Doktrinel Açıdan Mu‘tezile ile Mürcie’nin Karşılaştırılması
Doctrinal Comparison of the Muʿtazila and the Murjiʾa

Summary/Abstract: This article seeks to provide a doctrinal comparison of the Muʿtazila and the Murjiʾa, two theological schools that emerged in the early Islamic period. Although the historical perspective has been shaped by the view that the two schools of thought stand in opposition to one another, it becomes evident that, at the doctrinal level, this perception is confined to specific issues. In this context, while they diverged on certain matters, they also exhibited similarities on others. Although these similarities do not necessarily imply a direct organic link or interaction between the two sects, the outcomes of the solutions they proposed for similar problems within the same historical conjuncture remain significant. During the early period, when sects had not yet acquired fully institutionalized structures, the Muʿtazila possessed a broader sphere of intellectual interaction, which led to occasional intersections between the trajectories of the two schools. While the Muʿtazila and the Murjiʾa clearly diverged on issues related to faith, it may be argued that a degree of permeability existed between them in other areas. Accordingly, this article reaches its conclusions through a separate examination of the principal issues on which the two schools converged and diverged. Whereas the classical literature approaches the subject within a similar framework, modern scholarship has likewise not undertaken a direct and holistic comparison of these two schools of thought. Although the traditional approach has generally regarded the Muʿtazila and the Murjiʾa as two opposing creedal formations, this study argues that such divergence represents only one dimension of historical reality. In this regard, the aim of the research is to analyze jointly the ways in which both formations positioned themselves vis-à-vis Khārijite thought and the functions they assumed within the religious and political atmosphere of the Umayyad period. Methodologically, a comparative approach has been adopted through a combined evaluation of classical sources and modern scholarship. In both classical and modern literature, the Muʿtazila and the Murjiʾa have generally been examined through the lens of opposition, without the development of a more holistic perspective. As primary sources, this study draws not only on Ashʿarite heresiographical works but also on Muʿtazilite ṭabaqāt literature and general biographical compendia. In addition, alternative assessments by Western scholars such as van Ess and Watt, together with local studies centered on individuals and sects, have enriched the analysis. The study demonstrates that the Muʿtazila initially emerged as a reaction to the rigid stance of Khārijism, yet in terms of practical implications displayed affinities with the Murjiʾa. Although the two schools developed distinct solutions regarding faith and sin, they exhibited similar approaches in areas such as divine unity (tawḥīd), justice, and social reconciliation. Accordingly, it is concluded that the Muʿtazila and the Murjiʾa were historically shaped by similar motivations centered on social unity, justice, and moral responsibility, and that these two orientations developed in the early period not through sharp antagonism, but rather within a framework of mutual interaction. Since both formations were products of a religio-intellectual outlook characterized by a mawālī-oriented, rationalist, and critical distance from Umayyad politics, they diverged historically while also converging on common ground within Islamic thought.

• Details
• Contents