Quranic createdness






Createdness refers to the Islamic doctrinal position that the Qur’an was created, rather than having always existed and thus being "uncreated". In the Muslim world the opposite point of view — that the Quran is uncreated — is the accepted stand among the majority Sunni Muslims while minority sects Shia Twelvers and Zaydi, and the Kharijites believe the Quran is created.[1]

The dispute over which was true became a significant point of contention in early Islam. The Islamic rationalist philosophical school known as the Mu'tazila held that if the Quran is God's word, logically God "must have preceded his own speech".[2] The Qur'an, of course, expresses God's eternal will, but the work itself must have been created by Him at some point in time.[3]

Traditionists, on the other hand, held that numerous records of the words, actions, or approval of Muhammad (aḥādīth) support the contention that as God's speech, the Qur’an is an attribute of God and therefore "uncreated"
History
The controversy over the doctrine in the Abassid caliphate came to a head during the reign of Caliph Abd Allah al-Ma’mun. In 827 CE, al-Ma’mun publicly adopted the doctrine of createdness, and six year later instituting an inquisition known as the mihna (test or ordeal) to “ensure acquiescence in this doctrine”.[5] According to Sunni tradition, when "tested", traditionist Ahmad ibn Hanbal refused to accept the doctrine of createdness despite two years imprisonment and being scourged until unconscious. Eventually, due to Ahmad ibn Hanbal's determination,[6] Caliph Al-Mutawakkil ʿAlā ’llāh, brought the mihna to an end and the Mu'tazila doctrine was silenced for a time.

In the years thereafter, it was the minority of Muslims who believed in Quranic createdness who were on the receiving end of the sword or lash.[7]

The influential scholar Al-Tabari (d.923) declared in his aqidah (creed) that (in the words of Islamic historian Michael Cook) the Quran is

"God's uncreated word however it is written or recited, whether it be in heaven or on earth, whether written on the `guarded tablet` or on the tablets of schoolboys, whether inscribed on stone or on paper, whether memorized in the heart or spoken on the tongue; whoever says otherwise is an infidel whose blood may be shed and from whom God has dissociated Himself."[8]

12th century Almoravid jurist Qadi Ayyad, citing the work of Malik ibn Anas, wrote that:

He said about someone who said that the Qur'an is created, "He is an unbeliever, so kill him." He said in the version of Ibn Nafi', "He should be flogged and painfully beaten and imprisoned until he repents." In the version of Bishr ibn Bakr at-Tinnisi we find, "He is killed and his repentance is not accepted." [9]
Arguements and implications[edit]
Shia
Al-Islam.org, a website which collects Shia scholarly works, cites Ash-Shaykh as-Saduq (aka Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi c. 923–991) as disagreeing with Sunnis on the issue of the Quran's createdness on the grounds that God's attributes of doing (creating, giving sustenance, etc.) cannot be eternal since they require objects to do actions to. For this to be true, "we will have to admit that the world has always existed. But it is against our belief that nothing except God is Eternal.”[10] Author Allamah Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi goes on to say that Sunni scholars failure to make this distinction and insist that "all His attributes are Eternal" is the cause of their belief that "the kalam (speech) of God, is Eternal, not created". Akhtar Rizvi states:

But as we, the Shi'ah Ithna ‘asharis, distinguish between His personal virtues and His actions, we say: [quoting Ibn Babawayh] “Our belief about the Qur'an is that it is the speech of God. It has been sent by Him - it is His revelation, His book and His word. All is its Creator, Sender and Guardian...”[10][11]
However, the cite quotes another leading Shia Ayatullah Sayyid Abulqasim al-Khui (1899–1992) (in AL-BAYAN FI TAFSIR AL-QUR’AN, THE PROLEGOMENA TO THE QUR’AN), declaring that "the question of whether the Qur'an was created or eternal is an extraneous matter that has no connection with the Islamic doctrine", and blames the intrusion of the ideas of alien "Greek philosophy" into the Muslim community for dividing the Ummah "into factions which accused each other of disbelief".[12]
Mutazilah
At least one argument of (some of) the Mutazilah was based on the idea of naskh or abrogation of verses (a concept accepted by the four schools of Sunni fiqh)[13] and Q.2:106:
Any revelation We cause to be superseded or forgotten, We replace with something better or similar. Do you [Prophet] not know that God has power over everything?
(tr. Abdel Haleem)[14]
— Qur'an 2:106, [15]
The Mutazilah argued that if the Qur'an could be subjected to abrogation, with a new verse abrogating an earlier one, it could not be eternal.[16]
Implications
Malise Ruthven argues that believers in an uncreated Quran, and thus eternal and unchanging, also argued for predestination of the afterlife of mortals. The two ideas are associated with each other (according to Rwekaza Sympho Mukandala) because if there is predestination than God "in His omnipotence and omniscience must have willed and known about" events related in the Quran.[17]
Believers in a created Quran emphasize free will given to mortals who would be rewarded or punished according to what they chose in life on judgement day. Advocates of the "created" Quran emphasized the references to an `Arabic` Quran which occur in the divine text; noting that if the Quran was uncreated it was — like God — an eternal being. This gave it (they argued) a status similar to God, constituting a form of bi-theism and thus shirk.[18]
Remi Brague argues that while a created Quran may be interpreted "in the juridical sense of the word", an uncreated Quran can only be applied — the application being "susceptible only "to gramatical explication (tasfir) and mystical elucidation (ta'wil)".[19]
Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the Mihna (ordeal)[edit]
Main article: Mihna
Ahmad ibn Hanbal
In standing up for orthodoxy, Muslim scholar and muhaddith ibn Hanbal refused to engage in kalam during his interrogation. He was willing to “argue” only on the basis of the Qur’an or the traditions and their “literal” meaning.[20] While this distinction itself is difficult to make in practice, its value is in part rhetorical, for the assertion marks his orthodox identity as one who stands by the absolute authority of the sacred texts over-above those who make use of reason. The role of Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the mihna ordeal garnered significant attention in the later historiography of Islam. Walter Patton (in Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal and the Miḥna) presents him as a stalwart of orthodoxy, claimed that he did more than any other to strengthen the position of orthodoxy.[6]
The Mihna
Scholars do not agree on why caliph al-Ma’mun acted as he did. Walter Patton for instance, claims that while partisans might have made political capital out of the public adoption of the doctrine, al-Ma’mun’s intention was “primarily to effect a religious reform.” [21] Nawas on the other hand, argues that the doctrine of createdness was a “pseudo-issue,” insisting that its promulgation was unlikely an end in itself since the primary sources attached so little significance to its declaration.[22]

The test of the mihna was applied neither universally nor arbitrarily. In fact, the letter that Al-Ma’mun sent to his lieutenant in Baghdad instituting the mihna stipulated that the test be administered to qadis and traditionists (muhaddithin). Both of these groups regard hadith as central to Qur’anic interpretation and to matters of Islamic jurisprudence. In particular, the rhetorical force of muhaddithin acceptance of the doctrine is then to concede that either or both of the Qur’an and the hadith corpus attest to the doctrine, simultaneously validating the caliph’s theological position and legitimizing his claim to hermeneutical authority with regard to the sacred texts.[citation needed]

hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (October 2017)

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. (August 2017)

The significance of hadith
That the question of the createdness of the Qur’an is, among other things, a hermeneutical issue is reflected in the variety of arguments and issues that associate with it – whether the Qur’an or the traditions assert the Qur’an’s createdness, what “created” means, and whether and how this affects the standing of these texts as authoritative and as a consequence, the status of those who study them. Where the Qur’an is understood as the word of God, and the words and example of the Prophet transmitted through hadith also attain to divine significance, if the Qur’an cannot be taken to assert its own createdness, for the doctrine of createdness to be true the traditions would have to support it. Indeed, to admit the insufficiency of the hadith corpus to adjudicate what with the institution of the mihna becomes such a visible dispute would necessarily marginalize the authority of traditions. Thus it is not by accident that al-Ma’mun decides to administer the test on religious scholars.[citation needed]#fastitlinks.com