text:
Mu'tazilism

Mu'tazilism (المعتزلة, singular معتزلي) was an Islamic sect that appeared in early Islamic history and flourished in Basra and Baghdad. Its adherents, the Mu'tazilites, were known for their neutrality in the dispute between Ali and his opponents after the death of the third caliph, Uthman. By the 10th century the term al-muʿtazilah had come to refer to a distinctive Islamic school of speculative theology (kalām). This school of theology was founded by Wasil ibn Ata.

The later Mu'tazila school developed an Islamic type of rationalism, partly influenced by Ancient Greek philosophy, based around three fundamental principles: the oneness (Tawhid) and justice (Al-'adl) of God, human freedom of action, and the creation of the Quran. The Mu'tazilites are best known for rejecting the doctrine of the Quran as uncreated and co-eternal with God, asserting that if the Quran is the literal word of God, he logically "must have preceded his own speech". This went against the orthodox Sunni position (followed by the Ashʿarī, Māturīdī and the traditionalist Athari schools) which argued that with God being all-knowing, his knowledge of the Quran must have been eternal, hence uncreated just like him. The school also worked to resolve the theological "problem of evil", arguing that since God is just and wise, he cannot command what is contrary to reason or act with disregard for the welfare of His creatures; consequently evil must be regarded as something that stems from errors in human acts, arising from man's divinely bestowed free will. The Mu'tazila opposed secular rationalism, but believed that human intelligence and reason allowed Man to understand religious principles; that good and evil are rational categories that could be "established through unaided reason".

The movement reached its political height during the Abbasid Caliphate during the "mihna", an 18-year period (833–851 CE) of religious persecution instituted by the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun where religious scholars were punished, imprisoned, or even killed unless they conformed to Mu'tazila doctrine, until it was reversed by al-Mutawakkil. The Aghlabids (800–909 CE) also adhered to Mu'tazilism, which they imposed as the state doctrine of Ifriqiya. Similarly, the leading elite figures of the Graeco-Arabic translation movement during the reign of al-Hakam II (r. 961–976) were followers of the Mu'tazila. Mu'tazilism also flourished to some extent during the rule of the Buyids (934–1062 CE) in Iraq and Persia.

Etymology
The name is derived from the reflexive stem VIII  of the triconsonantal root ع-ز-ل "separate, segregate, retire", as in اعتزل  "to separate (oneself); to withdraw from".

The name is derived from the founder's "withdrawal" from the study circle of Hasan al-Basri over a theological disagreement: Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭā' asked about the legal state of a sinner: is a person who has committed a serious sin a believer or an unbeliever? Hasan answered the person remains a Muslim. Wasil dissented, suggesting that a sinner was neither a believer nor an unbeliever and withdrew from the study circle. Others followed to form a new circle, including ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd. Hasan's remark, "Wāṣil has withdrawn from us", is said to be the origin of the movement's name.

The group later referred to themselves as (اهل التوحيد و العدل, "people of monotheism and justice") and the name  was first used by its opponents.

The verb  is also used to designate a neutral party in a dispute (as in "withdrawing" from a dispute between two factions). According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "The name [Mu'tazila] first appears in early Islāmic history in the dispute over Ali's leadership of the Muslim community after the assassination of Uthman, the third caliph, in 656 CE. Those who would neither condemn nor sanction Ali or his opponents but took a middle position were termed the Muʿtazilah." Carlo Alfonso Nallino argued that the theological Mu'tazilism of Wasil and his successors was merely a continuation of this initial political Mu'tazilism.

Origin
The Mu'tazili appeared in early Islāmic history in the dispute over Alī's leadership of the Muslim community after the death of the third caliph, Uthman. Those who would neither condemn nor sanction Ali or his opponents but took a middle position between him and his opponents at the battle of Siffin and the battle of Jamal were termed the Mu'tazila. By the 10th century CE the term had also come to refer to an Islamic school of speculative theology (kalām) that flourished in Basra and Baghdad (8th–10th century).

According to Sunni sources, Mu'tazili theology originated in the eighth century in Basra (now in Iraq) when Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭā' (died 131 AH/748 AD) left the teaching lessons of Hasan al-Basri after a theological dispute regarding the issue of al-Manzilah bayna al-Manzilatayn (a position between two positions). Though Mu'tazilis later relied on logic and different aspects of early Islamic philosophy, ancient Greek philosophy, and Indian philosophy, the basics of Islam were their starting point and ultimate reference. The accusations leveled against them by rival schools of theology that they gave absolute authority to extra-Islamic paradigms reflect more the fierce polemics between various schools of theology than any objective reality. For instance, most Mu'tazilis adopted the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, contrary to certain Muslim philosophers who, with the exception of al-Kindi, believed in the eternity of the world in some form or another.

Mu'tazili theology faced implacable opposition from Hanbali and Zahiri traditionalists, on the one hand, and from the Ash'ari school (founded by a former Mu'tazili, Abu al Hasan al-Ash'ari) and Maturidi theologians on the other.

Ahl al-kalām
Scholar Daniel W. Brown describes the Mu'tazila as "the later ahl al-kalām", suggesting the ahl al-kalām were forerunners of the Mu'tazili. The ahl al-kalām are remembered in Islamic history as opponents of Al-Shafi‘i and his principle that the final authority of Islam was the hadith of Muhammad, so that even the Qur'an was "to be interpreted in the light of [the hadith], and not vice versa."

Historical development
Abu al-Hudhayl al-'Allaf (died 235 AH/849 AD), who lived a few generations after Wāṣil ibn ʿAtāʾ (واصل بن عطاء) and ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd, is considered the theologian who systematized and formalized Mu'tazilism in Basra. Another branch of the school found a home in Baghdad under the direction of Bishr ibn al-Mu'tamir (died 210 AH/825 AD); the instigators thought it was the Caliph's own scheme: under al-Ma'mun (813–833) "Mu'tazilism became the established faith."

Umayyad Caliphs who were known for supporting the Mu'tazila include Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik and Yazid III.

The Mu'tazilites maintained man's creation of free will, as did the Qadarites of the later Umayyad period. The Mu'tazilites also maintained that justice and reason must form the foundation of the action God takes toward men. Both of these doctrines were repudiated by the later orthodox school of the Ashʿarites.

Mihna
The persecution campaign, nonetheless, cost them their theology and generally, the sympathy of the Muslim masses in the Abbasid state. As the number of Muslims increased throughout the Abbasid Caliphate, and in reaction to the excesses of this newly imposed rationalism, theologians began to lose ground. The problem was exacerbated by the Mihna, the inquisition launched under the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (died 218 AH/833 AD).

The movement reached its political height during the Mihna, the period of religious persecution instituted by the 'Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun in AD 833 in which religious scholars (such as Sunnis and Shias) were punished, imprisoned, or even killed unless they conformed to Mu'tazila doctrine. The policy lasted for 18 years (833–851 CE) as it continued through the reigns of al-Ma'mun's immediate successors, al-Mu'tasim and al-Wathiq, and the first four years of the reign of al-Mutawakkil, who reversed the policy in 851.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Sunni jurist and founder of the Hanbali school of thought was a victim of al-Ma'mun's Mihna. Due to his rejection of al-Ma'mun's demand to accept and propagate the Mu'tazila creed, ibn Hanbal was imprisoned and tortured by the Abbasid rulers.

Post-Mihna
Under Caliph al-Mutawakkil (847–861), "who sought to reestablish the traditional Muslim's faith" (he intentionally wanted to restore his legitimacy due to the backlash towards Ahmad ibn Hanbal's persecution under previous Caliphs), Mu'tazilite doctrine was repudiated and Mu'tazilite professors were persecuted in the Abbasid Caliphate; Shia Muslims, Christians and Jews were also persecuted.

The Aghlabids, an Arab dynasty centered in Ifriqiya from 800 to 909, also adhered to Mu'tazilism, which they imposed as the state doctrine of Ifriqiya. Similarly, the leading elite figures of the Graeco-Arabic translation movement during the reign of al-Hakam II were followers of the Mu'tazila. Mu'tazilism also flourished to some extent during the rule of the Buyids in Iraq and Persia.

The Five Principles
According to a "leading Mu'tazilite authority" of the end of the ninth century (al-Khayyat), and "clearly enunciated for the first time by Abu al-Hudhayl", five basic tenets make up the Mu'tazilite creed:
 * 1) monotheism,
 * 2) justice and unity,
 * 3) the inevitability of the threats and promises of God (or "the warning and the promise"),
 * 4) the intermediary position (i.e. Muslims who die without repentance after committing a grave sin are neither mu'mineen (believers), nor kuffar (non-believers), but in an intermediate position known as fasiq),
 * 5) the injunction of right, and the prohibition of wrong.

1. Monotheism
All Muslim schools of theology faced the dilemma of affirming divine transcendence and divine attributes, without falling into anthropomorphism on the one hand or emptying scriptural references to those attributes of all concrete meaning.

The doctrine of Tawhīd, in the words of the prominent Mu'tazili scholar Chief Justice Qadi Abd al-Jabbar (died 415 AH/1025 AD) is: "the knowledge that God, being unique, has attributes that no creature shares with him. This is explained by the fact that you know that the world has a creator who created it and that: he existed eternally in the past and he cannot perish while we exist after being non-existent and we can perish. And you know that he was and is eternally all-powerful and that impotence is not possible for him. And you know that he is omniscient of the past and present and that ignorance is not possible for him. And you know that he knows everything that was, everything that is, and how things that are not would be if they were. And you know that he is eternally in the past and future living, and that calamities and pain are not possible for him. And you know that he sees visible things, and perceives perceptibles, and that he does not have need of sense organs. And you know that he is eternally past and in future sufficient and it is not possible for him to be in need. And you know that he is not like physical bodies, and that it is not possible for him to get up or down, move about, change, be composite, have a form, limbs and body members. And you know that he is not like the accidents of motion, rest, color, food or smells. And you know that he is One throughout eternity and there is no second beside him, and that everything other than he is contingent, made, dependent, structured, and governed by someone/thing else. Thus, if you know all of that you know the oneness of God."

2. Divine justice
Facing the problem of existence of evil in the world, the Mu'tazilis pointed at the free will of human beings, so that evil was defined as something that stems from the errors in human acts. God does nothing ultimately evil, and he demands not from any human to perform any evil act. If man's evil acts had been from the will of God, then punishment would have been meaningless, as man performed the will of God no matter what he did. Mu'tazilis did not deny the existence of suffering that goes beyond human abuse and misuse of their free will granted to them by God. In order to explain this type of "apparent" evil, Mu'tazilis relied on the Islamic doctrine of taklif: "God does not order/give the soul of any of his creation, that which is beyond its capacity." [Qur'an 2:286] This entailed the existence of an "act of god" to serve a greater good, or the existence of evil acts to prevent a far greater evil. In conclusion, it comprised life is an ultimate "fair test" of coherent and rational choices, having a supremely just accountability in one's current state, as well as the hereafter.

Humans are required to have belief, iman, secure faith and conviction in and about God, and do good works, amal saleh, to have iman reflected in their moral choices, deeds, and relationship with God, fellow humans, and all of the creation in this world. If everyone is healthy and wealthy, then there will be no meaning for the obligations imposed on humans to, for example, be generous, help the needy, and have compassion for the deprived and trivialized. The inequalities in human fortunes and the calamities that befell them are, thus, an integral part of the test of life. Everyone is being tested. The powerful, the rich, and the healthy are required to use all their powers and privileges to help those who suffer and to alleviate their suffering. In the Qiyamah (Judgment Day), they will be questioned about their response to Divine blessings and bounties they enjoyed in their lives. The less fortunate are required to patiently persevere and are promised a compensation for their suffering that, as the Qur'an puts it in 39:10, and as translated by Muhammad Asad, is "beyond all reckoning".

The test of life is specifically for adults in full possession of their mental faculties. Children may suffer, and are observed to suffer, given the nature of life but they are believed to be completely free from sin and liability. Divine justice is affirmed through the theory of compensation. All sufferers will be compensated. This includes non-believers and, more importantly, children, who are destined to go to Paradise.

The doctrine of 'Adl in the words of ʿAbd al-Jabbar: It is the knowledge that God is removed from all that is morally wrong (qabih) and that all his acts are morally good (hasana). This is explained by the fact that you know that all human acts of injustice (zulm), transgression (jawr), and the like cannot be of his creation (min khalqihi). Whoever attributes that to him has ascribed to him injustice and insolence (safah) and thus strays from the doctrine of justice. And you know that God does not impose faith upon the unbeliever without giving him the power (al-qudra) for it, nor does he impose upon a human what he is unable to do, but he only gives to the unbeliever to choose unbelief on his own part, not on the part of God. And you know that God does not will, desire or want disobedience. Rather, he loathes and despises it and only wills obedience, which he wants and chooses and loves. And you know that he does not punish the children of polytheists (al-mushrikin) in Hellfire because of their fathers' sin, for he has said: "Each soul earns but its own due" (Qur'an 6:164); and he does not punish anyone for someone else's sin because that would be morally wrong (qabih), and God is far removed from such. And you know that he does not transgress his rule (hukm) and that he only causes sickness and illness in order to turn them to advantage. Whoever says otherwise has allowed that God is iniquitous and has imputed insolence to him. And you know that, for their sakes, he does the best for all of his creatures, upon whom he imposes moral and religious obligations (yukallifuhum), and that He has indicated to them what he has imposed upon them and clarified the path of truth so that we could pursue it, and he has clarified the path of falsehood (tariq l-batil) so that we could avoid it. So, whoever perishes does so only after all this has been made clear. And you know that every benefit we have is from God; as he has said: "And you have no good thing that is not from Allah" (Qur'an 16:53); it either comes to us from him or from elsewhere. Thus, when you know all of this you become knowledgeable about justice from God.

3. The Promise and the Threat [al-wa'd wa l-wa'id]
This comprised questions of the Last day, or in Arabic, the Qiyamah (Day of Judgment). According to 'Abd al-Jabbar, The doctrine of irreversible Divine promises and warnings, is fashioned out the Islamic philosophy of human existence. Humans, (or insan in Arabic) are created with an innate need in their essence to submit themselves to something. Also, it is seen as an innate need of all humans to pursue an inner peace and contentment within the struggles of an imperfect world. Knowledge of God, truth, and choices, in relation to one's innate need of submission is seen in Islam as the promise and recompense of God (al-thawab) to those who follow. His warning is looked at as a conscious decision by a human submitting themselves, and choosing a varying principle which he had given a clear warning to. He will not go back on his word, nor can he act contrary to his promise and warning, nor lie in what he reports, in contrast to what the Postponers (Murjites) hold.

4. The Intermediate Position [Al-Manzilah bayn al-manzilatayn]
That is, Muslims who commit grave sins and die without repentance are not considered as mu’minīn (believers), nor are they considered kafirs (non-believers), but in an intermediate position between the two, (fasiq). The reason behind this is that a mu’min is, by definition, a person who has faith and conviction in and about God, and who has their faith reflected in their deeds and moral choices. Any shortcoming on any of these two fronts makes one, by definition, not a mu’min. On the other hand, one does not become a kafir (i.e. rejecter; non-believer), for this entails, inter alia, denying the Creator—something not necessarily done by a committer of a grave sin. The fate of those who commit grave sins and die without repentance is Hell. Hell is not considered a monolithic state of affairs but as encompassing many degrees to accommodate the wide spectrum of human works and choices, and the lack of comprehension associated to The Ultimate Judge (one of the other names in Islam of God.) Consequently, those in the intermediate position, though in Hell, would have a lesser punishment because of their belief and other good deeds. Mu'tazilites adopted this position as a middle ground between Kharijites and Murjites. In the words of ʿAbd al-Jabbar, the doctrine of the intermediate position is the knowledge that whoever murders, or commits zina, or commits serious sins is a grave sinner (fasiq) and not a believer, nor is his case the same that of believers with respect to praise and attributing greatness, since he is to be cursed and disregarded. Nonetheless, he is not an unbeliever who cannot be buried in our Muslim cemetery, or be prayed for, or marry a Muslim. Rather, he has an intermediate position, in contrast to the Seceders (Kharijites) who say that he is an unbeliever, or the Murjites who say that he is a believer.

5. The enjoining of right and prohibiting of wrong
These two tenets, like the "intermediate position", follow logically (according to scholar Majid Fakhry) from the basic Mu'tazilite concepts of divine unity, justice and free will, of which they are the logical conclusion. Even though they are accepted by most Muslims, Mu'tazilites give them a specific interpretation in the sense that, even though God enjoins what is right and prohibits what is wrong, the use of reason allows a Muslim in most cases to identify for himself what is right and what is wrong, even without the help of revelation. Only for some acts is the revelation necessary to determine whether a certain act is right or wrong. This is discussed in further details below.

Theory of interpretation
Mu'tazila relied on a synthesis between reason and revelation. That is, their rationalism operated in the service of scripture and Islamic theological framework. They, as the majority of Muslim jurist-theologians, validated allegorical readings of scripture whenever necessary. Justice ʿAbd al-Jabbar (935–1025) said in his Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsa (The Explication of the Five Principles): "إن الكلام متى لم يمكن حمله على ظاهره و حقيقته، و هناك مجازان أحدهما أقرب و الآخر أبعد، فإن الواجب حمله على المجاز الأقرب دون الأبعد، لأن المجاز الأبعد من الأقرب كالمجاز مع الحقيقة، و كما لا يجوز فى خطاب الله تعالى أن يحمل على المجاز مع إمكان حمله على الحقيقة، فكذلك لا يحمل على المجاز الأبعد و هناك ما هو أقرب منه (When a text cannot be interpreted according to its truth and apparent meaning, and when (in this case) two metaphoric interpretations are possible, one being proximal and the other being distal; then, in this case, we are obligated to interpret the text according to the proximal metaphoric interpretation and not the distal, for (the relationship between) the distal to the proximal is like unto (the relationship between) the metaphor to the truth, and in the same way that it is not permissible, when dealing with the word of God, to prefer a metaphoric interpretation when a discernment of the truth is possible, it is also not permissible to prefer the distal interpretation over the proximal interpretation)"

The hermeneutic methodology proceeds as follows: if the literal meaning of an ayah (verse) is consistent with the rest of scripture, the main themes of the Qur'an, the basic tenets of the Islamic creed, and the well-known facts, then interpretation, in the sense of moving away from the literal meaning, is not justified. If a contradiction results from adopting the literal meaning, such as a literal understanding of the "hand" of God that contravenes his transcendence and the Qur'anic mention of his categorical difference from all other things, then an interpretation is warranted. In the above quote, Justice 'Abd al-Jabbar emphatically mentioned that if there are two possible interpretations, both capable of resolving the apparent contradiction created by literal understanding of a verse, then the interpretation closer to the literal meaning should take precedence, for the relationship between the interpretations, close and distant, becomes the same as the literal understanding and the interpretation.

The first obligation
Mu'tazilis believed that the first obligation on humans, specifically adults in full possession of their mental faculties, is to use their intellectual power to ascertain the existence of God, and to become knowledgeable of his attributes. One must wonder about the whole existence, that is, about why something exists rather than nothing. If one realises that there is a being who caused this universe to exist, not reliant on anything else and absolutely free from any type of need, then one realizes that this being is all-wise and morally perfect. If this being is all-wise, then his very act of creation cannot be haphazard or in vain. One must then be motivated to ascertain what this being wants from humans, for one may harm oneself by simply ignoring the whole mystery of existence and, consequently, the plan of the Creator. This paradigm is known in Islamic theology as wujub al-nazar, i.e., the obligation to use one's speculative reasoning to attain ontological truths. About the "first duty," ʿAbd al-Jabbar said it is "speculative reasoning (al-nazar) which leads to knowledge of God, because he is not known by the way of necessity (daruratan) nor by the senses (bi l-mushahada). Thus, he must be known by reflection and speculation."

The difference between Mu'tazilis and other Muslim theologians is that Mu'tazilis consider al-nazar an obligation even if one does not encounter a fellow human being claiming to be a messenger from the Creator, and even if one does not have access to any alleged God-inspired or God-revealed scripture. On the other hand, the obligation of nazar to other Muslim theologians materializes upon encountering prophets or scripture.

Reason and revelation

The Mu'tazilis had a nuanced theory regarding reason, Divine revelation, and the relationship between them. They celebrated power of reason and human intellectual power. To them, it is the human intellect that guides a human to know God, his attributes, and the very basics of morality. Once this foundational knowledge is attained and one ascertains the truth of Islam and the Divine origins of the Qur'an, the intellect then interacts with scripture such that both reason and revelation come together to be the main source of guidance and knowledge for Muslims. Harun Nasution in the Mu'tazila and Rational Philosophy, translated in Martin (1997), commented on Mu'tazili extensive use of rationality in the development of their religious views saying: "It is not surprising that opponents of the Mu'tazila often charge the Mu'tazila with the view that humanity does not need revelation, that everything can be known through reason, that there is a conflict between reason and revelation, that they cling to reason and put revelation aside, and even that the Mu'tazila do not believe in revelation. But is it true that the Mu'tazila are of the opinion that everything can be known through reason and therefore that revelation is unnecessary? The writings of the Mu'tazila give exactly the opposite portrait. In their opinion, human reason is not sufficiently powerful to know everything and for this reason humans need revelation in order to reach conclusions concerning what is good and what is bad for them."

The Mu'tazili position on the roles of reason and revelation is well captured by what Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (died 324 AH/935 AD), the eponym of the Ashʿari school of theology, attributed to the Mu'tazili scholar Ibrahim an-Nazzam (died 231 AH/845 AD) (1969): "كل معصية كان يجوز أن يأمر الله سبحانه بها فهي قبيحة للنهي، وكل معصية كان لا يجوز أن يبيحها الله سبحانه فهي قبيحة لنفسها كالجهل به والاعتقاد بخلافه، وكذلك كل ما جاز أن لا يأمر الله سبحانه فهو حسن للأمر به وكل ما لم يجز إلا أن يأمر به فهو حسن لنفسه

No sin may be ordered by God as it is wrong and forbidden, and no sin shall be permitted by God, as they are wrong by themselves. To know about it and believe otherwise, and all that God commands is good for the ordered and all that it is not permissible except to order it is good for himself"

In the above formulation, a problem emerged, which is rendering something obligatory on the Divine being—something that seems to directly conflict with Divine omnipotence. The Mu'tazili argument is predicated on absolute Divine power and self-sufficiency, however. Replying to a hypothetical question as to why God does not do that which is ethically wrong (la yaf`alu al-qabih), 'Abd al-Jabbar replied: Because he knows the immorality of all unethical acts and that he is self-sufficient without them...For one of us who knows the immorality of injustice and lying, if he knows that he is self-sufficient without them and has no need of them, it would be impossible for him to choose them, insofar as he knows of their immorality and his sufficiency without them. Therefore, if God is sufficient without need of any unethical thing it necessarily follows that he would not choose the unethical based on his knowledge of its immorality. Thus every immoral thing that happens in the world must be a human act, for God transcends doing immoral acts. Indeed, God has distanced himself from that with his saying: "But Allah wills no injustice to his servants" (Qur'an 40:31), and his saying: "Verily Allah will not deal unjustly with humankind in anything" (Qur'an 10:44).

The thrust of ʿAbd al-Jabbar's argument is that acting immorally or unwisely stems from need and deficiency. One acts in a repugnant way when one does not know the ugliness of one's deeds, i.e., because of lack of knowledge, or when one knows but one has some need, material, psychological, or otherwise. Since God is absolutely self-sufficient (a result from the cosmological "proof" of his existence), all-knowing, and all-powerful, he is categorically free from any type of need and, consequently, he never does anything that is ridiculous, unwise, ugly, or evil.

The conflict between Mu'tazilis and Ash'aris concerning this point was a matter of focus. Mu'tazilis focused on divine justice, whereas the Ashʿaris focused on divine omnipotence. Nevertheless, Divine self-restraint in Mu'tazili discourse is part of divine omnipotence, not a negation of it.

Validity of hadith
During the Abbasid dynasty, the poet, theologian, and jurist, Ibrahim an-Nazzam founded a madhhab called the Nazzamiyya that rejected the authority of Hadiths by Abu Hurayra. His famous student, Al-Jahiz, was also critical of those who followed such Hadiths, referring to his Hadithist opponents as al-nabita ("the contemptible").

According to Racha El Omari, early Mu'tazilites believed that hadith were susceptible to "abuse as a polemical ideological tool"; that the matn (content) of the hadith—not just the isnad—ought to be scrutinized for doctrine and clarity; that for hadith to be valid they ought to be mutawatir, i.e. supported by tawātur or many isnād (chains of oral transmitters), each beginning with a different Companion.

In writing about mutawatir (multi-isnād Hadith) and ahad (single-isnad hadith, i.e. almost all hadith) and their importance from the legal theoretician's point of view, Wael Hallaq notes the medieval scholar Al-Nawawi (1233–1277) argued that any non-mutawatir hadith is only probable and can not reach the level of certainty that a mutawatir hadith can. However, these mutawir were extremely scarce. Scholars like Ibn al-Salah (died 1245 CE), al-Ansari (died 1707 CE), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakur (died 1810 CE) found "no more than eight or nine" hadiths that fell into the mutawatir category.

Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ (700–748 CE, by many accounts a founder of the Mu'tazilite school of thought), held that there was evidence for the veracity of a report when it had four independent transmitters. His assumption was that there could be no agreement between all transmitters in fabricating a report. Wāṣil's acceptance of tawātur seems to have been inspired by the juridical notion of witnesses as proof that an event did indeed take place. Hence, the existence of a certain number of witnesses precluded the possibility that they were able to agree on a lie, as opposed to the single report which was witnessed by one person only, its very name meaning the "report of one individual" (khabar al-wāḥid). Abū l-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf (died 227/841) continued this verification of reports through tawātur, but proposed that the number of witnesses required for veracity be twenty, with the additional requirement that at least one of the transmitters be a believer.

For Ibrahim an-Nazzam (c. 775 – c. 845), both the single and the mutawātir hadith reports as narrated by Abu Hurayra, the most prolific hadith narrater, could not be trusted to yield knowledge. He recounted contradictory ḥadīth from Abu Hurayra and examined their divergent content (matn) to show why they should be rejected: they relied on both faulty human memory and bias, neither of which could be trusted to transmit what is true. Al-Naẓẓām bolstered his strong refutation of the trustworthiness of ḥadīths narrated by Abu Hurayra within the larger claim that his ḥadīths circulated and thrived to support polemical causes of various theological sects and jurists, and that no single transmitter could by himself be held above suspicion of altering the content of a single report. Al-Naẓẓām's skepticism involved far more than excluding the possible verification of a report narrated by Abu Hurayra, be it single or mutawātir. His stance also excluded the trustworthiness of consensus, which proved pivotal to classical Mu'tazilite criteria devised for verifying the single report (see below). Indeed, his shunning of both consensus and tawātur as narrated by Abu Hurayra earned him a special mention for the depth and extent of his skepticism.

Atomism
Mu'tazilite ideas of God were underpinned by the Ancient Greek doctrine of atomism. This is the belief that all things and processes are reducible to fundamental physical particles and their arrangements.

Mu'tazilite atomism however did not imply determinism. Since God was ultimately responsible for manipulating the particles, his actions were not bound by the material laws of the universe. This radically sovereign God entailed an occasionalist theology: God could intervene directly in the world to produce contingent events at will. This radical freedom was possible precisely because the world was composed solely of inert matter rather than an immaterial spirit with an independent vital force of its own.

Eschatology
One of the "most sharply defined" issues where the Mu'tazila disagreed with "their theological opponents" was whether Paradise and hell (Jahannam) had already been created or if their existence was waiting for Judgement Day. The "majority of the Mu'tazila rejected categorically" the idea that God had already created the Garden and the Fire on the grounds that "the physical universe does not allow for their existence yet". They also argued that because the Qur'an described everything in the universe except God being destroyed (the great fanāʾ) "between the trumpet blasts" before Judgement Day, it would be more sensible to assume that the two abodes of the afterlife would be created after the great fanāʾ

A number of ḥadīth promise that viewing that face of God (wajh Allah) will be part of the reward of the faithful in paradise. However, the Mu'tazila, aside from their skepticism of ḥadīth, argued that if "God was an immaterial substance", as they believed he was, He was "by definition" not visible.

Legacy
Today, Mu‘tazilism persists mainly in the Maghreb among those who call themselves the Wasiliyah. Referring to Wasil ibn Ata the reputed founder of Mu‘tazila, the movement uses the mantle of the Mu‘tazila primarily as an identity marker.

The Arab Islamic philosopher Ismail al-Faruqi, widely recognised by his peers as an authority on Islam and comparative religion, was deeply influenced by the Mu'tazila.

The pan-Islamist revolutionary Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, was noted for embracing Mu’tazilite views. His student Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905) was one of the key founding figures of Islamic Modernism that contributed to a revival of Mu'tazilite thought in Egypt, although he himself does not seem to have called himself a Mu'tazilite. After he was appointed Grand Mufti of Egypt in 1899, he attempted to adapt Islam to the modern times and to introduce changes in the teachings at Al-Azhar University. Although his reforms were disputed by traditional Sunni establishment as well as his immediate successors such as Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865–1935 C.E), 'Abduh would become the chief source of inspiration for later modernist and reformist scholars and philosophers such as Fazlur Rahman (1919–1988), Farid Esack (born 1959), and in particular Harun Nasution (1919–1998) and Nasr Abu Zayd (1943–2010).

The Association for the Renaissance of Mu'tazilite Islam (Association pour la renaissance de l’Islam mutazilite, ARIM) was founded in France in February 2017 by Eva Janadin and Faker Korchane.

In contemporary Salafi jihadism, "Mu'tazilite" is used as an epithet by rival groups hoping to undermine each other's credibility. The North African "Institute for the Faith Brigades" denounced Bin Laden's "misguided errors" and accused Abu Hafs al Mawritani, a leading figure in Al-Qaeda's juridical committee, of being a Mu'tazilite.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mu'tazilism


text:
User:Pacifica

Pacifica was founded on June 12, 1998 by a group of friends, as a social, political and cultural group, with the objective of promoting the Portuguese historical culture, that assumed the form of a sovereign state.

After the formal reading of the “Declaration of Independence” (as it was called) the people present appointed Manuel Correia da Fonseca as His Magnanimous Imperial Majesty Dom Manuel I, Emperor of Pacifica and in 2000, due to the abdication of D. Manuel, Eduardo de Lagrenge became His Imperial Majesty Dom Eduardo I.

In that declaration, later included in the Constitution, states that the Empire of Pacifica is an Empire of Sovereign Citizens and a Sovereign State of Peace, primarily non-territorial. This specific point still brings a lot of discussions as in some opinions prevents Pacifica from being considered as a state along the definition of the Montevideo Convention of 1933, Article 1.

 * Article 1

 * The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

But the point (b) of this Article has in recent history been ignored in the recognition of some non-territorial States that have observer’s status on the UN.

The other point of discussion is the definition of Statehood. The Constitutive Theory of Recognition states that recognition by other states is a condition for statehood. (not accepted as universal law)

Since Pacifica is not recognized by any of the established nations it can not be considered as State under this Theory

But according to article 3 of the Montevideo Convention it is

 * Article 3

 * The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
 * The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Therefore the Empire of Pacifica can be considered as a state

Pacifica has several ancillary features of a state like a flag, a coat-of-arms, a national anthem, a constitution, a motto ( “By Serving Each Other and God...We Shall Be Free”), currency, among others.

By making Portuguese its official language the Empire of Pacifica accepted the heritage and responsibilities of a secular culture. Pacifica also uses English to better integrate its members spread world wide.

Currently Pacifica is entering into a new phase in its history as it celbrates its fifth anniversery. The Imperial Regent, William R Collier Jr, Duke of Weidenhoff and memebr of the Most Noble Order of Founding, is working to assist the Emperor, Dom Edurardo I in the next phase of development for the Empire.

title: User:Pacifica


text:
Talk:Mu'tazilism

Mutazilite are NOT Sunnite
The Mutazilite are a distinct group NOT Sunnite. I edited it and described the relation between them and the Sunni and Shia Islam, three Caliphates were Mutazilite in the Abbasid empire, Al-Ma'mun, Al-Mu'tasim and Al-Wathiq, then the Caliphates supported the Sunnite again since Al-Mutawakkil. Atheerkt (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that depends on whom one asks. According to the Royal Ahl al-Bayt Institute in Jordan, Mu'tazilah are technically considered a sub category of Sunni. Even IBn Taymiyyah, a polemical dogmatist who is the figurehead of declaring other Muslims to be heretics, conceded that Mu'tazilah can be considered Sunni depending on the context in which the word "Sunni" is used. I think it would be better to represent that difficulty in delineating sects in the text. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with MezzoMezzo. I add we should avoid losing reality behind boxes. People can be many things at once, and these terms should not be so concrete to preclude that possibility. e.g. Sunni and Sufi. --Inayity (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and a very good point. With Sufi it's clear, I think like 90% are within Sunni Islam. Mu'tazila can get sticky but we still need to avoid boxes. For example, the Zaidi branch of Shi'ism is often associated with I'tizal. Likewise, the Ibadhiyyah in Oman - the third extant branch of Islam - is referred to as Kharijite by Sunnis but a Sunni friend of mine who lives in Oman said they consider themselves close to Mu'tazila. Then you get Sunni Mu'tazilites like Ibn al-Jinni the liinguist, Zamakhshari the Hanafi, and so forth.
 * Actually...we could just go for what reliable sources say. The Royal Ahl al-Bayt Institute (Jordanian establishment) holds Mu'tazila as a sub-branch of Sunni. That ought to be included. There are probably academic sources noting that this is disputed. That can be included as well. We just present to the reader what the sources say; readers will make up their minds for themselves, and invariably they will not all come to the same conclusions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a terrific upgrade MezzoMezzo - There will be no end of quibbling over it. However, I am curious, about such a designation excluding the Qaraite Jews.  Qaraim themselves, according to this with whom I've explored this topic, readily admit to the influence of Mu'tazila in their approach to Hebrew canonical texts and Halakha.  I would offer that the distinctions of who was Jew, Khajarite, Sunni, Shi'a, Ismaili, etc, became more rigid at a later date.  Just kicking down some feedback. Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In my reading, I have found that the distinctions between sects started even in the time of the Rashidun Caliphate. Kharijites were spoken of in a tradition attributed to Muhammad, and those who murdered Ali were also branded as Kharijites, among them the Haruriya about whom A'isha spoke against. The Qadariyya, Jabariyya and Murji'ah also appeared very early. Sunni-Shi'a existed from the time of Abu Bakr, though much of the mainstream Shi'ite creed would be developed later, yes. But I don't know of any time when the distinction between a Jew, Karaite or other, and a Muslim, wasn't rigid; can you provide reliabgle sources?
 * As for supposed quibbling over the inclusion of Mu;tazila roughly within Sunni Islam, then this is historical fact supported by multiple reliable sources we can all bring if we only take the time. Let sectarians quibble but Wikipedia is here for accurate representation, not how Muslims would like to view themselves and their divisions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see, this has been discussed before, and while it is obvious that the Mutazilites were at variance with Sunni orthodoxy, they are not viewed as being outside of Sunnism in general. To add to the above points and references, there are various other sources one can cite that show the position of Mutazilism relative to Shi'ism: "The Mutazilites found support again from the Buyid sultans, the effective rulers of the Abbasid Empire in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries; but the overthrow of the Buyids by the Seljuk Turks was effectively the end for Mutazilite rationalism within Sunni Islam. Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought, "While Mutazilism had become marginalized in Sunni Islam...", "The result is a polarized view of the Mu‛tazili tradition; Islamists view the Mu‛tazila as a heresy best forgotten while modernists, Muslim and Western, as historical proof of Islam’s essentially rational character." - the latter in particular highlights the intrinsic POV in stating in Wikivoice that Mutazilites are not a part of the Sunni tradition, when in fact Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari himself first studied under the Mutazilite Al-Jubba'i - a context in which the assertion that Mutazilites were not Sunni would be quite extraordinary. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Any controversial statements should be attributed to whoever made them. Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. With all due respect, this is UNDUE and a fringe theory that has no academic support! Even the Mu'tazilis themselves, would disagree vigorously! Can you show me any source or reference from the books of the Sunnis or even the Mu'tazilis, throughout the entire Islamic history, in which any scholar said that the Mu'tazilis are Sunnis?!

The vast majority of sources do not consider them to be Sunnis, even though they were followers of the Hanafi school of thought, exactly just like the Karramis.

In contrast to the Mu'tazilites (who are not Sunni), al-Ash'ari held that the Attributes are not simply words (lafz) or modes (ahwal), but real things (ashya') subsisting in God from eternity.

The founders of the major Sunni theological schools: Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324/936), Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333/944) ALL OF THEM strongly criticized the Mu'tazilis and did not consider them to be Sunnis. The formal name of the Sunni Muslims is the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a (the People of the Sunna and the Majority/Consensus/Community/Collective), while the Mu'tazilis referred to themselves as Ahl al-'Adl wa al-Tawhid (the People of Justice and Monotheism).--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 * No it's not fringe and you have provided no evidence that the "vast majority of sources" say anything. You have provided just one reliable source and a mere handful of not particularly reliable sources to make your point, just as I myself have provided three sources to make the opposite point. However, you have provided absolutely no basis for which to describe the characterization of the Mutazilites as part of the broad Sunni umbrella as fringe. I do not disagree that there is some variation among the sources on the subject, but, as it stands, the only thing that is exceptional here is your entirely unevidenced claim that what I am suggesting based on sources is fringe. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 * --TheEagle107 (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 * So there is immediately some ambiguity even among these quotes, such as: "Mu`tazilism is no longer a sect or school of thought in Sunni Islamic societies...", which by inference implies Mu'tazilism once was a sect or school of thought in Sunni societies. More generally, the problem with most of this statements, taken out of context, is that they provide no sense of the time periods that they address. Now obviously when Ash'ari was studying under a well-known Mutazilite, they probably weren't considered "heretical". Then the theology went through a bad patch after al-Ma'mun promoted it in a somewhat authoritarian manner and then al-Mutawakkil repudiated it. But right there in the middle though, Mutazilism was the theology officially supported by the caliph. Most of the above quotes, without their context, don't really explain what the periods are that they are talking about. In modern times, there is also plenty of confusion about what the classical Mutazilites argued and what 'neo-Mutazilites' today argue, as outlined quite succinctly in the abstract here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 * There are fundamental differences between the Mu'tazilis and the Sunnis, especially in 'aqidah (Islamic creed) and Usul al-Din (the principles of religion), and these differences are not just minor differences. In addition, as I said above, the Mu'tazilis themselves did not consider themselves to be Sunnis. There is no disagreement or dispute about this throughout the Islamic history! The only thing common between the Mu'tazilis and the Sunnis is in the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as the Mu'tazilis used to follow the Hanafi school of thought.

Each branch of Islam has some central beliefs (Usul al-Din). Sunni Muslims follow the six articles of faith ("It is to believe in Allah (God), His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, and that you believe in preordainment (destiny), its bad and good consequences.") and Shi'a Muslims follow the five roots of Usul al-Din (see: Twelver theology). However, all Mu'tazilis regardless of their differences agreed on five foundational doctrines or principles (Usul al-Din). These principles were: For more details on these issues, see:
 * (1) al-tawhid or the oneness and uniqueness of God,
 * (2) al-'adl or the justice of God,
 * (3) al-wa'ad wa al-wa'id, or the promise and threat of God,
 * (4) al-manzala bayn al-manzilatayn, that the grave sinner that has not yet repented cannot be designated with belief (iman) nor disbelief (kufr),
 * and finally (5) al-amr bi-al-ma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al-munkar, commanding good and forbidding wrong.
 * Kitab al-Mughni fi Abwab al-Tawhid wa al-'Adl (Book of the plenitude on the topics concerning monotheism and justice) by al-Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar (d. 415/1024). He also wrote a work on the five principles entitled Kitāb al-Usul al-Khamsa and dictated a commentary for it entitled Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsa. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Rename to Mu'tazila

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Mu& → Mu'tazila – Not only Mu'tazila is the correct form of the Arabic معتزلة, it is also more popular, compare here:
 * "Mu'tazila" -Llc 396
 * "Mu'tazili" -Llc 380
 * Note here that "Mu'tazili" is simply the genitive case of "Mu'tazila", just like "Ahmadiyya" and "Ahmadi" for instance.  R a f y  talk 12:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the genitive case but the -īy derivative adjective. The true genitive, before spoken Classical Arabic dropped its final short vowels, would have been Mu'tazilati with a short final 'i'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct it is a masculine singular adjective "أنا معتزلي" but also a masculine plural genitive case "استقبلت معتزلي المدينة".--  R a f y  talk 10:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Rafy, I agree with your proposition to rename this page to more accurately reflect it's linguistic and historical usage and context.Jimharlow99 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, Mu'tazili is the adjective, Mu'tazila the noun: a Mu'tazili scholar belongs to the Mu'tazila. The question, therefore, is which is the subject of the article; the men or the school. Weakly oppose therefore; as the article is now written, it is about the men, not the movement. JCScaliger (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article mostly tackles the theological beliefs of the group and not the population as such. Even if the latest is true we should rather use the plural form per WP:PLURAL, (see Germans, Jews...)

 * Support, per wp:commonname. "Mu'tazila" gets more results on Google Books. Compare to . It is the more common term when referring to this school of thought. Wiqi( 55 ) 00:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stating that the Muʿtazila were celebrated.
As stated before, this is an opinion that is stated via a farfetched website based on economics.

The first 3 website that appear on google regarding the Mu’tazilites don't mention anything regard them being celebrated. I would rather take the BBC, Britania, or the Oxford Bibliographies that give a neutral introduction over a random quote from a random website chosen to cherry-pick the editor in questions opinion. The person who kept changing this and called me a "troll" even admitted it was a minority opinion on the edit history page. If I wanted I could also find a million sources stated the Muʿtazila were hated - but I am not biased so I would not.

Please removed the "celebrated" comment, because as stated above, the main sources regarding the Muʿtazila do not mention this.
 * The is no doubting to the fact that the Mutazalites were a very well known group during the Islamic Golden age, but the cited source is not a reliable one. I have removed that claim from the the article for now. Thank you. Mosesheron (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Hadal (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Mutazilism → Mu'tazilism – This page was recently moved from Mu'tazila to Mutazilism with the rationale "The current page title is a collective noun for adherents of the theological school, not the noun for the theological school itself, and needs to move to the format consistent with its peers: Atharism and Maturidism".I agree with the rationale, but omitting the straight apostrophe in the move target was a mistake: the version with the apostrophe is much more common, e.g. Google Scholar yields 347 results for "Mutazilism" vs 1,850 results for "Mu'tazilism". This is of course also consistent with what we have at Ash'arism. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The apostrophe represents the first consonant of ’-z-l, the triliteral root of the word. Makes no sense not to include it. 〜 Festucalex • talk • contribs 21:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Support: Yes, standard transliteration, not controversial. Could have been a technical move. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well,, back in the day I executed the move from Mu'tazila to Mutazilism as a technical move on your behalf . It did feel a tad strange at the moment omitting that apostrophe, but as I'm not well versed with Arabic 'ayins and whatnots, I figured out you knew what you were doing. :) No such user (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't have a good answer to that. Bad/hasty call on my part? Obviously both spellings do exist, but I guess I oscillate a bit between thinking Wikipedia prefers the basic transliteration-equivalent words and transliterative orthodoxy. It's a bit of a scattershot across the platform. My mission last month was purging bare adjectives and I guess I just went with what I thought might be less objectionable/controversial technical move. But this is such a niche topic, and the source weight is now so obvious (alongside it being the more precise transliteration) that yeah, with the wider support for it, it absolutely makes sense to use that spelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This would have been very hard to know without looking at the numbers. It's not like ayn or hamza are always conserved in common transcriptions. There are, for example, 793.000 hits for "Quran" vs 417.000 hits for "Qur'an", so we still have Quran despite Qur'an being pretty popular (especially in scholarly literature). I already figured that I could just do a bold move (citing the numbers in my edsum) and I would have, except that Mu'tazilism is a redirect with more than one revision, and so I would have needed to post at WP:RM/TR, where it would perhaps be objected that the page has just been moved and so that it is not uncontroversial. Hence the full RM. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:RMEC: initiated by a sockpuppet, and no other support for the move request at this time. Dekimasu よ! 15:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Mu'tazilism → Mu'tazilites – per WP:COMMONNAME.

 * JSTOR: "Mu'tazilites" 1,416 results - "Mu'tazilism" 417 results
 * Brill Publishers: "Mu'tazilites" 997 results - "Mu'tazilism" 250 results
 * Taylor & Francis: "Mu'tazilites" 259 results - "Mu'tazilism" 60 results
 * Google results: "Mu'tazilites" 149,000 results - "Mu'tazilism" 35,900 results

And for consistency with former Islam-related sects such as Kharijites, not "Kharijism", Kaysanites, not "Kaysanism". Kermanshehi (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Religion has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: This article is about the school of Islamic theology rather than its individual adherents. See Atharism and Ash'arism for reference. Skitash (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The articles Kharijites and Kaysanites are not for individual adherents, but for the historical sects. Same in this case. Also, in contrast to Ash'arism, Atharism, Maturidism, the Mu'tazilites are variously described as a theological school, a rationalist sect or something else. Any thoughts about Mu'tazilites being WP:COMMONNAME? Kermanshehi (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermanshehi (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose: I tried to raise the issue about the inconsistency in the titling of articles about Islamic denominations in May 2023 at the WikiProject Islam (later the discussion was moved to the Manual of Style talkpage). In my opinion, we should opt for the title with the suffix "-ism" since the article is about the school of thought and not about its adherents as a group of people ("-ites").--Æo (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mu'tazilism


text:
Europop

Europop (also spelled Euro pop) is a style of pop music that originated in Europe during the mid-to-late 1960s and developed to today's form throughout the late 1970s. Europop topped the charts throughout the 1980s and 1990s, with revivals and moderate degrees of appreciation in the 2000s.

History
During the 1970s and early 1980s, such groups were primarily popular in continental countries, with the exception of ABBA (1972–1983). The Swedish four-person band achieved great success in the UK, where they scored twenty top 10 singles and nine chart-topping albums, and in North America and Australia.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s Europop became very popular. Roxette and Ace of Base led Europop in American mainstream audiences. In the 1990s, pop groups like the Spice Girls, Aqua, Steps, Right Said Fred, Backstreet Boys and singer DJ BoBo were strongly influenced by Europop. Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Italian dance group Eiffel 65 were highly active in this genre. In the 2000s, one of the most popular representatives of Europop music was Swedish pop group Alcazar.

In central Europe, Italo disco (also known as 1980s Euro disco) and Euro house were the predominant attempts by young musicians to have a hit record in and beyond the borders of their own country.

title: Europop


text:
Ancient Greek philosophy

Ancient Greek philosophy arose in the 6th century BC. Philosophy was used to make sense of the world using reason. It dealt with a wide variety of subjects, including astronomy, epistemology, mathematics, political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, logic, biology, rhetoric and aesthetics. Greek philosophy continued throughout the Hellenistic period and later evolved into Roman philosophy.

Greek philosophy has influenced much of Western culture since its inception, and can be found in many aspects of public education. Alfred North Whitehead once noted: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato". Clear, unbroken lines of influence lead from ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophers to Roman philosophy, Early Islamic philosophy, Medieval Scholasticism, the European Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment.

Greek philosophy was influenced to some extent by the older wisdom literature and mythological cosmogonies of the ancient Near East, though the extent of this influence is widely debated. The classicist Martin Litchfield West states, "contact with oriental cosmology and theology helped to liberate the early Greek philosophers' imagination; it certainly gave them many suggestive ideas. But they taught themselves to reason. Philosophy as we understand it is a Greek creation".

Subsequent philosophic tradition was so influenced by Socrates as presented by Plato that it is conventional to refer to philosophy developed prior to Socrates as pre-Socratic philosophy. The periods following this, up to and after the wars of Alexander the Great, are those of "Classical Greek" and "Hellenistic philosophy", respectively.

Early Greek philosophy (or pre-Socratic philosophy)
The convention of terming those philosophers who were active prior to the death of Socrates as the pre-Socratics gained currency with the 1903 publication of Hermann Diels' Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, although the term did not originate with him. The term is considered useful because what came to be known as the "Athenian school" (composed of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) signaled the rise of a new approach to philosophy; Friedrich Nietzsche's thesis that this shift began with Plato rather than with Socrates (hence his nomenclature of "pre-Platonic philosophy") has not prevented the predominance of the "pre-Socratic" distinction.

Since 2016, however, current scholarship has transitioned from calling philosophy before the Athenian school "pre-Socratic" to simply "Early Greek Philosophy". André Laks and Glenn W. Most have been partly responsible for popularizing this shift in describing the era preceding the Athenian School through their comprehensive, nine volume Loeb editions of Early Greek Philosophy. In their first volume, they distinguish their systematic approach from that of Hermann Diels, beginning with the choice of "Early Greek Philosophy" over "pre-Socratic philosophy" most notably because Socrates is contemporary and sometimes even prior to philosophers traditionally considered "pre-Socratic" (e.g., the Atomists).

The early Greek philosophers (or "pre-Socratics") were primarily concerned with cosmology, ontology, and mathematics. They were distinguished from "non-philosophers" insofar as they rejected mythological explanations in favor of reasoned discourse.

Milesian school
Thales of Miletus, regarded by Aristotle as the first philosopher, held that all things arise from a single material substance, water. It is not because he gave a cosmogony that John Burnet calls him the "first man of science", but because he gave a naturalistic explanation of the cosmos and supported it with reasons. According to tradition, Thales was able to predict an eclipse and taught the Egyptians how to measure the height of the pyramids.

Thales inspired the Milesian school of philosophy and was followed by Anaximander, who argued that the substratum or arche could not be water or any of the classical elements but was instead something "unlimited" or "indefinite" (in Greek, the apeiron). He began from the observation that the world seems to consist of opposites (e.g., hot and cold), yet a thing can become its opposite (e.g., a hot thing cold). Therefore, they cannot truly be opposites but rather must both be manifestations of some underlying unity that is neither. This underlying unity (substratum, arche) could not be any of the classical elements, since they were one extreme or another. For example, water is wet, the opposite of dry, while fire is dry, the opposite of wet. This initial state is ageless and imperishable, and everything returns to it according to necessity. Anaximenes in turn held that the arche was air, although John Burnet argues that by this, he meant that it was a transparent mist, the aether. Despite their varied answers, the Milesian school was searching for a natural substance that would remain unchanged despite appearing in different forms, and thus represents one of the first scientific attempts to answer the question that would lead to the development of modern atomic theory; "the Milesians," says Burnet, "asked for the φύσις of all things."

Xenophanes
Xenophanes was born in Ionia, where the Milesian school was at its most powerful and may have picked up some of the Milesians' cosmological theories as a result. What is known is that he argued that each of the phenomena had a natural rather than divine explanation in a manner reminiscent of Anaximander's theories and that there was only one god, the world as a whole, and that he ridiculed the anthropomorphism of the Greek religion by claiming that cattle would claim that the gods looked like cattle, horses like horses, and lions like lions, just as the Ethiopians claimed that the gods were snub-nosed and black and the Thracians claimed they were pale and red-haired.

Xenophanes was highly influential to subsequent schools of philosophy. He was seen as the founder of a line of philosophy that culminated in Pyrrhonism, possibly an influence on Eleatic philosophy, and a precursor to Epicurus' total break between science and religion.

Pythagoreanism
Pythagoras lived at approximately the same time that Xenophanes did and, in contrast to the latter, the school that he founded sought to reconcile religious belief and reason. Little is known about his life with any reliability, however, and no writings of his survive, so it is possible that he was simply a mystic whose successors introduced rationalism into Pythagoreanism, that he was simply a rationalist whose successors are responsible for the mysticism in Pythagoreanism, or that he was actually the author of the doctrine; there is no way to know for certain.

Pythagoras is said to have been a disciple of Anaximander and to have imbibed the cosmological concerns of the Ionians, including the idea that the cosmos is constructed of spheres, the importance of the infinite, and that air or aether is the arche of everything. Pythagoreanism also incorporated ascetic ideals, emphasizing purgation, metempsychosis, and consequently a respect for all animal life; much was made of the correspondence between mathematics and the cosmos in a musical harmony. Pythagoras believed that behind the appearance of things, there was the permanent principle of mathematics, and that the forms were based on a transcendental mathematical relation.

Heraclitus
Heraclitus must have lived after Xenophanes and Pythagoras, as he condemns them along with Homer as proving that much learning cannot teach a man to think; since Parmenides refers to him in the past tense, this would place him in the 5th century BC. Contrary to the Milesian school, which posits one stable element as the arche, Heraclitus taught that panta rhei ("everything flows"), the closest element to this eternal flux being fire. All things come to pass in accordance with Logos, which must be considered as "plan" or "formula", and "the Logos is common". He also posited a unity of opposites, expressed through dialectic, which structured this flux, such as that seeming opposites in fact are manifestations of a common substrate to good and evil itself.

Heraclitus called the oppositional processes ἔρις (eris), "strife", and hypothesized that the apparently stable state of δίκη (dikê), or "justice", is the harmonic unity of these opposites.

Eleatic philosophy
Parmenides of Elea cast his philosophy against those who held "it is and is not the same, and all things travel in opposite directions,"—presumably referring to Heraclitus and those who followed him. Whereas the doctrines of the Milesian school, in suggesting that the substratum could appear in a variety of different guises, implied that everything that exists is corpuscular, Parmenides argued that the first principle of being was One, indivisible, and unchanging. Being, he argued, by definition implies eternality, while only that which is can be thought; a thing which is, moreover, cannot be more or less, and so the rarefaction and condensation of the Milesians is impossible regarding Being; lastly, as movement requires that something exist apart from the thing moving (viz. the space into which it moves), the One or Being cannot move, since this would require that "space" both exist and not exist. While this doctrine is at odds with ordinary sensory experience, where things do indeed change and move, the Eleatic school followed Parmenides in denying that sense phenomena revealed the world as it actually was; instead, the only thing with Being was thought, or the question of whether something exists or not is one of whether it can be thought.

In support of this, Parmenides' pupil Zeno of Elea attempted to prove that the concept of motion was absurd and as such motion did not exist. He also attacked the subsequent development of pluralism, arguing that it was incompatible with Being. His arguments are known as Zeno's paradoxes.

Pluralism and atomism
The power of Parmenides' logic was such that some subsequent philosophers abandoned the monism of the Milesians, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, where one thing was the arche. In place of this, they adopted pluralism, such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras. There were, they said, multiple elements which were not reducible to one another and these were set in motion by love and strife (as in Empedocles) or by Mind (as in Anaxagoras). Agreeing with Parmenides that there is no coming into being or passing away, genesis or decay, they said that things appear to come into being and pass away because the elements out of which they are composed assemble or disassemble while themselves being unchanging.

Leucippus also proposed an ontological pluralism with a cosmogony based on two main elements: the vacuum and atoms. These, by means of their inherent movement, are crossing the void and creating the real material bodies. His theories were not well known by the time of Plato, however, and they were ultimately incorporated into the work of his student, Democritus.

Sophism
Sophism arose from the juxtaposition of physis (nature) and nomos (law). John Burnet posits its origin in the scientific progress of the previous centuries which suggested that Being was radically different from what was experienced by the senses and, if comprehensible at all, was not comprehensible in terms of order; the world in which people lived, on the other hand, was one of law and order, albeit of humankind's own making. At the same time, nature was constant, while what was by law differed from one place to another and could be changed.

The first person to call themselves a sophist, according to Plato, was Protagoras, whom he presents as teaching that all virtue is conventional. It was Protagoras who claimed that "man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not," which Plato interprets as a radical perspectivism, where some things seem to be one way for one person (and so actually are that way) and another way for another person (and so actually are that way as well); the conclusion being that one cannot look to nature for guidance regarding how to live one's life.

Protagoras and subsequent sophists tended to teach rhetoric as their primary vocation. Prodicus, Gorgias, Hippias, and Thrasymachus appear in various dialogues, sometimes explicitly teaching that while nature provides no ethical guidance, the guidance that the laws provide is worthless, or that nature favors those who act against the laws.

Socrates
Socrates, believed to have been born in Athens in the 5th century BC, marks a watershed in ancient Greek philosophy. Athens was a center of learning, with sophists and philosophers traveling from across Greece to teach rhetoric, astronomy, cosmology, and geometry.

While philosophy was an established pursuit prior to Socrates, Cicero credits him as "the first who brought philosophy down from the heavens, placed it in cities, introduced it into families, and obliged it to examine into life and morals, and good and evil." By this account he would be considered the founder of political philosophy. The reasons for this turn toward political and ethical subjects remain the object of much study.

The fact that many conversations involving Socrates (as recounted by Plato and Xenophon) end without having reached a firm conclusion, or aporetically, has stimulated debate over the meaning of the Socratic method. Socrates is said to have pursued this probing question-and-answer style of examination on a number of topics, usually attempting to arrive at a defensible and attractive definition of a virtue.

While Socrates' recorded conversations rarely provide a definite answer to the question under examination, several maxims or paradoxes for which he has become known recur. Socrates taught that no one desires what is bad, and so if anyone does something that truly is bad, it must be unwillingly or out of ignorance; consequently, all virtue is knowledge. He frequently remarks on his own ignorance (claiming that he does not know what courage is, for example). Plato presents him as distinguishing himself from the common run of mankind by the fact that, while they know nothing noble and good, they do not know that they do not know, whereas Socrates knows and acknowledges that he knows nothing noble and good.

The great statesman Pericles was closely associated with this new learning and a friend of Anaxagoras, however, and his political opponents struck at him by taking advantage of a conservative reaction against the philosophers; it became a crime to investigate the things above the heavens or below the earth, subjects considered impious. Anaxagoras is said to have been charged and to have fled into exile when Socrates was about twenty years of age. There is a story that Protagoras, too, was forced to flee and that the Athenians burned his books. Socrates, however, is the only subject recorded as charged under this law, convicted, and sentenced to death in 399 BC (see Trial of Socrates). In the version of his defense speech presented by Plato, he claims that it is the envy he arouses on account of his being a philosopher that will convict him.

Numerous subsequent philosophical movements were inspired by Socrates or his younger associates. Plato casts Socrates as the main interlocutor in his dialogues, deriving from them the basis of Platonism (and by extension, Neoplatonism). Plato's student Aristotle in turn criticized and built upon the doctrines he ascribed to Socrates and Plato, forming the foundation of Aristotelianism. Antisthenes founded the school that would come to be known as Cynicism and accused Plato of distorting Socrates' teachings. Zeno of Citium in turn adapted the ethics of Cynicism to articulate Stoicism. Epicurus studied with Platonic and Pyrrhonist teachers before renouncing all previous philosophers (including Democritus, on whose atomism the Epicurean philosophy relies). The philosophic movements that were to dominate the intellectual life of the Roman Empire were thus born in this febrile period following Socrates' activity, and either directly or indirectly influenced by him. They were also absorbed by the expanding Muslim world in the 7th through 10th centuries AD, from which they returned to the West as foundations of Medieval philosophy and the Renaissance, as discussed below.

Plato
Plato was an Athenian of the generation after Socrates. Ancient tradition ascribes thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters to him, although of these only twenty-four of the dialogues are now universally recognized as authentic; most modern scholars believe that at least twenty-eight dialogues and two of the letters were in fact written by Plato, although all of the thirty-six dialogues have some defenders. A further nine dialogues are ascribed to Plato but were considered spurious even in antiquity.

Plato's dialogues feature Socrates, although not always as the leader of the conversation. (One dialogue, the Laws, instead contains an "Athenian Stranger".) Along with Xenophon, Plato is the primary source of information about Socrates' life and beliefs and it is not always easy to distinguish between the two. While the Socrates presented in the dialogues is often taken to be Plato's mouthpiece, Socrates' reputation for irony, his caginess regarding his own opinions in the dialogues, and his occasional absence from or minor role in the conversation serve to conceal Plato's doctrines. Much of what is said about his doctrines is derived from what Aristotle reports about them.

The political doctrine ascribed to Plato is derived from the Republic, the Laws, and the Statesman. The first of these contains the suggestion that there will not be justice in cities unless they are ruled by philosopher kings; those responsible for enforcing the laws are compelled to hold their women, children, and property in common; and the individual is taught to pursue the common good through noble lies; the Republic says that such a city is likely impossible, however, generally assuming that philosophers would refuse to rule and the people would refuse to compel them to do so.

Whereas the Republic is premised on a distinction between the sort of knowledge possessed by the philosopher and that possessed by the king or political man, Socrates explores only the character of the philosopher; in the Statesman, on the other hand, a participant referred to as the Eleatic Stranger discusses the sort of knowledge possessed by the political man, while Socrates listens quietly. Although rule by a wise man would be preferable to rule by law, the wise cannot help but be judged by the unwise, and so in practice, rule by law is deemed necessary.

Both the Republic and the Statesman reveal the limitations of politics, raising the question of what political order would be best given those constraints; that question is addressed in the Laws, a dialogue that does not take place in Athens and from which Socrates is absent. The character of the society described there is eminently conservative, a corrected or liberalized timocracy on the Spartan or Cretan model or that of pre-democratic Athens.

Plato's dialogues also have metaphysical themes, the most famous of which is his theory of forms. It holds that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through our physical senses, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. He argued extensively in the Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Republic for the immortality of the soul, and he believed specifically in reincarnation.

Plato often uses long-form analogies (usually allegories) to explain his ideas; the most famous is perhaps the Allegory of the Cave. It likens most humans to people tied up in a cave, who look only at shadows on the walls and have no other conception of reality. If they turned around, they would see what is casting the shadows (and thereby gain a further dimension to their reality). If some left the cave, they would see the outside world illuminated by the sun (representing the ultimate form of goodness and truth). If these travelers then re-entered the cave, the people inside (who are still only familiar with the shadows) would not be equipped to believe reports of this 'outside world'. This story explains the theory of forms with their different levels of reality, and advances the view that philosopher-kings are wisest while most humans are ignorant. One student of Plato, Aristotle, who would become another of the most influential philosophers of all time, stressed the implication that understanding relies upon first-hand observation.

Aristotle
Aristotle moved to Athens from his native Stageira in 367 BC and began to study philosophy (perhaps even rhetoric, under Isocrates), eventually enrolling at Plato's Academy. He left Athens approximately twenty years later to study botany and zoology, became a tutor of Alexander the Great, and ultimately returned to Athens a decade later to establish his own school: the Lyceum. At least twenty-nine of his treatises have survived, known as the corpus Aristotelicum, and address a variety of subjects including logic, physics, optics, metaphysics, ethics, rhetoric, politics, poetry, botany, and zoology.

Aristotle is often portrayed as disagreeing with his teacher Plato (e.g., in Raphael's School of Athens). He criticizes the regimes described in Plato's Republic and Laws, and refers to the theory of forms as "empty words and poetic metaphors". He is generally presented as giving greater weight to empirical observation and practical concerns.

Aristotle's fame was not great during the Hellenistic period, when Stoic logic was in vogue, but later peripatetic commentators popularized his work, which eventually contributed heavily to Islamic, Jewish, and medieval Christian philosophy. His influence was such that Avicenna referred to him simply as "the Master"; Maimonides, Alfarabi, Averroes, and Aquinas as "the Philosopher".

Aristotle opposed the utopian style of theorizing, deciding to rely on the understood and observed behaviors of people in reality to formulate his theories. Stemming from an underlying moral assumption that life is valuable, the philosopher makes a point that scarce resources ought to be responsibly allocated to reduce poverty and death. This 'fear of goods' led Aristotle to exclusively support 'natural' trades in which personal satiation was kept at natural limit of consumption. 'Unnatural' trade, as opposed to the intended limit, was classified as the acquisition of wealth to attain more wealth instead of to purchase more goods. Cutting more along the grain of reality, Aristotle did not only set his mind on how to give people direction to make the right choices but wanted each person equipped with the tools to perform this moral duty. In his own words, "Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress because everyone will be attending to his own business... And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state."

Cynicism
Cynicism was founded by Antisthenes, who was a disciple of Socrates, as well as Diogenes, his contemporary. Their aim was to live according to nature and against convention. Antisthenes was inspired by the ascetism of Socrates, and accused Plato of pride and conceit. Diogenes, his follower, took the ideas to their limit, living in extreme poverty and engaging in anti-social behaviour. Crates of Thebes was, in turn, inspired by Diogenes to give away his fortune and live on the streets of Athens.

Cyrenaicism
The Cyrenaics were founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, who was a pupil of Socrates. The Cyrenaics were hedonists and held that pleasure was the supreme good in life, especially physical pleasure, which they thought more intense and more desirable than mental pleasures. Pleasure is the only good in life and pain is the only evil. Socrates had held that virtue was the only human good, but he had also accepted a limited role for its utilitarian side, allowing pleasure to be a secondary goal of moral action. Aristippus and his followers seized upon this, and made pleasure the sole final goal of life, denying that virtue had any intrinsic value.

Megarians
The Megarian school flourished in the 4th century BC. It was founded by Euclides of Megara, one of the pupils of Socrates. Its ethical teachings were derived from Socrates, recognizing a single good, which was apparently combined with the Eleatic doctrine of Unity. Their work on modal logic, logical conditionals, and propositional logic played an important role in the development of logic in antiquity, and were influences on the subsequent creation of Stoicism and Pyrrhonism.

Hellenistic philosophy
Petrarca-Meister 001.jpg of Elis, in an anecdote taken from Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Pyrrhonism (upper) PIRRHO • HELIENSIS •

PLISTARCHI • FILIVS

translation (from Latin): Pyrrho • Greek • Son of Plistarchus (middle) OPORTERE • SAPIENTEM

HANC ILLIVS IMITARI

SECVRITATEM translation (from Latin): It is right wisdom then that all imitate this security (Pyrrho pointing at a peaceful pig munching his food) (lower) Whoever wants to apply the real wisdom, shall not mind trepidation and misery ]]

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, many different schools of thought developed in the Hellenistic world and then the Greco-Roman world. The spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world, followed by the spread of Islam, ushered in the end of Hellenistic philosophy and the beginnings of Medieval philosophy, which was dominated by the three Abrahamic traditions: Jewish philosophy, Christian philosophy, and early Islamic philosophy.

Pyrrhonism
Pyrrho of Elis, a Democritean philosopher, traveled to India with Alexander the Great's army where Pyrrho was influenced by Buddhist teachings, most particularly the three marks of existence. After returning to Greece, Pyrrho started a new school of philosophy, Pyrrhonism, which taught that it is one's opinions about non-evident matters (i.e., dogma) that prevent one from attaining eudaimonia. Pyrrhonism places the attainment of ataraxia (a state of equanimity) as the way to achieve eudaimonia. To bring the mind to ataraxia Pyrrhonism uses epoché (suspension of judgment) regarding all non-evident propositions. Pyrrhonists dispute that the dogmatists – which includes all of Pyrrhonism's rival philosophies – have found truth regarding non-evident matters. For any non-evident matter, a Pyrrhonist makes arguments for and against such that the matter cannot be concluded, thus suspending belief and thereby inducing ataraxia.

Epicureanism
Epicurus studied in Athens with Nausiphanes, who was a follower of Democritus and a student of Pyrrho of Elis. He accepted Democritus' theory of atomism, with improvements made in response to criticisms by Aristotle and others. His ethics were based on "the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain". This was, however, not simple hedonism, as he noted that "We do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or of sensuality . . . we mean the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the mind".

Stoicism
The founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, was taught by Crates of Thebes, and he took up the Cynic ideals of continence and self-mastery, but applied the concept of apatheia (indifference) to personal circumstances rather than social norms, and switched shameless flouting of the latter for a resolute fulfillment of social duties. Logic and physics were also part of early Stoicism, further developed by Zeno's successors Cleanthes and Chrysippus. Their metaphysics was based in materialism, which was structured by logos, reason (but also called God or fate). Their logical contributions still feature in contemporary propositional calculus. Their ethics was based on pursuing happiness, which they believed was a product of 'living in accordance with nature'. This meant accepting those things which one could not change. One could therefore choose whether to be happy or not by adjusting one's attitude towards their circumstances, as the freedom from fears and desires was happiness itself.

Academic skepticism
Around 266 BC, Arcesilaus became head of the Platonic Academy, and adopted skepticism as a central tenet of Platonism, making Platonism nearly the same as Pyrrhonism. After Arcesilaus, Academic skepticism diverged from Pyrrhonism. This skeptical period of ancient Platonism, from Arcesilaus to Philo of Larissa, became known as the New Academy, although some ancient authors added further subdivisions, such as a Middle Academy. The Academic skeptics did not doubt the existence of truth; they just doubted that humans had the capacities for obtaining it. They based this position on Plato's Phaedo, sections 64–67, in which Socrates discusses how knowledge is not accessible to mortals. While the objective of the Pyrrhonists was the attainment of ataraxia, after Arcesilaus the Academic skeptics did not hold up ataraxia as the central objective. The Academic skeptics focused on criticizing the dogmas of other schools of philosophy, in particular of the dogmatism of the Stoics. They acknowledged some vestiges of a moral law within, at best but a plausible guide, the possession of which, however, formed the real distinction between the sage and the fool. Slight as the difference may appear between the positions of the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonists, a comparison of their lives leads to the conclusion that a practical philosophical moderation was the characteristic of the Academic skeptics whereas the objectives of the Pyrrhonists were more psychological.

Middle Platonism
Following the end of the skeptical period of the Academy with Antiochus of Ascalon, Platonic thought entered the period of Middle Platonism, which absorbed ideas from the Peripatetic and Stoic schools. More extreme syncretism was done by Numenius of Apamea, who combined it with Neopythagoreanism.

Neoplatonism
Also affected by the neopythagoreans, the neoplatonists, first of them Plotinus, argued that mind exists before matter, and that the universe has a singular cause which must therefore be a single mind. As such, neoplatonism became essentially a religion, and had great impact on Gnosticism and Christian theology.

Transmission of Greek philosophy in the medieval period
During the Middle Ages, Greek ideas were largely forgotten in Western Europe due to the decline in literacy during the Migration Period. In the Byzantine Empire, however, Greek ideas were preserved and studied. Islamic philosophers such as Al-Kindi (Alkindus), Al-Farabi (Alpharabius), Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) also reinterpreted these works after the caliphs authorized the gathering of Greek manuscripts and hired translators to increase their prestige. During the High Middle Ages Greek philosophy re-entered the West through both translations from Arabic to Latin and original Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine Empire. The re-introduction of these philosophies, accompanied by the new Arabic commentaries, had a great influence on Medieval philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas.

title: Ancient Greek philosophy


text:
User talk:Pacifica

Thank you for opening the debate. Here are my first comments regarding the Empire of Pacifica part of the article:
 * "non-territorial Sovereign State" is highly debatable. This should be rephrased or placed in another paragraph with an explanation why Pacifica considers itself as such.

 * why is it debatable? it is a Sovereign State according to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and based on the same principle used for recognition of the Soverignity of the Order of Malta by the UN. It is non.territorial because we currentlly hold no territory

 * Regarding the other paragraph, I would prefer the current wording found at Pacifica: "Considered as a micronation the Empire of Pacifica claims to be a "State of the World seeking recognition from the International Community"." which is more NPOV, since it presents two conflicting views. Still, "Considered as a micronation" is not perfect, since it does not explain who consider it as such.

 * Actually I agree in a way with that....

 * I have problems with the table: such tables are used for countries, provinces... Using such a table for the "Empire of Pacifica" would be misleading, in my opinion, making it look like a country or a province.

 * If I am not mistaken I saw that also on an micronational topic, but that can go

 * could you help me to create a way of displaing (at least some of) that information.

 * I would also rather place this content in a separate "Empire of Pacifica"

 * Completally agree but with one condition the PAcifica Radio topic is also placed on a separate "Pacifica Radio" and both redirects be placed on the Pacifica Topic

article, as has been suggested in Talk:Pacifica. olivier 16:51 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

some partes are replied on the message

I will also be cunsulting with Eduardo (the Emperor) to prepare a diferent text (more NOPV)

Diana Couto

-

The Montevideo Convention of 1933 says:
 * The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

At the same time, you say that you have no territory: so your assertion of statehood fails on this point alone.

--- Actually that point is on the basis of the discussion about Recognition of the Order of Malta by the UN

The Order of Malta also doesn't hold any territory but it is considered Sovereign, Soverign over there Memberes.

We are Sovereign over our citizens.

We, as the Order of Malta, complie with all points of Article 3 except point (b) wish is not an obstruction due to late jurisprudence

Diana Couto P.S. don't forget to signe your posts

 * It looks like your knowledge of the definition of statehood could be valuably added to articles like Sovereign Military Order of Malta and Montevideo Convention and probably others. If you decide to edit these articles, please remember the NPOV rule! NB: signing with your Wikipedia user name is also useful... olivier 19:34 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually my knolage comes form a study made by Eduardo de Lagrenge on Micronations and MicroStates for a conference held at the Catolic University of Porto on the Year 2000 about the legality of the new self proclaimed nations If you wish I could try to translate it into english for publiction here (I can talk to the author to solve the copyright issue)

Diana Couto

 * I do not wish anything. It is up to you to decide if you want to make contributions to Wikipedia. olivier 20:48 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Oliver have a look at the text again... this one was made by me and Eduardo based upon the topics of Hutt Rivver Province, Sealand and Atlantium (I belive it is NOPV but please let me know)

Diana Couto

Image copyrights
Thanks for uploading Image:Pacifica coa.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   — Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pacifica flag.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Pacifica flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 04:46 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pacifica