Shiite's historically tumultuous life has always been exposed to numerous charges. One of these charges is the claim that the Shiites have received their creed from the Mutazilites. Despite the antiquity of the charge and the fact that Shia scholars have tried to answer it, the charge is still in force. The present study seeks to review the historical roots of such allegations and tries to investigate their causes by referring to some old and modern sources. It also attempts to reply the charges by indicating the distinctions between the Shiite and Mutazilite theological systems and as a result the primacy of Shiite theology over the Mutazilite will be proved. To reject the claim saying the Shiites have obtained their creeds from the Mutazilites, we have mentioned numerous proofs, the titles of which are as follow:A) The refutations offered by the Shiites against the MutazilitesB) The rebukes of the Mutazilites by Shiite Imams and scholarsC) The debates of Shiite Imams and scholars with the MutazilitesD) The conversion of some Mutazilites to the Shiism E) Shiism has been charged with "Rafḍ" by the Mutzilites.F) The difference between Shiite and Mutazilite political position.G) The Shiite belief in infallible Imam, despite the Mutzilites. H) The fundamental differences of Shiite and Mutazilite beliefs.In this research, to answer the question: "why the Shiites are called Mutazilite by some?" four different reasons have been offered which are as follow:A) Shiite and Mutazilite common views in some principles such as the idea of freewill, and rational good and evil.B) Studentship of Zaid bin Ali with Vasil bin 'AtaC) The Mutazilites calling themselves as the ShiiteD) The practice of Taqiyyeh by some Shiite scholarsBased on what was mentioned above, the differentiation of Shiite and Mutazilite theologies are proved. To prove the primacy of Shiite theology over that of Mutazilite, it is sufficient to refer to some of the remarks of Imam Ali (A). This is because at the time of Imam Ali's martyrdom, Vasil bin 'Ata had not been born yet. By referring to Imam Ali's remarks on justice, man's freewill, impossibility of seeing God in this world and the Hereafter, negation of similarity, and independent intellectual verdicts, which are regarded as similar beliefs in Shiite and Mutazilite theology, it is proved that the Shiites have obtained their theological teachings from their Imams and not from the Mutazilites or anyone else

Mr. Soroush holds that the Quran is a human product and in order to support his theory in Islamic theology he attributes this theory to Mutazilites. He claims that Mutazilites believe that the Quran is something accidental and refers to its being created by man and its fallibility. The present paper tries to examine the question whether or not the Mutazilite's theory on the creation of the Quran has anything to do with Soroush's theory that the Quran is a human product. First, necessary data have been gathered from Mutazilite's works, valid theological resources, and Soroush's works, and then, the Mutazilite's and Soroush's theories on the Quran are expounded. Then the origins, basic fundamentals, arguments, and requisites of their theories are stated, criticized and contrasted. The research findings show that Soroush's standpoint on the Quran contradicts, from different sides, that of the Mutazilites. Contrary to Soroush's view, the Mutazilites believe that the Quran has been created by the Most High God and reject that idea that it is a man's product.

Abu Isa Warraq a Mutazilite who converted to Shīʿism and his change of mind and tendency to the True school of Imamiyyah arouse much controversy, accusations and even sharp criticisms of Mutazilites. His Kalām approaches and attitudes in accounting for Shiite doctrines are interesting and drew the attention of many Shiite thinkers. This article is to study some of Warraq's views and attitudes and his possible part in drawing on Mutazilite thoughts in formulating the Imamiyyah Kalām.

Mutazilite and Imamiyyah theologians have negotiated and debated from the very early days. Using a comparative-analytical method, the present paper seeks to analyze and criticize the "idea that Imamiyyah theologians were affected by Mutazilite school in terms of Divine Justice". The schools of Imamiyyah and Mutazilite are known as 'Adliyah because they accepted the idea of intellectual good and evil as the basis of divine justice and other religious teachings. Using this basis, they analyzed the religious teachings in a way that resulted in man's choice, the necessity of grace and observing the best, the necessity of duty, negation of duty beyond one's strength, the necessity of compensations for initial pains and philosophical interpretation of evils. No doubt, they had minor differences on some beliefs and great difference on will and choice. Mutazilites adopted the extreme approach of delegation, but Imamiyyah adopted the theory of "neither determination nor delegation, but intermediate position" by following Imams of right guidance.

Scholars have refocused on Mutazilite School which had been neglected for many centuries and many researches have been conducted to introduce its thoughts due to the discovery and publication of Mutazilite manuscripts in the early 20th century, particularly two books entitled "al-Intisar" and "al-Moqhny". The present paper reviews the course of researches on Mutazilite School in 20th century, divided into three periods: 1) the first half of the 20th century during which the book "al-Intisar" and other researches were published following it; 2) the early of 1960s to the late of 1980s, the beginning and turning point of which is the discovery of the book "al-Moqhny" by Qadi 'Abdul Jabbar in Yemen, which was followed by the publication of other manuscripts written by him and other Mutazilite precedents and the conduction of several researches related to 'Abdul Jabbar's views; 3) two last decades of the 20th century during which thematic scope of researches increased.

There were serious disagreements between the Sufism and Mutazilism, both of which came about in the second century AH., for the Sufism proximity to Ahl al- Hadith (the people of the hadith) thought, namely the Shafii, Hanbali, Maliki, Thauri and Zahirite sects. This is considered as the major issue of discrepancy among Sufists and Mu’tazilists. Since the people of the hadith were irreconcilable enemies of the Mutazilites so was the unavoidable clash between Sufists and Mutazilites thought. Moreover, these two doctrines had disagreements over several other issues; the most important of which was denying the spiritual theurgy of Sufi leaders by Mutazilites. In addition, there were some differences on the subjects like attributes of god, seeing god, determinism and free will. Having experienced a heyday in the Buyid period, the Mutazilsm finally exterminated. Although the Asharis played a chief role in this event, the Sufi’s part was also considerable. This paper studies on the reasons of disagreement between the Sufists and Mutazilites and the role of Sufism in declining the Mutazilism.

One of the current views on determinism and freedom is the theory of "tafwiz" (abdicationism) that accordingly God, after the creation of man, has given up to the human being the activism and the power of doing acts. In the Asharite and Imāmī sources, the Mutazilah is mentioned as the case for Mufawwizah (Abdicationists). In this article, after referring to four definitions for tafwiz and three definitions for Mufawwizah, the author has explained the causes and reasons for the attribution of "tafwiz" to the Mutazilites and then criticizes it. Another part of the article is devoted to the development and classification of the attribution of "tafwiz" to the Mutazilites, which is presented for the first time in this article. The article will come to this conclusion that the above attribution is incompatible with the principles and views of the Mutazilites, and finally it can be the views of some of the early Mutazilites who were influenced by Kadariyya.

In this study, we examine the views of the early Mutazilites and neo-Mutazilites on the historicity of the text, the Quran, and the teachings of religion in order to understand the commonalities and differences between these two schools of thought. The neo-Mutazilites believe that the text of the Quran is a cultural and historical product, influenced by the culture of the age of revelation, and does not contain a message for the general public in other ages. They offer the reasons for their claims as follows: the relationship between the Quran and the culture of its time, the Meccan and Medinan verses, the causes of the revelation, the abrogator and abrogated verses, the historicity of some Quranic teachings in the field of jurisprudence and Sharia. In contrast, the Mutazilites, believing in the inability of the intellect to achieve audio tasks, reject the historicity of the Quran, and consider the expression of rulings as a philosophy of the necessity of revelation, and their main approach is to accept verses and rulings expressed in the Quran and tradition.

From the beginning, religious text including the holy book (holy Quran) and tradition were considered as two main and major cognition sources of Islam and there were consensus over theauthority of the holy book and the authority of the real tradition (against narrated tradition) among the Shia and Sunni scholars (although Akhbari scholars consider the understanding of the bookrestricted to the Infallibles). But while we perceive the book and tradition in the view of many Neo-Mutazilites, we can see that it received criticisms form many sides, both in the quality of formingand survival; and not only many doubts were raised for the authority of many of its teachings, at least after the time of the holy prophet, but it has been denied. In this article, we only criticize andexamine the fluidity respect of the signification and the meaning of religious texts from Neo-Mutazilites’ perspective. It is only the divine book and narrative texts available for us which is carrying and narrating the tradition. From their perspective, the signification of the texts, including religious texts, are fluid and dependent to the time context not to the state and intention of the author, and the meaning of the text will change during the pass of time and thus religious teachings would be bound to historicism and time. Examining this problem in philosophical hermeneutics and mentioning Neo-Mutazilites’ remarks, this article is to express criticisms against this Idea for its influences on some Neo- Mutazilites. Explaining the main source of some of these Ideas which can be found in philosophical hermeneutics, it has been tried, in this article, to draw appropriate responses. It is noteworthy that some of the Neo-Mutazilites who hold the signification as to be fluid, in addition to hermeneutics, are influenced by linguistics and semiotics and other discussions in language which are not investigated in this article.

A number of theologians and historians of Islamic theology, as well as orientalists, have expressed the idea in their writings that the Imami theology did not have an independent beginning and was derived from the Mutazilite theology. The similarity of the views of the medieval Imami Shiites with the views of the Mutazilites on some theological issues has been influential in shaping such a belief. By examining and comparing the works of the early Imami theologians of the Kufa school with the works of founders of Mutazilah and that of the earlier prominent figures of this religion, which are reflected in the books of Ibn Nandim, Sheikh Tusi and Najashi, and also by comparing the opinions of them in the two books of Maghalat (Statements) by Balkhi and Maghalat al-Islamiyin (Islamists' Statements) by Ashari, we conclude that the Imami theologians took precedence over the Mutazilites in raising and addressing some theological issues, and have theorized alongside them on many issues.