Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Kalaam

Rate this topic


ShiaBrother1

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

So i do understand Sunni's Believe the Quran is not created. It is an atribute of God - Speech of God and therefor the Quran is the Speech of God which was sent to the Prophet (pbuh) through Gabriel (as). Now is there any articles / books from the Shia point of view how it was created and not the Speech of Allah? I would also like the same from the Sunni's here, if you could show me any online books / articles that i could read. Thank You!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
  • Advanced Member

Assalamu ^Alaykum

created vs not created; it depends on exactly what you are referring to. Do the shia believe in "kalaam" being an attribute of Allaah? The attribute which describes His communication with us, whether when it was directly with Prophet Musa, or in The Qur'an.

Sunnis say the original "kalaam" is from Allaah and is uncreated. It is not a language, not of sound or letters etc etc, so we do not call it speech like you and me speak. once it becomes written, spoken, seen, e.g. The recitation of The Angel Jibraeel or Prophet Muhammad etc; that is created.

what do the shia believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Assalamu ^Alaykum

created vs not created; it depends on exactly what you are referring to. Do the shia believe in "kalaam" being an attribute of Allaah? The attribute which describes His communication with us, whether when it was directly with Prophet Musa, or in The Qur'an.

Sunnis say the original "kalaam" is from Allaah and is uncreated. It is not a language, not of sound or letters etc etc, so we do not call it speech like you and me speak. once it becomes written, spoken, seen, e.g. The recitation of The Angel Jibraeel or Prophet Muhammad etc; that is created.

what do the shia believe?

Brother Abdaal who is a sunni disagrees to what u say is the sunni belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh i thought all Sunnis believed that the Quran was not created. Thanks brother

What do you mean by 'the Qur'ân'? According to the Ash'ari/Maturidi the Qur'ân may imply the Attribute Speech or it may imply the Qur'ân in book-form which is written by ink made by humans which are of course all created. But if you refer with it to Allâh's Attribute Speech then it's uncreated and eternal.

It is an atribute of God - Speech of God and therefor the Quran is the Speech of God which was sent to the Prophet (pbuh) through Gabriel (as).

We (Ash'ari/Maturidi) believe that the Speech of Allâh to which the Qur'ân refers to is Eternal/Uncreated like all of His Attributes. His Kalâm is not sound, letters, in sequence or any attribute of creation. It is an attribute by which He tells, orders, promises and threatens etc. Imâm Maturidi (رحمه الله) is claimed to have said that Allâh's Kalâm itself was eternal/uncreated but when speaking directly Himself He uses a created medium, this is somehow like how the Mu'tazilah. The Ash'ari at the other hand rejects this and say that also Allâh's Speech itself is uncreated and eternal but His direct Speech is not through created mediums but it is a Speech that doesn't consist of sound, letters or any attribute of creation. It is imperfection to be attributed with the attribute of expressing what one knows serially (i.e. consecutively, one piece of information after another). This is because speech that consists of serial expressions must have a beginning and because there will be a delay in informing all that one knows. Remembering that what Allah knows is unlimited, we must admit that His attribute of kalam, by which He informs without delay the unlimited information that He knows, cannot be like our limited created kalam that is made up of sounds, letters and words and that Allah can enable any of his creation to hear his kalam, although it’s not a kind of sound. Beware that this does not mean that a creation can know all that Allah’s speech pertains to, because that would mean that a creation could know everything, and this is impossible. Rather, Allah can make each of them understand from it what He wants him/her/it to understand, so each of them might end up understanding something different at the same time. This is another reason why we cannot say that His kalam is like the kalam of created beings.

Now is there any articles / books from the Shia point of view how it was created and not the Speech of Allah? I would also like the same from the Sunni's here, if you could show me any online books / articles that i could read. Thank You!

An article from a Sunni scholar with commentary http://marifah.net/articles/sanusiyyahabdullahalmalali.pdf

Well there is a Twelver Shi'i article at the site of your signature. In al-Bab al-Hadi 'Ashar it states:

He is a Speaker

Seventh, the Most High is a Speaker (mutakallim), by the agreement of all. And by speech (al-kalam) is intended letters and sounds which are audible and orderly. And the meaning of the Most High's being a Speaker is that He brings speech into existence in some sort of body (jism). And the explanation of the Ash'arites is contrary to reason.

Twelver Shi'â`s doesn't affirm the attribute "Speech" for Allâh Most High, rather as you can read above they say that He creates letters and sounds which are audible and orderly. So there is no 'speaking' but 'creating' hence they named Allâh Speaker without speaking (attribute of Speech).

Brother Abdaal who is a sunni disagrees to what u say is the sunni belief?

He said in other topics that he takes the Mu'tazilah positions regarding Kalâm attribute so he in no way represents the Sunni position.

Edited by Abu'l Fadl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother Abdaal who is a sunni disagrees to what u say is the sunni belief?

The Athari disagree. You see people don't want to say Imam Ahmad (ra) was wrong against the Mutazillah on this debate. So they make up other points. Imam Ahmad (ra) was a great scholar, but he couldn't debate on this issue because there was no text to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me show you a site where Athari's try to refute the Ashariis, Maturidis and Mutazillis.

The Ash’aris believe that Allah’s Speech subsists in His Essence and is without sound or letters, and therefore, Allah could not have said Alif-Laam-Meem.

The Mu’tazilah believed that the Quran is Allah’s Speech; and Allah’s Speech is created.

The Ash’aris believed that the Quran is not Allah’s Speech, so while Allah’s Speech is uncreated, the Quran remains created.

al-Bayjuri the Ash’ari theologian says in his Sharh Jawharat al-Tawheed:

“it is still only permitted to say “The Qur’an is emergent (or created)” in a classroom setting”

Ibn al-Jawzi says in al-Muntadham of al-Ash’ari:

“The people never differed that this audible Qur’an is Allah’s Speech, and that Gabriel descended with it upon the Prophet – Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The reliable imams declared that the Quran is eternal, while the Mu’tazila claimed that it is created. Al-Ash’ari then agreed with the Mu’tazila that the Quran is created and said: ‘This is not Allah’s Speech. Rather, Allah’s Speech is an Attribute subsisting in Allah’s Essence. It did not descend on the Prophet, nor is it audible.’ “

Ibn al-Jawzi would often say on the pulpit:

“The heretics (the Ash’aris) claim; i) there is none in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur’an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave; ‘your three shameful facets’” (al-Dhayl)

Ibn al-Jawzi writes, while complaining about certain Ash’arites indoctrinating the masses with the Ash’arite dogma: “A group of Persian (a’ajim) heretics arrived in Baghdad and mounted the pulpits to sermon the masses. They would claim, in most of their gatherings: There is no ‘Speech of Allah’ on this earth, and is the mushaf anything but paper, galls and vitriol? Allah is not in the Heavens, and the slave-girl to whom the Prophet said: ‘Where is Allah?’ was dumb and therefore pointed towards the sky, meaning: He is not from the idols worshipped on this earth.

They then said: ‘Where are the ‘letterists’, who claim that the Quran is composed of letters and sound? Rather, the Quran is only an expression of Jibril!’ They continued in this vein, until the sacredness of the Quran diminished from the hearts of many.”

He then mentions at length, the arguments for the orthodox approach towards the Quran, and commends Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal for his rigid stance on the issue, which united the Muslims on one belief: the Quran, which is contained in the Mushaf, is the uncreated Speech of Allah. He then denigrates al-Ash’ari, saying: “Then, people did not differ in this issue, until there appeared ‘Ali b. Isma’il al-Ash’ari, who at first, held the beliefs of the Mu’tazilites. It then occurred to him, as he claimed, that Allah’s Speech subsists in the Divine Essence (sifah qa’imah bil-that). His claim, therefore, necessitated that the Quran we have is created.”

Ibn Qudama says in his refutation of the Ash’aris on the topic of Quran:

* “Some of our [Hanbali] companions often ask us about the debate that took place between me and some of the heretics (i.e. Ash’aris)”

* Ash’aris claim that the Speech of Allah – the Quran – is one whole entity which is indivisible, for anything eternal must be indivisible, as they claim. Ibn Qudamah responds to this saying, that their belief implies, that the Torah, the Bible and the Quran are all the same, and the one who memorises a verse has memorised the whole Quran, and that Allah’s prohibitions are the same as what he permits, etc.

* Ash’aris say that if Allah speaks with sound and letters, it implies that Allah has a tongue, a throat and lungs, since this is the only way one may speak. Ibn Qudamah says, the stones and trees of Makkah would say Salam to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam without any of that, and likewise ones hands will bear witness against him on the day of judgement, without the need of any tongue or throat etc. Moreover, by the same token, they should also deny that Allah is all hearing and seeing, as one cannot hear except through air waves hitting the air-drums, nor can one see except through lights hitting the retina.

* Ibn Qudamah says that Ash’aris belief implies that for one to recite the Quran in his Salah, in fact renders his Salah null and void, because the Quran is actually the speech of Jibril, as they claim.

* He says: “There is no dispute amongst all the Muslims that anyone who rejects a verse from the Quran, or a word, which is agreed upon, or even a letter which is agreed upon, is a Kafir… Whereas al-Ash’ari rejects the entire Quran and says: none of that is the Quran, rather it is the speech of Jibril”

* He says: “What is amazing is that they are not bold enough to manifest their belief in public, nor do they explicitly state it except when they are alone. Even if they were the rulers, or governors of countries, and you were to attribute this belief to them, they would detest it and condemn it, and become obstinate. They would only pretend to honor the Quran respect the Mushaf, and stand up upon seeing it, whereas when they are alone they say: There is nothing in it but paper and ink, what else is there in it? And this is from the actions of Zanadiqah”

* One of them said to Ibn Qudamah: I affirm that this Mushaf is actually the Quran, but it is not the eternal Quran, to which Ibn Qudamah replied: ‘So, do we have two Qurans?! … Some of our [Hanbali] companions said: ‘You (the Ash’aris) are the rulers and the governors over Islamic countries, so what prevents you from making your belief manifest to the common folk?

* He said: ‘We do not know of a sect from the heretics who hide their beliefs, and who are not bold enough to manifest them, except the Zanadiqah and the Ash’aris.’

* He said: ‘His belief (i.e. al-Ash’ari’s) is similar to that of the Mu’tazilah without doubt, except that al-Ash’ari wants to deceive. So he states his belief which appears to be agreeing with the beliefs of the people of truth. He then gives an explanation to his belief with a Mu’tazili twist.

* He says: ‘The reality of the Ash’ari doctrine is that there is no God in the heavens, nor is there a Quran on this earth, and nor is Muhammad a messenger of God’. Ibn Fuwarrak was killed by the great ruler Ibn Subuktakin for claiming that the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam was only a messenger when he was alive, and he isn’t a messenger anymore after his death.

* He says: ‘What is amazing is that their leader (i.e. Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari) who established their beliefs was a man not known for his religion or piety, nor was he known for any of the Sacred sciences. In fact, he belongs to no science except the science of blameworthy Kalam. All the while they acknowledge that he spent 40 years adhering to Mu’tazili doctrine, and then pretended to have retracted from it, however, nothing could be seen from him after his repentance except this Bid’ah.’

al-Saffarini al-Hanbali says in his Sharh of his own Athari creed:

“In conclusion, the Mu’tazilites are in agreement with the Ash’arites, while the Ash’arites are in agreement with the Mu’tazilites, that this Quran contained within the two covers of the Mushaf is created and anew. The only difference between the two factions is that the Mu’tazila did not affirm any other Speech for Allah except this (the Quran, which they thought was created), whereas the Ash’arites affirmed al-Kalam al-Nafsi (self-speech/talking to oneself/inner-speech) subsisting in Allah’s essence. Whereas the Mu’tazilites say, the Speech of Allah is created (and not subsisting in Allah). The Ash’aris do not consider it (the Quran) the Speech of Allah. Yes, they call it ‘the Speech of Allah’, but only metaphorically, and that is the belief of the majority of their predecessors.”

Conclusion:

1) the Ash’aris believe that the Quran that we have which is contained in the Mushaf is in fact created, because Allah Speaks without sound or letters.

2) This is how the Hanbalis have viewed the Ash’aris for centuries.

Ibn al-Jawzi’s quotes can be found in his al-Muntadham, in his notice on Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari; as well as his Sayd al-Khatir

Ibn Qudama is being quoted from his Munadhara ma’a Ahl al-Bid’a (debate with heretics), which is his discourse with his contemporary Ash’rites.

al-Saffarini is being quoted from his own Sharh to his own Athari creed called Lawami’.

The reason why some sunni think it is created is because they think Imam Ahmad (ra) was correct in his debate against the Mutazilla. This is not the case.

The Mutazillah were correct is some areas, but not all areas.

Abu’l-Yusr al-Bazdawi (d.493), a major Maturidite, said in his book Usul al-Din:

The Speech of Allah, the Exalted, is present with Him, and likewise the speech of every speaker.

And these Surahs which have an ending and beginning, countability and parts:

It is not the Speech of Allah, the Exalted, literally.

Rather, it is composed (manzûm), Allah the Exalted composed it. And it signifies the Speech of Allah, the Exalted, like the manzûm of Imru’l-Qays..

The manzûm of Imru’l-Qays signifies his speech, but it is not his speech. Likewise, the sermon of each preacher and the message of each messenger is manzûm, signifying his speech but it is not his actual speech like this..

So the Nazm of the Qur’an, or composition, is not Allah’s Speech. Just like the composition of Imru’l-Qays, the famous king-poet, is not his speech. The Qur’an simply signifies (dâl is the Arabic expression through which the Maturidites strayed away) the eternal Speech of Allah, it is NOT His Speech.

Likewise, the thing composed of Imru’l-Qays is NOT his speech, it simply signifies it. And the message of a messenger is NOT his speech, it simply signifies it. Well, how clear do you want to get it? Just take a look at what follows.

In the K. al-Tamhid by Abu’l-Mu’in al-Nasafi (d.508), another major Maturidite, it is stated:

Allah, the Exalted, is a Speaker with Speech that is One, and it is an Attribute of Him in eternity, not from the kind of letters and sounds, and it is an Attribute devoid of silence and forgetfulness.

And Allah is a Speaker by it: ordening, prohibiting and informing, and these expressions signify it.

And the expressions are named Allah’s Speech, the Exalted, meaning that they are expressions of His Eternal Speech, existing within His Essence. And it is what’s intended in our saying: The Qur’an, the Speech of Allah the Exalted, is uncreated.

So Allah is a Speaker with Speech which is One. So the expressions – which are multiple – can not be His Speech. Rather, they simply signify His Speech and are NOT His Speech at all. He even admits that when they say the Qur’an is uncreated they mean by it Allah’s Speech, not the Nazm al-Qur’an.

Again, from the ‘Umdat al-I’tiqad of Hafidh al-Din al-Nasafi (d.701) it is stated:

The maker of the universe is a Speaker by Speech, One, Eternal, existing within His Essence.

It is not from the kind of letters and sounds, undivided, devoid of silence, forgetfulness and absence of speech.

And He orders, prohibits and informs by it.. And these expressions are created cause they are sounds which are accidents.

And it is named Speech of Allah because of what it signifies.

And if the Inner Speech is expressed in Arabic it is a Qur’an, and if it is expressed in Hebrew it is a Thaurat, and if it is expressed in Syrian it is a Injil.

So the expressions differ, but not the Speech. Just like we call Allah by different expressions, while His Essence is One.

How much more explicit could it be? Allah’s Speech is One and existing within His Essence. It is not of letters and sound, as the Qur’an is. Indeed, sounds are nothing but accidents and therefore Allah is absolved from that.

So what is heard or read and named Speech of Allah is simply because that is what it signifies, nothing more. It is not His Speech in reality: not the Arabic Qur’an, nor the Hebrew Thaurat or the Syrian Injil. All these are, simply, created expressions of Allah’s Eternal Speech – not the Speech of Allah Himself.

And consider his last sentence that was quoted: The expression differ but not his Speech, just like Allah is called by different expression while His Essence is One.

This is because they consider the Names of Allah as created! We seek refuge with Allah from unbelief!

The aforementioned Abu’l-Mu’in al-Nasafi said also in his Tabsira al-Adillat:

And these wordings (alfâz) are named a Qur’an and Speech of Allah to enforce the Speech of Allah, the Exalted, by it and it is in itself created. And the Speech which is an Attribute of Allah, the Exalted, is not created.

And the teachers of ours from the Imams of Samarqand – the ones who have united upon knowledge of the Usûl and the Furû’ – their saying concerning this was to say:

The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah and His Attribute, and the Speech of Allah is uncreated and likewise His description.

And they would not say straightly: The Qur’an is not created.

Fearing that it may come up in the hearer’s mind that these composed expressions from letters and sounds are not created, as the Hanbalites say so..

Take another look: The wordings Gabriel, the Prophet and we hear, read and write are named a Qur’an and Speech of Allah to enforce the very Speech of Allah by it – meaning: it is not Allah’s own Speech these wordings, but they enforce [something else: namely] Allah’s Speech. Because these wordings are created, and what is enforced is uncreated.

And watch carefully how according to Abu’l-Mu’in al-Nasafi’s own testimony the Maturidiyyah expressed their opinion concerning the Qur’an al-Karim: it is uncreated as the Speech of Allah as an Attribute is. He did not say openly and clearly: the Qur’an is uncreated, except if the phrase ‘Speech of Allah’ is added. He did that before in his K. al-Tamhid as we’ve mentioned!

The Qur’an is therefore two things with them: the Qur’an with the meaming of ‘Inner Speech’ which is uncreated, ánd the Qur’an present among us which is of letters and is therefore created. It has been expressed by sound, therefore created. It can be called Arabic, therefore created. Or Hebrew and Syrian therefore contingent, created. It can be referred to in parts, counted and described in other features – therefore created. Below is an confirmation of what we stated before, shortly:

Since without shame al-Taftazani (d.791), the major philosopher of the Maturidiyyah, said in commenting on ‘Umar al-Nasafi’s words And the Qur’an, the Speech of Allah the Exalted, is uncreated the following:

And he followed the Qur’an by Speech of Allah, the Exalted, because of what the Shaykhs (i.e. the Maturidiyyah) mentioned from saying < The Qur’an, the Speech of Allah the Exalted, is uncreated > and not to say < The Qur’an is uncreated >, fearing that it may come up to the mind that the thing composed of sounds and letters is eternal, like the Hanbalites opinioned ignorantly, obstinently..

And the Maturidites say without modesty and shame – just like the later-day Ash’arites – that there is no difference between us and the Mu’tazilites that the Qur’an is created!

The only difference is that the Mu’tazilah know only one Speech of Allah, the Qur’an, which is created. While the Maturidites profess in addition another Speech of Allah called ‘Inner Speech’ which they call eternal.

Here is al-Taftazani again from his Sharh of al-Nasafiyyah:

And the reality of our difference between us and them (i.e. the Mu’tazilah) goes back to the affirmation of the Inner Speech and its denial. The only thing is: we do not speak about the eternity of the alfâz and letters [nor with not saying that they are created] and they do not speak about the createdness of the Inner Speech.

And from a Maturidite, a certain ‘Abd al-’Aziz al-Farîhârî who was alive in 1239 AH and wrote a Hashiyah upon it, is mentioned:

And even if the two parties did not differ concerning the affirmation of an Inner [speech] and its denial, then there is still no dispute. For we when we say < The Qur’an is uncreated > we intend the Inner [speech]. And if we say: < The Qur’an is created > we intend the expressed [speech]. So we do not speak about the eternity of the wordings and the letters, but rather of its createdness just like the Mu’tazilah say. And they do not speak of the createdness of the Inner [speech], but rather they deny its existence. And even if they affirmed it (i.e. the Inner Speech) they would have spoken of its eternity, just like we said..

Meaning, we and the Mu’tazilites are the same concerning this!

And consider the following saying of this same al-Taftazani, deprived of sound beliefs concerning the Qur’an al-Karim:

Speech [of Allah] that is stated means the Inner Speech. So the meaning of being Speech of Allah is His Attribute. And it is stated about the expressed [speech] created, composed of Surahs and Ayats. And the meaning of it being ascribed to Allah is: That it is Allah’s creation, not from the composed things of the creatures.

Then take a look how its commentator, al-Farîhârî, comments upon this:

He meant [i.e. al-Taftazani] that it [i.e. the Qur'an] is Makhluq-lillah, the Exalted, without intermediary, acquisited from the creatures, either through the sound untill an Angel hears it or a Messenger, or through the inscriptions from the Tablet, or by the creation of a perception (idrâk) of the letters in the heart of an Angel or a Messenger, or by the creation of the letters upon his tongue without his choice.

Ponder upon this deviation! In fact, the Maturidites have stated clearly that Allah, the Exalted, created a voice and letter which Gabriel heard, then kept safe untill he delivered it to our Prophet, the peace be upon him! At the same time they say: The Speech of Allah is eternal, without letter or sound. In fact, in contradistinction of the Ash’arites they agreed altogether upon that Musa, the peace and blessing upon him, did not hear Allah’s uncreated Speech, but rather heard sound and letter created by Allah! The Ash’arites were better than them concerning this issue: they opinioned the possibility of hearing Allah’s Speech, a thing a Maturidite would deny!?!

None other than al-Kawthari – the infamous Jahmite – stated:

Actually, the Qur’an which is in the Well-Preserved Tablet, and upon the tongue of Gabriel, the peace upon him, and upon the tongue of the Prophet, the peace and blessing upon him, and upon the tongues of the rest of the reciters and in the their hearts and in their tablets is created..

And who would find fault with al-Kawthari and his predecessors from the Maturidiyyah, their big ones and their little ones, concerning this subject when they subscribed to whatever their Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi opinioned?

And this man himself stated quite clearly – contrary to some people here who probably fear our response more than they fear Allah, the Fast one in Punishment – words that we hope our brethren of today would never utter:

It is not the saying (qawl) from Allah that {Kun} with the Kâf and the Nûn is, but it is rather an expression bi-awjaza kalam enforcing the complete understood meaning..

That is: the Saying of the Al-Mighty {Kun} in several Ayats, cf. {Kun fa-yakûn}, is nothing but an Majâzi expression ascribed to Him, not literally His. {Kun}, composed of two letters, is not Allah’s Word but it, simply, enforces al-Ma’na al-Tam al-Mafhûm as the author of the Ta’wilât Ahl al-Sunnah says, i.e. Imam al-Maturidi, may Allah forgive him!

And as Allah, the Most Merciful, may forgive this man for his clear deviation concerning this matter, may He be praised that one of his followers opposed this and said:

And the word {Kun} Allah Spoke by it literally (haqîqati), not figuratively (majâzan)

says Abu’l-Yusr al-Bazdawi in his Kanz al-Wusûl.

And this is nothing but a small selection from what has been mentioned from the Maturidiyyah concerning the Qur’an al-Karim, which is Allah’s Speech. And their expression of the Qur’an we all know being, in fact, created is more manifest than with the Ash’arites.

So we asked the Ash’arites:

Who said {Alif Lâm Mîm}?

We ask the Maturidites:

Who said {Kun: fa ya-kûn}?

May Allah protect us from misguidance, Ameen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

can some one do me a big favour and just give me the bottom line on this:

Abu Hanifa - created /not?

Asharites - created /not?

Mutazillah - created /not?

Atharis - created /not?

Maturduri - created /not?

Ahl Hadith/ salafi - created /not?

There seems to be some contradictions in the thread, Im not sure if there typos or differences in opinion.

thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can some one do me a big favour and just give me the bottom line on this:

Abu Hanifa - Qur'ân in BOOKFORM = yes, Qur'ân in reference to Allâh's Speech NO! (Speech of Allâh is eternal)

Asharites - Qur'ân in BOOKFORM = yes, Qur'ân in reference to Allâh's Speech NO! (Speech of Allâh is eternal)

Mutazillah - Yes nor do they affirm "Speech" as attribute for Allâh Most High.

Atharis - The real athari's are silent about it and don't encourage 'ilm al-kalâm and most of them said that Qur'ân in referring to Allâh's Speech not book-form is not created. But there are those who claim to be Atharis but they say that Qur'ân in referring to Allâh's Speech is not created (makhlûq) but emergent (muhdath) which is contradiction in terms hence it is anthropomorphic.

Maturduri - Qur'ân in BOOKFORM = yes, Qur'ân in reference to Allâh's Speech NO! (Speech of Allâh is eternal) + some have attributed to Imâm Maturidi (ÑÍãå Çááå) that when Allâh speaks Directly He uses a medium which is created but His Own Speech is eternal.

Ahl Hadith/ salafi - They say that Qur'ân as well as in the sense referring to Allâh's Speech is not created (makhlûq) but emergent (muhdath).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can some one do me a big favour and just give me the bottom line on this:

Abu Hanifa - created /not?

Asharites - created /not?

Mutazillah - created /not?

Atharis - created /not?

Maturduri - created /not?

Ahl Hadith/ salafi - created /not?

There seems to be some contradictions in the thread, Im not sure if there typos or differences in opinion.

thanks.

Maturidi = Hanafi = Quran and speech of Allah is created.

Asharii = Quran and speech of Allah is created.

Mutazillah = Quran and speech of Allah is created.

Athari = Hanabali = Wahabi = Quran and speech of Allah is uncreated.

Athari = Salafi/Ahl Hadith = Quran and speech of Allah is uncreated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maturidi = Hanafi = Quran and speech of Allah is created.

Asharii = Quran and speech of Allah is created.

This is utter ignorance of the Sunni 'Aqidah schools about what's 'necessary, possible, impossible' for Allâh Most High.

I remember you quoted Imâm Ninowy (جفظه الله) as an Maturidi authority so why don't you read what he says in the commentary of Fiqh al-Akbar:

ومتكلما بكلام صفة في الأزل -9

9. He has eternally been attributed with al-Kalâm, by His Speech and His Speech is an eternal attribute.

1. Eternal: when eternal or eternity is added to Allâh's attributes, it means an absolute eternity with no beginning, as beginning is a thing, and Allâh is the Creator of everything. Also beginning entails time, and Allâh is the Creator of time. It is a reflection of the Arabic world: Al-Azali.

http://www.worldofislam.info/ebooks/fiqakbar.pdf

P.S. If you feel shame for the position then don't try to distort it since you don't have any grasp of the 'Aqîdah schools and it's methodology, so simply state what your own view is.

Edited by Abu'l Fadl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The Glorious Qur’an: 13 - ٚÇ ãñÔ æáÇ Çááå ÑؼÈ ٝñ Ýٟ Ç ÙñøÈÏÝ ìöÒٛÉ, ٚÝٟ Ç ãñ ٛòÉ ÐöÝٛÝ ٚػ ٝò Çáà Ûñ ãöÔٚÁ, ٚػ ٝò Ç Ìñٕٟ ػ ١ò

Ç ÙñáÇÍ ٚÇ ÛñáÇ Ööٕøí, ٚ ÝñÙ Èٕ ËÈ ãñÔ Îö ٛòÞ ٚæÒÈËÒ Èٕ Îö ٛòáÎ ٚáÔÇÆÒ Èٕ Îö ٛòáÎ ٚÇ ãñÔÂ Û ١Ô Îö ٛòÞ.

13. The Qur'an is the Kalam of Allah Ta‟ala, written on books (masahif), preserved in the hearts, recited on the tongues, and revealed to the Prophet, sallallahu alahi wa aalihi wa sallam. Our utterance of the Qur'an is created, and our recitation of the Qur'an is created, but the Qur'an (as the attribute of Kalam of Allah) is not created.

So Abu Hanifa believed the Quran as Speech of Allah was Not Created

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. If you feel shame for the position then don't try to distort it since you don't have any grasp of the 'Aqîdah schools and it's methodology, so simply state what your own view is.

Why don't we over the story of Prophet Musa (as) speaking to Allah (swt). When that was done, tell me was that Allah (swt) eternal voice or was that a voice sent through a created medium ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Glorious Qur’an: 13 - ٚÇ ãñÔ æáÇ Çááå ÑؼÈ ٝñ Ýٟ Ç ÙñøÈÏÝ ìöÒٛÉ, ٚÝٟ Ç ãñ ٛòÉ ÐöÝٛÝ ٚػ ٝò Çáà Ûñ ãöÔٚÁ, ٚػ ٝò Ç Ìñٕٟ ػ ١ò

Ç ÙñáÇÍ ٚÇ ÛñáÇ Ööٕøí, ٚ ÝñÙ Èٕ ËÈ ãñÔ Îö ٛòÞ ٚæÒÈËÒ Èٕ Îö ٛòáÎ ٚáÔÇÆÒ Èٕ Îö ٛòáÎ ٚÇ ãñÔÂ Û ١Ô Îö ٛòÞ.

13. The Qur'an is the Kalam of Allah Ta‟ala, written on books (masahif), preserved in the hearts, recited on the tongues, and revealed to the Prophet, sallallahu alahi wa aalihi wa sallam. Our utterance of the Qur'an is created, and our recitation of the Qur'an is created, but the Qur'an (as the attribute of Kalam of Allah) is not created.

So Abu Hanifa believed the Quran as Speech of Allah was Not Created

Imam Abu Hanifa originally believed that the Quran is created. After debating with his student Imam Abu Yusuf, who held the opposite opinion, did he take the opinion that the Quran is uncreated and eternal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 12rs might get a kick out of this one but Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) was forced to accept that view. In al-ibana of abul hasan ashari it states the following:

Ýíå ÇÈä ÃÈí áíáì ÃÈÇ ÍäíÝÉ åæ Þæáå: ÇáÞÑÂä ãÎáæÞ. ÞÇá: ÝÊÇÈ ãäå æØÇÝ Èå Ýí ÇáÎáÞ. ÞÇá ÃÈí:

ÝÞáÊ áå ßíÝ ÕÑÊ Åáì åÐÇ¿ ÞÇá: ÎÝÊ Ãä íÞæã Úáíø¡ ÝÃÚØíÊå ÇáÊÞíøÜÉ.

The son of Imam abu hanifa says that my dad did tauba from considering the

Quran as a creation...but told me that he only said it out of fear

and actually he did taqiya in saying that he (Imam Abu Hanifa) did tauba

from considering Quran as creation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 12rs might get a kick out of this one but Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) was forced to accept that view. In al-ibana of abul hasan ashari it states the following:

Ýíå ÇÈä ÃÈí áíáì ÃÈÇ ÍäíÝÉ åæ Þæáå: ÇáÞÑÂä ãÎáæÞ. ÞÇá: ÝÊÇÈ ãäå æØÇÝ Èå Ýí ÇáÎáÞ. ÞÇá ÃÈí:

ÝÞáÊ áå ßíÝ ÕÑÊ Åáì åÐÇ¿ ÞÇá: ÎÝÊ Ãä íÞæã Úáíø¡ ÝÃÚØíÊå ÇáÊÞíøÜÉ.

The son of Imam abu hanifa says that my dad did tauba from considering the

Quran as a creation...but told me that he only said it out of fear

and actually he did taqiya in saying that he (Imam Abu Hanifa) did tauba

from considering Quran as creation!

Interesting, can you tell me what Abu Hanifa's believing that the Quran is created actually entails? It is as the Twelvers believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all about semantics. Sometimes when a person debates they accuse someone of something they really don't believe in. For example when Imam Ahmad (ra) was debating against Mutazillah, he made accusation against them which were false. If Allah's Speech, is created, it does not contradict the fact that the attribute of Speech is as eternal as God’s eternal existence." The opposite side on the other hand says so. In end we don't really differ from the Mutazillah, 12rs, Ibadis, Zaydis on this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 12rs might get a kick out of this one but Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) was forced to accept that view. In al-ibana of abul hasan ashari it states the following:

فيه ابن أبي ليلى أبا حنيفة هو قوله: القرآن مخلوق. قال: فتاب منه وطاف به في الخلق. قال أبي:

فقلت له كيف صرت إلى هذا؟ قال: خفت أن يقوم عليّ، فأعطيته التقيّـة.

The son of Imam abu hanifa says that my dad did tauba from considering the

Quran as a creation...but told me that he only said it out of fear

and actually he did taqiya in saying that he (Imam Abu Hanifa) did tauba

from considering Quran as creation!

Subhân Allâh. al-Ibanah of Imâm Ash'ari (may Allâh have mercy on him) is not totally authentic and is tempered with it and this is KNOWN among the Asha'irah and Maturidi's.

Why don't we over the story of Prophet Musa (as) speaking to Allah (swt). When that was done, tell me was that Allah (swt) eternal voice or was that a voice sent through a created medium ?

Who told you that Allâh's speech is a voice (sound and letters etc.) when this is CLEARLY negated in Fiqh al-Akbar and all other works in the Asha'irah and Maturidi?! Allâh Most High sees, so does He have an Eye? In his own book he states that His Speech is not with sound, letters and all the Asha'irah say that Allâh's Speech is not with sound and letters. In the Qur'ân therefore it is interpreted metaphorically like how YOU interpret 'Hand, Face' metaphorically.

We don't believe that Allâh Most High has a voice or any created attribute to begin with!

So Abu Hanifa believed the Quran as Speech of Allah was Not Created

That's correct and what's mass transmitted from him through his students. But note: this is true when Qur'ân refers to Speech of Allâh as Attribute not to the book-form which is created ofcourse.

Interesting, can you tell me what Abu Hanifa's believing that the Quran is created actually entails? It is as the Twelvers believe?

How can he tells you when the only source is from al-Ibanah which is known to be tempered with? Either he accepts al-Ibana or rejects Fiqh al-Akbar of Abu Hanifa (رحمه الله) and all the verdicts of his students.

Its all about semantics. Sometimes when a person debates they accuse someone of something they really don't believe in. For example when Imam Ahmad (ra) was debating against Mutazillah, he made accusation against them which were false. If Allah's Speech, is created, it does not contradict the fact that the attribute of Speech is as eternal as God’s eternal existence." The opposite side on the other hand says so. In end we don't really differ from the Mutazillah, 12rs, Ibadis, Zaydis on this case.

This can only come from someone who NEVER read even the basics of 'Aqâid books in Ash'ari/Maturidi. You say

If Allah's Speech, is created, it does not contradict the fact that the attribute of Speech is as eternal as God’s eternal existence

Do you even read what you type? Allâh's Speech is created but the attribute of Speech is eternal? Why don't you represent what you've learned and just stick to it, otherwise you confuse the readers and spread falsehood.

Edited by Abu'l Fadl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its up to you guys to take whoever word for it. If want to follow Abu'l Fadl's word then you are open to ask him more questions. I personally don't have issues with the Mutazillahs or the 12rs on this issue.

That's your personal opinion so stick to it. Because there are enough narrations where Maturidi's/Ash'ari consider some belief of the Mu'tazilah deviant or even kufr as well as the 12rs.

^ Me too? Speech Created = Yes or No

I have given you articles. If you're interested and sincere why don't you go to forums of Ahl al-Sunnah and ask there and see for yourself? You're confused of what? Because of Abdaal whom didn't read any books of 'Aqîdah usûl of Maturidi/Ash'ari? Anyway this is my last reply and it's up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most useless arguments people have gotten themselves involved in historically.

From Shaykh Saduq's (ar) Kitab at-Tawhid:

ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈí ÑÍãå Çááå¡ ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå¡ ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ ä ÚíÓì Èä ÚÈíÏ ÇáíÞØíäí¡ ÞÇá: ßÊÈ Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ãæÓì ÇáÑÖÇ Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã Åáì ÈÚÖ ÔíÚÊå ÈÈÛÏÇÏ: ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã ÚÕãäÇ Çááå æÅíÇß ãä ÇáÝÊäÉ ÝÇä íÝÚá ÝÞÏ ÃÚÙã ÈåÇ äÚãÉ(1) æÅä áÇíÝÚá Ýåí ÇáåáßÉ¡ äÍä äÑì Ãä ÇáÌÏÇá Ýí ÇáÞÑÂä ÈÏÚÉ¡ ÇÔÊÑß ÝíåÇ ÇáÓÇÆá æÇáãÌíÈ¡ ÝíÊÚÇØì ÇáÓÇÆá ãÇáíÓ áå¡ æíÊßáÝ ÇáãÌíÈ ãÇáíÓ Úáíå¡ æáíÓ ÇáÎÇáÞ ÅáÇ Çááå ÚÒæÌá¡ æãÇ ÓæÇå ãÎáæÞ¡ æÇáÞÑÂä ßáÇã Çááå¡ áÇÊÌÚá áå ÇÓãÇ ãä ÚäÏß ÝÊßæä ãä ÇáÖÇáíä¡ ÌÚáäÇ Çááå æÅíÇß ãä ÇáÐíä íÎÔæä ÑÈåã ÈÇáÛíÈ æåã ãä ÇáÓÇÚÉ ãÔÝÞæä.

My father narrated to me, may Allah have mercy on him. He said: Sa`d b. `Abdullah narrated to me. He said: Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd al-Yaqteeni narrated to me. He said: `Ali b. Muhammad b. `Ali b. Musa ar-Rida Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã wrote to some of his Shi`a in Baghdad:

By the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May Allah protect us and you from fitna, for if it (referring to the aforementioned protection, the `isma) is done, a blessing is made great by it and if it is not done, then it is destruction. We regard that argument about the Quran is a bid`a, in it share the questioner and the respondent. So the questioner gets what is not for him, and the answerer is made responsible for what is not upon him. And the Creator is not but Allah `azza wa jalla, and what is other than Him is created. And the Quran is the kalam of Allah. Do not make a name for it from you(rselves) that you be from the astray. May Allah make us and you from those who fear their Lord by the unseen, and of the Hour they are fearful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your personal opinion so stick to it. Because there are enough narrations where Maturidi's/Ash'ari consider some belief of the Mu'tazilah deviant or even kufr as well as the 12rs.

Who said I am in total agreement with them.

I j prefer there view on Al-Tawhid & Siffat being not seperate from Allah (swt). Also, I don't fully agree with their views on Ruhya. Lastly, the rest of views are in agreement with Maturidi.

There is nothing like Him. He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing. He is neither body nor spirit. He does not have corporeal form or shape, or flesh or blood. He is not substance or accident. He does not have a colour or taste, smell or tactility, heat, cold, wetness, dryness, height width, or depth. He does not have joining or separation, movement or stillness. He has no parts or components, or limbs or members. He has no directions: no right or left, front or back, above or below. He is not circumscribed by place nor is He subject to time. He cannot be incarnate in any place. He is not described with any of the attributes of creation which involve contingency nor is He described as being finite or as being limited. He does not beget and is not begotten. No quantity can encompass Him; no veil conceal Him; no sense perceive Him. He cannot be compared to mankind nor does His resemble creation in any way. He was First before events in time and before contingent things, and existed before all creatures. He is Knowing, Powerful, Living and will always remain so. Eyes cannot see Him; sight cannot perceive Him; imagination cannot encompass Him. He is Knowing, Powerful, Living, in a way dissimilar to all others who are knowing, powerful, living. He alone is timeless and there is nothing timeless but Him, no god but Him and He has no partner in His kingdom. (Maqalat al-Islamiyyin)

Here is some of my disagreement I have with them.

The following is the summary of some deviant beliefs of the Mu'tazilites:

1. Denial of punishment and reward meted out to the dead in the grave and the questioning by the angels Munkar and Nakir.

2. Denial of the indications of the Day of Judgment, of Gog and Magog (Yajuj and Majuj), and of the appearance of the Antichrist (al‑Dajjal).

3. The Mu'tazilites also deny the existence of the Recording Angels (Kiraman Katibin). The reason they give for this is that God is well aware of all the deeds done by His servants. The presence of the Recording Angels would have been indispensable if God were not acquainted directly with the doings of His servants.

4. The Mu'tazilites also deny the physical existence of the "Tank" (al‑Haud), and the "Bridge" (al‑sirat). Further, they do not admit that heaven and hell exist now, but believe that they will come into existence on the Day of Judgment.

5. They deny the miracles (al‑karamat) of saints (walis), for, if admitted, they would be mixed up with the evidentiary miracles of the prophets and cause confusion. The same was the belief of the Jahmites too.

6. The Mu'tazilites also deny the Ascension (al‑Mi'raj) of the Prophet of Islam, because its proof is based on the testimony of individual traditions, which necessitates neither act nor belief; but they do not deny the Holy Pro­phet's journey as far as Jerusalem.

7. They generally lay down that the angels who are message‑bearers of God to prophets are superior in rank to the human messengers of God to mankind, i. e., the prophets themselves.

I have given you articles. If you're interested and sincere why don't you go to forums of Ahl al-Sunnah and ask there and see for yourself? You're confused of what? Because of Abdaal whom didn't read any books of 'Aqîdah usûl of Maturidi/Ash'ari? Anyway this is my last reply and it's up to you.

I have attended kalam classes. We went through the book called Bahr al Kalam. Please don't make assumptions. I gave you respect, I expect the same in return.

Edited by Abdaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ninjaslim

http://qa.sunnipath....p?HD=7&ID=10927

I hope you realize that many Sunnis take the position or at least a similar position to the one you are contesting. I guess we're all disbelievers and mushriks by your standards.

I'm sorry I couldn't reply to you in the other topic I guess I missed it and since the other topic is unjustly closed I will reply to you here.

On the fatwa you've provided it states:

[1] Allah is the creator of all things, including human actions;

[2] The human being is morally responsible and acts on the basis of choice--free will, if you will--granted to them by Allah Most High.

How is this against my standards? I also said that Allâh is the Creator of human actions so does the fatwa. The whole thing about in the topic wasn't about free will but about someone besides Allâh Most High bringing something into existence. You didn't fully grasp what I've said or you're confused yourself, you may read also this fatwa to understand the fatwa you've quoted in case you've interpreted it on your own: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=131&CATE=24

I have attended kalam classes. We went through the book called Bahr al Kalam. Please don't make assumptions. I gave you respect, I expect the same in return.

The attribute Speech being without sounds, letters is the basic of the Kalâm books of Ash'ari/Matûridi.

Edited by Abu'l Fadl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...