilling to accept the true faith. The Mutazilites also realized that this acceptance of faith could occur only with genuine conviction—with “an action of the heart”—an idea that they also inferred from a Qur’anic verse: “There is no compulsion in religion.” Their conclusion was that people deserved the “liberty to make religious choices.”
This was, a Western scholar notes, a solid basis for tolerance of disbelief and other “erroneous” attitudes, “not because all options were equally valid, as modern pluralists would claim, but rather because erroneous views were meant as a test of Muslim fortitude and thus had to be withstood rather than removed.”
Some political ideas that grew out of this were also remarkable. Al-Farabi, a tenth-century Muslim philosopher who extended the Mutazilite philosophy to sociology and politics, wrote Kitab as-Siyasah al-Madaniyah, or The Book of Civil Politics. He started by noting that all governments on earth are imperfect, except the one established by the Prophet Muhammad in Medina, for that was governed in direct communion with God. Yet, al-Farabi reminded his readers, such a theocracy became impossible after the Prophet’s death, so the rules of a just government had to be established by human reason.
Then he described his own ideal government, which he dubbed “the community state,” whose inhabitants would enjoy complete freedom (hurriyah). This would be “an egalitarian organization where people are free (ahrar) to do whatever they want.” Moreover, they would be “willing to recognize the leadership of those who promise to give them more freedom . . . and a greater opportunity to follow their particular inclinations.” When such a freedom-promoting government exists, al-Farabi added, “people from outside flock to it,” and this leads to a “most desirable kind of racial mixture and cultural diversity,” which would guarantee the flourishing of talented individuals such as philosophers and poets.
Sounds a bit like America, doesn't it?
Their contributions were impressive. By defining human beings as free and autonomous agents who have the capacity to understand God and His creation, they laid out some of the basic ideas that we today call “modern” and even “liberal.” Their ideas, in the words of an American law professor, indeed “appear to share—indeed to anticipate—many principles associated with Western law,” such as “rationality, objectivity, principles of individual liberty and equality.”
An interesting example of this was the extension of the free-will doctrine that the Mutazilites and their predecessors, the Qadaris, upheld. This idea led them to conclude that the world must be a free place so that humans would have “the power to choose” (al-tamakkun wa-l ikhtiyar). Thus, the whole world, they argued, had to be seen as an Abode of Trial (dar al-ibtila), where people are tested on whether they are willing or unwilling to accept the true faith. The Mutazilites also realized that this acceptance of faith could occur only with genuine conviction—with “an action of the heart”—an idea that they also inferred from a Qur’anic verse: “There is no compulsion in religion.” Their conclusion was that people deserved the “liberty to make religious choices.”
This was, a Western scholar notes, a solid basis for tolerance of disbelief and other “erroneous” attitudes, “not because all options were equally valid, as modern pluralists would claim, but rather because erroneous views were meant as a test of Muslim fortitude and thus had to be withstood rather than removed.”
Some political ideas that grew out of this were also remarkable. Al-Farabi, a tenth-century Muslim philosopher who extended the Mutazilite philosophy to sociology and politics, wrote Kitab as-Siyasah al-Madaniyah, or The Book of Civil Politics. He started by noting that all governments on earth are imperfect, except the one established by the Prophet Muhammad in Medina, for that was governed in direct communion with God. Yet, al-Farabi reminded his readers, such a theocracy became impossible after the Prophet’s death, so the rules of a just government had to be established by human reason.
Then he described his own ideal government, which he dubbed “the community state,” whose inhabitants would enjoy complete freedom (hurriyah). This would be “an egalitarian organization where people are free (ahrar) to do whatever they want.” Moreover, they would be “willing to recognize the leadership of those who promise to give them more freedom . . . and a greater opportunity to follow their particular inclinations.” When such a freedom-promoting government exists, al-Farabi added, “people from outside flock to it,” and this leads to a “most desirable kind of racial mixture and cultural diversity,” which would guarantee the flourishing of talented individuals such as philosophers and poets.
Sounds a bit like America, doesn't it?
