The Approach of the ？usayniyya School of Mu？tazila A？la？ in Mundane Matters

The idea of a？la？, which implies that God necessarily acts to the advantage of humanity, was one of the principles of the Mu？tazila, although some scholars in this school disagreed on its meaning. Mu？tazilī scholars from Basra used the concept of a？la？ only in regards to religious matters and disregarded it for mundane issues, whereas those from Baghdad employed it both for religious and mundane affairs. However, in a later period, a group of Mu？tazilīs from Basra, known as ？usayniyya, adopted the view of Baghdadi scholars in respect to its applicability to religious and mundane issues; thereby the Basra school of Mu？tazila also incorporated the idea of a？la？ in its thought. The mainstream Basra school of Mu？tazila, the Bahshamiyya school, continued to insist on limiting the usage of a？la？ only to religious matters by excluding mundane affairs completely. Therefore, the applicability of a？la？ in mundane affairs became a point of dispute between the Bahshamiyya and the ？usayniyya in the later Mu？tazila period. The person who most clearly defined the ？usayniyya position in mundane a？la？ and the critique of Bahshamiyya on the subject from the ？usayniyya perspective was Ibn al-Malā？imī, who was the most significant scholar after Abū al-？usayn al-Ba？rī, the founder of this school. Ibn al-Malā？imī expressed his ideas on the issue in detail in his book al-Fā？iq fī u？ūl al-dīn where he discussed the subject not through a dichotomy between Bahshamiyya and ？usayniyya, but rather in the context of two schools of Mu？tazila, the Baghdad and Basra schools. He identified his own position along the same line as the Baghdad school. According to Ibn al-Malā？imī, the reason for the Bahshamiyya’s rejection of mundane a？la？ was the idea that its existence necessitated that an eternal being come into existence. As one cannot imagine a finite a？la？ in mundane matters, there will always be a more advantageous condition than the determined quality of the a？la？. Therefore, to consider mundane a？la？ obligatory on God’s will means something eternal necessarily comes into existence. As an eternal being cannot come into existence, God cannot create a mundane a？la？. This idea would violate the principle of God’s obligations, which is not possible. Bahshamiyya scholars stated that mundane a？la？ was not possible because it would always result in impossible outcomes. As for the Baghdad school (？usayniyya), they approach the subject through the concept of dā？ī (motive). According to this school, there is a requisite relationship between the motive and the action. When a motive displays