The Book That Makes Others Superfluous

1. T = Timing: Could the topic discussed in class find relevance among today’s contemporary social, political, economic, or religious affairs? 

During the development of the Mu’tazila in the 800s there were debates among jurists, philosophers, grammarians and heretics. All these groups were trying to refute each others worldview. These widespread debates made their intellectual identities more solidified and distinguishable. This find relevance among today’s academia, in which there are a lot of different academic fields with their own identity. Also, it is very prevelant in contemporary politics. It has become more polarized because politicans emphasize more on the differences than on the similarities. This solidifies the identity of the political party.

• O = Opinion: Formulate your own opinion on the topic and related discussions.

It is evident that the Qadariyya and the Mu’talizes were all trying to defend and rationalize the existence of god in their philosophies. That is the ultimate end of their work, for me it seems that they use philosophy as a means in order to reach that goal. Their arguments on the existence of god, the fact that he is an unifed concept does not sound convincing for me. I find it very interesting that the Qadariyyas believed that humans were rational and moral being and not predetermined, this seems similar to the claims made by some Western philosophers.

• D = Debate: Can you offer an oppositional view challenging the topic and main arguments discussed in class?

The Mu’taziles had debates on God and his attributes. He is seen as one and only but he also holds multiple attributes. This is problematic because it could lead to the idea of multiple Gods that hold different attributes. If these attributes are external to him, then this means that he is subject to them. In order to avoid assigning attributes to God, the Mu’talized didn’t say God to be knowing, but they said that he was not unknowing. Or not powerless. Because these characteristics would not be measurable, this avoids the practice of comparing God to a standard. In my opinion this is not a real solution to the problem. Not being powerless is also subjected to a standard of measurement. Power is relative to the amount of power that other actors hold.

• A = Argument: Can you summarise the thematic argument in a few short sentences?

Kalam refers to rational discourses in Islamic philosophy. It adressed topics of religious concern in the early 700s and 800s, with a general emphasis on reason and rationality. Qadar, a school of thought in Kalam, means the power of acts or free will, the adherents of this tradition are called Qadariyya. They argued that humans were responsible for their own actions and have some free will. The Mu’talizas were the successors of the qadariyya and were seen as moderates that distances themselves from the two extremes. They argued that the universe is made up of discrete, continguent atoms that belong to two primary categories. These atoms are the effect of the cause, which is God.

• Y = Yoda: How would Yoda epitomise the main topic discussed in class in his classically-famous aphorism? 

”Either the sky is blue, or the sky does not exist.”