The Muʿtazilī theologians, particularly the later Imāmī ones, developed numerous interesting arguments against divine command theory. The arguments, however, have not received the attention they deserve. Some of the arguments have been discussed in passing, and some have not been discussed at all. In this article, I aim to present and analyse the arguments. To that end, I first distinguish between different semantic, ontological, epistemological, and theological theses that were often conflated in the debate, and examine the logical relation among them. Then I go over the Muʿtazila's arguments determining, among other things, which of the theses was targeted by each argument. In presenting the arguments, I focus mainly on the late kalām period, the period falling roughly between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries of the common era, as the arguments were at their most sophisticated level by this time.

Muʿtazilī 神学家，尤其是后来的伊玛目，提出了许多有趣的论据来反对神圣的命令理论。然而，这些论点并没有得到应有的重视。有些论点是顺便讨论过的，有些则根本没有讨论过。在这篇文章中，我的目的是呈现和分析这些论点。为此，我首先区分了在辩论中经常被混为一谈的不同的语义、本体论、认识论和神学命题，并检查它们之间的逻辑关系。然后我回顾了 Muʿtazila 的论点，除其他外，确定每个论点针对的是哪一个论点。在提出论点时，我主要关注后期的kalam时期，大致介于普通时代的 13 世纪和 15 世纪之间，因为此时的争论已达到最复杂的水平。