Видео

A differently viewed

Right…..

If Mu’tazilism is not rationalism then what else it signifies?

Are they literalists?

So that black and white world view you have is orientalist. So case in point lol if you want a one word answer mutazili am is understood to be hyper-rational. Like asharis and maturities are rational too esp earlier hanafis. The better question is what do you mean by rationalism. Obviously one doesn’t mean rational thought or applies critical thinking. That would be insulting and is a common orientalist trope to paint all other Islam as being rigidly dogmatic. If by rational you mean aql over naql that asharis do that too.

@@whathappenedman Your argument is riddled with contradictions and lacks coherence. On one hand, you accuse of adopting an "orientalist" perspective with a supposed "black-and-white worldview," yet you yourself categorize Mu'tazilites as "hyper-rational" while admitting Ash'aris and Maturidis are also rational to an extent. This dichotomy mirrors the same reductive logic you criticize. Who denies that Maturidis and even early Hanafis engaged in rationalist methodologies to some degree? However, it’s disingenuous to conflate their frameworks with Mu'tazilism. The Mu'tazilites prioritized aql' (reason) over 'naql' (text) in a systematic way that shaped their theological framework. In contrast, Maturidis and Ash'aris incorporated rational tools but did so to defend their scripturalist commitments. For example: The Ash'ari approach maintains that reason is subordinate to revelation, whereas the Mu'tazilite approach often gives reason primacy over revelation when conflicts arise. Maturidis employed rational arguments but remained committed to traditional Islamic doctrines like the eternity of the Qur'an, unlike the Mu'tazilite stance on its created nature. If your issue lies with the term "rationalism," perhaps you’d like to suggest one that avoids an "orientalist trope" without falling into the same vague labeling. Criticizing without providing clear alternatives weakens your argument and opens the door to the very oversimplifications you claim to resist. Finally, your invocation of the "orientalist trope" comes across as a lazy conspiracy theory rather than a substantive critique. Not every rigorous analysis of Islamic theology falls into orientalism.

@@MSchaudhary-b2m okAY buDDie. Glad to see that we share the proper background to ‘discriminate’ between the various theological groups. But if you read my posts again it should be clear. Ideas have a genealogy, as do the words that become normative for referring to them. EUQATING MUTAZILISM WITH RATIONLAITY IS AN ORIENTALIST TROPE. THE UNAMBIGUOUS TERM IS HYPER-RATIONAL. I already said both those things, but you hand waved it away to make a criticism that doesn’t even apply to me. Your first point about my dichotomy mirroring them is (politically in-correct word). Using the word hyper-rational neccisates a spectrum. The dichotomy is mutazili==rationality and all others is literalist and or dogmatic. As for your last point. I mean just see that sentence in all caps, it’s the third time iv’e given the “substantive crituqe”. Its very concise, direct and clear. And its self evident what I mean. Maybe you need a few books writing by secularists or orientalists to explain those few words. You can disagree but lets not pretend you don’t know what I am saying. It seems like your educated and as long as you don’t limit your self to only reading secularists/orientalist my claim is well known. To your main point and to me explaining it to you like a baby the thing I have repeated clearly many times! Someone is making a judgment call between when we say the asharis/maturidis are using rationality in a limited fashion vs the mutazailis who are proper rationlaists. Or saying that on the right we have the literalists (zahiris, narrow-minded or dimwitted asharis/maturidis, modern Salafists/hambalites) then on the other end have the hyper-rationlaist mutazilis because the entire middle of this spectrum and bulk of Islamic though actually employs rationality to various degrees through time and place. So, if you choose the first approach and call the mustazlis rationalist as opposed to hyper rationalist, you collapse the bulk of Islamic thought and reduce it to a false binary. This is the idea championed by the orientalists and voraciously denied by the majority of Islamic scholarship. Lastly its not a simple issue of framing, because this has direct ties into issues like colonialism, post-colonial attitudes, islamophobia and the “othering” of Muslims by and large. And so we arrive whence we started. It is wrong to say things like oh Muhammad abduhu (what an ignoramus to use that pronunciation) had rational thoughts/ideas and therefore its clear he was a neo-mutazili

It seems that he knows his stuff, but why dont you inform us instead.

Oh there you go at least I can oppose it’s easy for me

This is part ten of mu’tazilites series Go through it . I am watching it since then and he is spitting facts man . We should appreciate our fellow beings

@@Optimistic2345 Being over optimistic delivers a man to chaos. His start is filled with many objections. These lads study Islam and Muslims through orientalists and then try to propagate themselves as genuine Islamic scholars or historians. Beware, oriental studies are not Islamic studies.

It seems you may have jumped to conclusions without fully exploring the content or context of this series. i guess this video is the 10th installment in a meticulously researched series on the Mu'tazila, where the speaker has already explored their nature, origin, development, and doctrines in great detail. If you had taken the time to watch the previous videos, you would have realized the thoroughness with which this subject has been addressed. Your claim of "misinformation" is baseless unless you provide clear evidence to back it up. it seems the speaker has a strong hand on the subject, referencing both primary Arabic sources and secondary materials in English and Urdu, showing his comprehensive understanding of the topic. If you have anything substantive to counter the points discussed, bring it forward with evidence. Vague accusations and baseless criticism only serve to degrade the quality of discourse. Do your homework before making claims, and ensure your arguments hold weight. The speaker's commitment to accuracy and depth deserves respect, not hasty judgments. Scholarly debates are built on evidence, not empty rhetoric.

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

Highly relevant

Thank you very much, brother, for your engagement. As for your question about early Zaydis who were not aligned with Mu'tazilite thought, there are several prominent scholars and imams from the formative period of Zaydi history. While Zaydi theology eventually incorporated elements of Mu'tazilite rationalism, many early figures remained largely independent of its influence. Here are a few noteworthy examples: Imam Zayd ibn Ali (d. 740) - The founder of the Zaydi movement, Zayd ibn Ali was a grandson of Imam Husayn and brother of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir. While his teachings emphasized the importance of justice and leadership (Imamate) being held by a qualified descendant of Ali, his theology was not fully aligned with Mu'tazilism. Imam Yahya ibn Zayd (d. 743) - The son of Zayd ibn Ali, Yahya continued his father's revolutionary movement. While his influence was more political, he was also a significant figure in early Zaydi thought, focusing on the legitimate succession of the Imamate. Imam Al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim (d. 860) - Known as Al-Qasim al-Rassi, he is regarded as one of the foundational theologians of Zaydi thought. Although later associated with Mu'tazilism, Al-Qasim's theological positions were often a mix of traditionalist views with some early rationalist influences. He emphasized the necessity of a just and knowledgeable Imam. Imam Al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Utrush (d. 917) - Also known as al-Nasir al-Kabir, al-Utrush spread Zaydism in northern Iran and established a Zaydi state in Tabaristan. His theological positions were closer to traditionalist lines rather than the more rationalist Mu'tazili interpretations that some later Zaydis would adopt. Imam Al-Hadi ila'l-Haqq Yahya (d. 911) - Founder of the Zaydi Imamate in Yemen, Al-Hadi laid the foundation for much of Yemeni Zaydi jurisprudence and governance. Though he engaged in intellectual discussions with Mu'tazilites, his primary focus was on legal and political aspects rather than pure theology. These early Zaydi figures helped shape the movement, and while some later Zaydis would adopt Mu'tazilite theology, these individuals largely focused on the political and legal aspects of Imamate without fully embracing the rationalist theology of the Mu'tazilites.

In response to this query, I would highlight several key points to distinguish between Zaydī Muʿtazilis and other Mu'tazila groups: Imamate and Political Theory: Zaydī Muʿtazilis hold a distinctive view on the Imamate, which is central to their belief system. Zaydīs believe that the leader of the Muslim community (Imam) should be a descendant of ʿAlī and Fāṭimah (the family of the Prophet Muhammad) but should also be chosen based on his knowledge, justice, and ability to lead a rebellion against tyranny. This is different from other Mu'tazila groups, who generally did not emphasize the concept of an Imamate based on descent from ʿAlī. Additionally, the Zaydīs accept a more activist approach, believing that the Imam has the right to revolt against unjust rulers, which aligns with the revolutionary stance of the early Zaydī movement. Theological Differences: Anthropomorphism (Tashbīh): Both Zaydī Muʿtazilis and other Mu'tazilis reject anthropomorphism (attributing human-like qualities to God), but the Zaydīs have sometimes been seen as stricter on this matter, integrating it more deeply into their Shi'ite theology, which is influenced by the teachings of ʿAlī and early Imams. The Question of Free Will and Justice: Both groups agree on the principle of human free will (as opposed to predestination) and God’s justice. However, the Zaydī Muʿtazilis sometimes emphasize more strongly that God’s justice must be balanced with His mercy, due to influences from Shi'a traditions. The Influence of Shiʿism: Zaydī Muʿtazilis integrate more Shīʿite elements into their theology. For instance, they view ʿAlī as the most rightful successor to the Prophet and hold a special status for his descendants. In contrast, mainstream Muʿtazila generally did not emphasize the role of ʿAlī and his descendants in the same way, focusing more on rational theology without the specific Shi'ite political dimension. Law and Jurisprudence: Zaydī Muʿtazilis are influenced by Zaydī legal theory, which has both Sunni and Shīʿa elements. While Mu'tazila theology primarily focuses on creed (ʿaqīdah), Zaydī Muʿtazilis are more involved in developing legal frameworks, balancing rationalist Mu'tazili principles with the jurisprudence derived from their Imams. In summary, while Zaydī Muʿtazilis share many theological principles with other Mu'tazilites, their distinct Shi'ite perspective-especially regarding leadership, the Imamate, and some legal aspects-sets them apart. Their synthesis of Mu'tazili rationalism with Zaydī political and religious views created a unique school of thought within the broader Mu'tazilite tradition.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and queries! I really appreciate your engagement. While we may have some differences in our responses, I value the opportunity for dialogue and discussion. Your insights are important to me!

@@CIISR I understand you but I view all these scholars as Mutazili because they uphold the Usul al-Khamsa, They completely embrace Divine unicity, they embrace divine justice, the negation of tajseem, rejection of seeing allah, rejecting of fatalism and the acceptance of free-will and enjoining good forbidding evil politically etc

@@CIISR Yes I agree with these, that is why I say that the Zaydis are Mu'tazila with an extra emphasis on Ahlulbayt and the Imamate. So, their theology is almost identical

To an extent

@@CIISR we are as well, keep up the good work

@@ImamZaydInstitute I've had a chance to check out your work, and it's truly amazing. I couldn't resist subscribing. Keep up the great work. Thank you!

@@CIISR thank you dear brother, this is our duty! So May Allah guide us and aid us and allow the believers to unite in good against all wrongdoing

I don't put myself in any particular bracket! Thank you for joining

@@CIISR So, sir recognising ourselves as only Muslim and not indulging in any sects, is putting ourselves in bracket ? Being just a muslim is a bracket ? I was asking this because whatever you are uploading on your channel, I like that work and I have interest in these things.

Then if it is asked: What is the proof that human acts are not created by God, but that they are done with His knowledge?Say to him:If they were done by God then what good would there be in His commanding those that are ethically good and prohibiting those that are ethically bad, and praising and rewarding obedience, and blaming and punishing disobedience? In the same way, it would not be good for Him to command His acts in us. such as color, shape, health, and sickness, and then to prohibit such, or lay blame for such. Moreover, if God were the agent of our acts then they would not have happened according to our purposes and motivation, And moreover, [even] a wise man cannot create his own abuse, or condemn and vilify [himself] for how could it be said that every abuse and vilification [addressed] to him is of his own doing?" And moreover, who ever commits injustice and transgression must be unjust and a transgressor. Thus, if God committed injustice He would be unjust, just as if He acted justly He would be just, and whoever says [otherwise] is an unbeliever. He has said: "You will see no disharmony in the creation of [God] the Beneficent" (Q. 67:3), and: "He who has made everything that He has created good" (Q. 32:7), and: "[Such is] the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order" (Q. 27:88).[These verses] indicate that these ethically bad acts are not created by God but that they are human acts, and on that basis they deserve blame and punishment. How can it be possible for God to create erroneous behavior in them and then punish them, thus saying: "Why do you disbelieve?" Isn't that the same as someone commanding his slave to do something, then punishing him for it? And that would clearly be corrupt.

❤❤

@@abdurahman8729 thank you

بہت شکریہ💐

Thank you💐

@@Optimistic2345 thank you so much

Shias are Muslim, keep having fun with your Takfiri disinformation.

@@kwurup thank you 😊

@@Dr_Faisal_Nazir 🤲♥️

@@naseemakhter3717 thank you so much

@@abdurahman8729 🤲🤲💐

@@GoodOne4All Thank you so much