Digging into the concept of Indian and Egyptian New-Mu'tazila based on Goldziher's Popinions

Although the understanding of New-Mu'tazila from Islam has had important consequences, there is ambiguity and confusion in its essence and origin. Some thinkers have spoken about early and late New-Mu'tazila. They consider the early New-Mu'tazila led by Seyyed Jamal and Abdeh and the late New-Mu'tazila generally to the Egyptians of the last few decades.; While they usually neglect the India  Neo-Mu'tazila movement and introduce Egypt as the main home of the Neo-E'tezal movement. For this reason, the main issue is to explain the conceptual and objective dimensions of the early Indian and Egyptian Neo-Mu'tazila and the relationship of each one with the other. This article refers to the works of Goldziher, i.e. the first person who used the title of Neo-Mu'tazila and discussed the flowology of these two spectrums, by referring to library sources with an explanatory and analytical method. He was a contemporary of two Egyptian and Indian currents, studied their works and scientific sources and had meetings with Seyyed Jamal. He believes that although there are affinities between these two streams, they cannot be placed next to each other. For this reason, he adopted a negative view of Egyptians being neo-Mu'tazilis and is more inclined to describe them as a movement close to Wahhabism. Although it also provides evidence against this description. Evaluations show that it is correct to distinguish between the Indian and Egyptian currents, but considering the deep break between the Indian current and the old Mu'tazila, calling this current as Neo-Mu'tazila is questionable. If we consider this movement to be Neo-Mu'tazila, considering the affinity they have with Nomu'tazil's thoughts of recent decades such as Abu Zayd, we can refer to them as the background of these people.