Quora Answer: What are the Ideological Differences between the Shi’ah Sect, and the Qur’anist (Mu’tazilah)?

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ 

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What are the ideological differences between the Shi’ah sect, and the Qur’anists (Mu’tazilah)?” 

The Shi’ah; the Mu’tazilah; and the Mukar al-Ahadits, the “Qur’anists”, are distinct groups. 

The Shi’ah are a group of sects that disputed with the group that came to be called Sunnis, on the succession of the caliphate, after the demise of the Prophet (s.a.w.).  Sunni Islam contended that it should be Sayyidina Abu Bakr ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Utsman asw-Swiddiq (r.a.), whereas the Shi’ah contended it be Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abu Thalib (r.a.).  It began as a dispute on political succession, and evolved into jurisprudential and theological differences.  There are half a dozen or so major Shi’ah sects. 

Some of them, such as the Itsna ‘Ashari, the Twelvers; and the Zaydi; are very close to Sunni Islam in many issues.  This is natural since they share much of the same scholars.  For example, Imam Ja’far ibn Muhammad asw-Swadiq (q.s.) was the teacher of both Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Malik ibn Anas (r.a.), and Imam Abu Hanifah Nu’man ibn Tsabit (r.a.).  Other groups are considered ghuluw, the ones who exceeded acceptable bounds of theological dispute.  For example, the Fatimid Shi’ah, who believed in Allah (s.w.t.) in the form of a man.  The Qaramathiyyah sect held that the haj, the pilgrimage, was a pagan ritual.  They attacked pilgrims, and the Ka’bah.  Almost all the ghuluw sects are extinct. 

The Mu’tazilah are a group of two dozen or so sects and groups too small to be distinct sects, that contended with Sunni Islam on the issue of Divine Will versus free will.  Other sects evolved from them, or as a reaction to them, such as the Murji’ah, Qadariyyah, and Jabariyyah.  On the Createdness of the Qur’an, they mostly agreed with the Shi’ah. 

The primary ideological difference between the Shi’ah, and the Mu’tazilah, was in the succession of the caliphate and the role of the a’immah, the Ahl al-Bayt.  The Shi’ah believed in the continuation of this wilayat.  The Mu’tazilah did not.  Being rationalists, they did not put much consideration into the mystical traditions of Islam.  Their issue was they rationalised to the extent that they were almost anthropomorphists. 

The Munkar al-Ahadits, the Qur’anists, are an overreaction to the sacralisation of ahadits predominant in sections of Sunni Islam, and the entirety of the literalist Wahhabi sect.  They are not organised enough to be an actual sect of Islam, and have no distinct theological tradition.  Their only uniting factor is the rejection of the entirety of the corpus of ahadits.  They are certainly not Mu’tazilah, and have nothing in common with the rationalist schools.  Many Mu’tazilah were actually Hanafi, by jurisprudence.  They certainly did not reject the corpus of ahadits.