Quranic createdness

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 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".[12]

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,[13] asserting that if the Quran is the word of God, he logically "must have preceded his own speech".[14]

Based on Q.2:106 some Mutazilah 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 Mutazilah however denied the theory of abrogation and did not believe any verse of the Quran was abrogated.[15]

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.[16]

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.[17]

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 grammatical explication (tasfir) and mystical elucidation (ta'wil)" — not interpreted.[18]

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.[19] 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.” [20] 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.[21]

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.