In Islamic theology, Quranic createdness is the doctrinal position that the Quran was created, rather than having always existed and thus being "uncreated".
One of the main areas of debate in Islamic theology was about God's attribute of kalam (lit. word, speech) revealing itself through wahy and it was a counterpart reflection of the logos (in Greek philosophy meaning 'aql or reason).[1] If the logos was accepted as part of "God's essence" or nature (then the Kalam was one of God's attributes), it was out of the question for it to be created. On the other hand, the word consists of human-made Arabic letters and words, and it was out of the question for these to be eternal.[2]
The dispute over which was true became a significant point of contention in early Islam. The Islamic rationalist philosophical school known as the Mu'tazilites held that if the Quran is God's word, logically God "must have preceded his own speech".[3] The Mu'tazilites and the Jahmites negated all attributes of God, thus believed that God could not speak, hence the Quran was not the literal word of God, but instead a complete metaphor of his will.[4] In the Muslim world, the opposite point of view — that the Quran is uncreated — is the accepted stance among the majority Muslims. Shia Muslims, on the other hand, argue for the createdness of the Quran.
The controversy over the doctrine in the Abbasid Caliphate came to a head during the reign of Caliph al-Ma'mun. In 827 CE, al-Ma'mun publicly adopted the doctrine of createdness, and six years later instituted an inquisition known as the mihna ("test, ordeal") to "ensure acquiescence in this doctrine".[5] The mihna continued during the reigns of Caliphs al-Mu'tasim and al-Wathiq, and during the early reign of al-Mutawakkil. Those who did not accept that the Qur’an is created were punished, imprisoned, or even killed.
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 released him and the Mu'tazila doctrine was silenced for a time. In the years thereafter in the Abbasid state, 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
12th century Almoravid jurist Qadi Iyad, citing the work of Malik ibn Anas, wrote:
Al-Islam.org, a website which collects Shia scholarly works, cites ibn Babawayh (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." Author Allamah Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi goes on to say that Sunni scholars' failure to make this distinction and insistence 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:
However, the site 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".[8]
The adherents of the Muʿtazili school, known as Muʿtazilites, are best known for rejecting the doctrine of the Quran as uncreated and co-eternal with God,[9] asserting that if the Quran is the word of God, he logically "must have preceded his own speech".[10]
Based on Q.2:106 some Muʿtazilah also argued that if the Quran could be subjected to abrogation, with a new verse abrogating an earlier one, it could not be eternal. Other Muʿtazilah however denied the theory of abrogation and did not believe any verse of the Quran was abrogated.[11]
Malise Ruthven argues that believers in an uncreated, and thus eternal and unchanging, Quran 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 (if all events including the afterlife of all humans has been willed by God) then God "in His omnipotence and omniscience must have willed and known about" events related in the Quran.[12]
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 or shirk.[13]
Rémi 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 grammatical explication (tasfir) and mystical elucidation (ta'wil)" — not interpreted.[14]
See main article: Mihna.
In standing up for his beliefs, Sunni scholar and muhaddith ibn Hanbal refused to engage in kalam during his interrogation. He was willing to argue only on the basis of the Quran or the traditions and their literal meaning.[15] While this distinction itself is difficult to make in practice, its value is in part rhetorical, for the assertion marks his 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 Sunni Islam. Walter Patton (in Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal and the Miḥna) presents him as a stalwart of belief, claimed that he did more than any other to strengthen the position of “orthodoxy”.[6]
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.” [16] 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.[17]
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 Quranic 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 Quran 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.
That the question of the createdness of the Quran is, among other things, a hermeneutical issue is reflected in the variety of arguments and issues that associate with it – whether the Quran or the traditions assert the Quran'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 Quran 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 Quran 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.
Book: Patton, Walter Melville . Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal and the Miḥna: A Biography of the Imâm including an Account of the Moḥammadan Inquisition Called the Miḥna: 218-234 A.H. . Leiden: E.J. Brill . 1897 . WMP1897.
"Most early Muslim references state that the first person to begin questioning the nature of God’s Attributes was a certain enigmatic Jaʿd b. Dirham (d.cir. 110/728). If these early sources are to be trusted, we learn that Jaʿd claimed, inter alia, that God could not ‘love’ Abraham nor did He ‘speak’ to Moses. Based on his denial of God’s ability to speak, he argued that the Qurʾān must actually be God’s speech in a metaphorical manner, and not actually God’s speech"