Professional Documents
Culture Documents
scholar of Baghdad, was ordered to abandon his traditional Islamic beliefs about theology. When
he refused, he was tortured and imprisoned.
Ibn Hanbal was ordered to appear before the new caliph, al-Mutas im. He was on trial for three
days, and on the third day, after the learned men disputed with him, there followed a private
conference with the Caliph who asked Ibn Hanbal to yield at least a little so that he might grant
him his freedom. Ibn Hanbal made the same reply he had been making from the beginning of the
inquisition; he would yield when given some ground for modifying his faith derived from the
sources he regarded as authoritative, namely the Qurn and the Traditions of Muh ammad.
Losing patience, the Caliph ordered that he be taken away and flogged. Throughout the flogging
the Caliph persisted in his attempts to obtain a recantation, but to no avail. Ibn Hanbals
unflinching spirit was beginning to have its effect upon the Caliph; but the latters advisers
warned that if he desisted from punishing him, he would be accused of having opposed the
doctrine of his predecessor al-Mamn, and the victory of Ibn Hanbal would have dire
consequences on the reign of the caliphs. But the Caliphs treatment of Ibn Hanbal had to be
suspended, nevertheless, because of the mounting anger of the populace gathering outside the
palace and preparing to attack it. Ibn Hanbal is reported to have been beaten by 150 floggers,
each in turn striking him twice and moving aside. The scars from his wounds remained with him
to the end of his life.
His treatment at the hands of the political authority was extremely severe. People who witnessed
the torture commented that even an elephant could not have handled the treatment that Imam
Ahmad was subject to. This may be an exaggeration yet it sheweth that he was tortured extra
ordinarily.
Finally Al Mutavakkil[822-861] changed every thing and suffering of Imam were fainally over.
Al Mutavakkil was finally killed not beyond the doubt of Mutazilah involvement. But days of
Mutazilahs injustice and unjustpower were over once for all times by the grace of Deity.
Despite all of this, Imam Ahmad held to traditional Islamic beliefs, and thus served as an
inspiration for Muslims throughout the empire. His trials set the precedent that Ahlussunnah
doeth not give up their beliefs regardless what the political authority imposeth on them. In the
end, Imam Ahmad outlived al-Mamun and his successors until the Caliph al-Mutawakkil
ascended in 847 and ended the Mihna. Imam Ahmad was again free to teach the people of
Baghdad and write. During this time, he wrote his famous Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a
collection of hadith that served as the basis of his school of legal thought, the Hanbali Madhab.
2
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal died on the of Friday in Rabi ul Awwal 241 A.H [855AC] at the Lunar
age 77, after a period of illness which lasted nine days. The news of the Imams death soon
spread and after Jumuah more than 850,000 people performed his janazah prayer with the rows
formed in the city, streets, bazaars and even on boats on the river Tigris. Even the non-Muslims
mourned the passing away of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
His works :=
Amongst his publications, the more famous are Kitab ul Musnad (based upon 30,000 ahadith),
Kitab ul Tafseer, Kitab us Salaah, Kitab us Sunnah, Kitab un Nasikh and Mansukh and others.
Imam Ahmad passed away in Baghdad in 855. His legacy was not restricted to the school of fiqh
that he founded, nor the huge amount of hadith he compiled. Unlike the other three imams, he
had a vital role in preserving the sanctity of Islamic beliefs in the face of intense political
persecution. Although the Hanbali Madhab has historically been the smallest of the four,
numerous great Muslim scholars throughout history were greatly influenced by Imam Ahmad
and his thoughts, including Abdul Qadir al-Gilani, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Kathir,
and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
Non Hanbali schools of Fiqh like Malikiah, Hanfiah and Shafiah hold him with great respect,
Non Hanbali schools Of Sunni theology Ashairah and Maturidiah equally respect him.
Zahirite and Salfite also repect him. Not to mension Hanabalah asserteth him as their Only Imam
.Thus he is the Ultimate Hero of all Sects Of Ahlussunnah in particular and Islam in general.
Hanbal believed that Divine Attribute are Uncreated. As Quran is a Speech Of Deity, and Speech
Of Deity is an Uncreated Attribute Of Deity , it is Uncreated.
3
Divine Attributes may differ in some of their Characteristics but their basic Nature is same that is
they are Uncreated.
According to Him it is not proper to say Deity AND His Attributes but it is proper to say Deity
BY \ WITH His Attributes. The word AND may cause a confusion that a Divine Attributes is an
Independent Existents or Per Se Subsistent Existent.According to Him they are Included in the
Subject of Deity. This is explained as DIVINE ATTRIBUTES Do Subsist in Divine Self.
A QUESTION:=
It Is reported in some weak traditions that Imam Ah:mad Bin H:anbal initially held the view that
Quran is neither Created nor Uncreated. Latter His view became that Quran Is Uncreated.
First of all it is Historically certain that His final belief was that Quran is UNCREATED.
The question is whether the final view was first and the last view or his first view was some what
different. Asharite and Maturidites hold the position that as such reports are weak and narrated
from unreliable chain of reporters there fore they are unacceptable. They believe that Imam held
a single view through out his life with out any shadow of doubt.
But a beautiful explanation of these traditions also exist side by side which is given below.
The Word Quran is used for two Subjects.1]Speech Of Deity which is an Attribute Of Deity
Himself. 2] Recitation Of Quran by humans or Writing of Quran in Copies.
Initially there was a problem. To say Quran is Uncreated makes an ambiguity that even Copies
and Human Recitation Of Quran is Uncreated.
To say Quran is Created means even the Divine Attribute Of Speech Is Created.
So Imam opined that one must remain scilent.He should neither say Created nor say Uncreated.
But latter it was evident that Mutazilahs believe that Quran as a Divine Attribute is Created.
Some even went beyond this and denied that Quran is a Divine Attribute. According to them
Quran is not a Divine Attribute but a Divine Act. The differences between an Attibute and an Act
or a Quality and a Doing or a Work is very Obvious in Islamology [Islamic Theological
Systems].
As it was definitized by Mutazilah that they are discussing the Divine Attribute and not Human
recitation etc. Imam Hath no option but to state that Quran is Uncreated , explicitly.
4
But some scholars did believe that Quran is made but Uncreated or neither Created nor
Uncreated.
These are weak opinions and cannot be ascribed to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal.
FIRST
The word thing is used in many different meanings. Jahiz failed to notice the
fallacy of Ambiguity in the argument of Abu Davud.
The word may be used in several the meaning:=
1] Existing Essence .2] Possible Essence. 3] Independent Being.4] Existing
Attributes.5]In the meaning of One That Exist whether it be an Existing
Essence or an Existing Attribute. 6] In the meaning of a Non Existent or an
Existent, or One that can be Known.
7] An Existing Essence with all Its Attributes. An Existing One that is the
union of essence and all its existing attributes. An Existing Essence With All
Its Existing Attributes is a Single Thing.
5
recognize this sort of argument. Any thing invalid or fallacious is not recognizable .So this is the way of
traditionists to say I do not know it , instead of it is wrong , when ever they find a flaw or detect a fallacy.
2] If I mam Ahmad Bin Hanbal did find shift in the meaning of the word Shai he would have made the objection
that there is a shift of meaning from sentence 1 to sentence 2.
A Possible Answer.
It must be noted that Abu Davud did not presented the entire argument at a time, rather in parts, and after each part
was completed he waited for the response of Imam. It may be the case that Imam thought that these are independent
sentences and and Abu Davud is trying to state some agreed upon articles of faith, and he would latter discuss on
them use them. On the contrary Abu Davud was presenting the conundrum in parts.
If they were independent sentences and not parts of a single fallacious argument or fallacious conundrum then the
meaning of the word Shai in each sentence was to be determined from the intrinsic nature or intrinsic implication of
each sentence, independent from the other sentences. Thus Imam did not make any objection since there is nothing
in Arabic language which prohabiteth such a use of a word. But as soon as Abu Davud converted it into a fallacious
argument , Imam responded that I do not recognize it, i.e I do not recognize it as a valid argument.
NOTE:= If the word Shai is not present in the/a text for a single time , even then this word may be supposed to be
virtually present,either in the same meaning or in different meanings.
An argument commiteth the fallacy of equivocation if the central word of the argument is used in different
meanings. So Abu Davud [Duad] commited this fallacy in the stated above argument. But if it is accepted that Abu
Davud took it in one meaning and Imam Ahmad took it in an other meaning , in this case it was the responsibility of
Abu Davud to definitize the meaning of the word Shai and then to present the entire argument . Then he would have
the right to ask for an answer.
But he did not.
Second:
Neither Imam responded as reported by Jahiz nor Abu Davud presented it in
parts.
Luckily there are other reports from reliable sources which clearly shew that
either Jahiz had himself fabricated reports or he received fabricated reports
which we wrote in his work.
Imam himself reported the entire debate as follow:=
The said to me:= Is every Thing other than Deity a Created Thing.
So I responded to them, Every thing other than Deity is a Created Thing,
but Qura:n is His Speech and Not Created.
He said to Caliph, These people have no ability to distinguish one thing
from another, any capability for clear expression.
In this report Iman did anticipated and responded in advance that Divine Speech has an
Exception. This answer clearly shews that Imam took the word Shai [Thing] in the seventh
meaning , in which a Thing is an Existent Which doeth include the Existing Essence with All Its
Existing Attributes.
1] So If Deity is the Only Eternal Thing in this meaning ,All his Divine Attributes are Included
In His Essence or Self such that No Attribute is distinguished from the Essence. So the word
may be taken in several meanings. An Existing Attribute is not a thing if the word thing
means := {a} An Existing Essence with All Existing Attributes. {b} An Existing Essence With
Out Any Existing Attribute [even if they Exist in It]. {c} An Existing Essence with All Its
Existing Attributes or An Existing Essence WithOut any Existing Attributes. An Exising
Attribute is a Thing in the meaning One That Existeth. So in some meaning Existing
Attributes of an Existing Essence are things, and in some meaning existing Attributes of an
7 ambiguities not just onin regard to the word
existing essence are not Things. So there are several
thing. An Existing Attribute is not a Nothing if the word thing in the word No-Thing means One
That Existeth or an Existent, since in this case the word Nothing[Not Thing] meaneth Non
Existence.
2] According to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal Divine Essence is Communicable to Divine
Attributes and each one of the Divine Attribute is Communicable to the Divine Essence. They
are Not Absolutely Identical yet not Distinguished. For Example Divine Omniscience cannot be
distinguished from Deity or Divine Essence. The same is true for Divine Vita [Life] , Divine
Omnipotence or Divine Speech or Divinity.
To separate or to distinguish Divine Attributes from Deity is to reduce Deity into Infinitely
Imperfect Existent. That is the reason Imam Ahmad him reports about himself that he replied the
following reply:=
These people has no capability for distinguishing one thing from another nor capacity for clear
expression. This does shew two things:=
1] Imam is criticizing the fallacy of ambiguity in their conundrum.
2]Imam is criticizing that those people are attempting to distinguish the Undistinguishable, and
this is a fallacy which these attempters are unable to sense.
This is strictly according to Imams believe about Divine Attributes that they cannot be
distinguished from Divine Essence [ Deity].
Once again coming back to word thing an Existing Attribute is not a thing if the word thing
means := {a} An Existing Essence with All Existing Attributes. {b} An Existing Essence With
Out Any Existing Attribute [even if they Exist in It].
{c} An Existing Essence with All Its Existing Attributes or An Existing Essence WithOut any
Existing Attributes. An Exising Attribute is a Thing in the meaning One That Existeth. So in
some meaning Existing Attributes of an Existing Essence are things, and in some meaning
existing Attributes of an existing essence are not Things. So there are several ambiguities not just
one.
Al Jahiz himself reports that Imam said:=
The Speech of Deity is like His Knowledge Omniscience: As it is Absurd to
accept that His Omniscience Is Created, so it is similarly Absurd to accept that His Speech Is Created.
This doeth shew that Even Mutazilahs did not distinguish between Divine Omniscience and Divine Essence or
Deity.But they made an other opinion for Divine Speech. This was unacceptable to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal.
What Mutazilahs believed for some [ few ] Attributes Imam Ahmad believed for All Attributes.
If there is some truth in the reports and traditions of Al Jahiz this is one of them.
In All Attribute Of Deity Other than Divine Omniscience is just like Divine Omniscience.
Now if it is Eternal and Uncreated then Divine then Divine Speech is also Eternal on Islamic Axiom.
One may ask Abu Davud whether Divine Omniscience is Created or Not. If it is then this is certainly a Cufr as
Islamic Axiom asserts Omniscience Of Deity. If It is UnCreated then It Is Eternal.
If It is Eternal then either It Is Identical To Divine Essence [Deity] or Not. If it is then the same can be said for
Divine Speech. If It Is Not then This Implies plurality of Eternals. In this case the Mutazilahs Axiom of Only One
Eternal is contradicted. Imam Ahmad could response Abu Davud in number of ways but he only tried two things.
1]He tried to shew that if an argument is Neither from the text Of Quran nor from the Traditions Of Prophet then it is
invalid. He used to say I Know It Not.[ OR I am not a [Mutazili Theologian].
2]When ever he detected a fallacy or a flaw in an argument he used to say:= I Know It Not or I am not a
theologian .If he said I am not a theologian it also implieth I Know It Not. Since he presumed that only a
[Mutazili ] theologian is accustomed to design such types of [fallacious] arguments.
These two things doeth shew that whether Imam Ahmad knew Mutazilian theology or not, whether he knew
Philosophy or not he doeth know sufficient logic to response properly and to detect fallacy in an argument.The only
difference was that as he was a Muhaddis [Traditionist] he did not response as there is a flaw in thy argument but
in a very sophisticated way he meekly used to say I Know
8 It Not.
3]It may also be noted that Al Jahiz has reported incorrectly. Imam Himself reporteth that he had anticipated the
fallacy and it is not the case that he said only yes after listening the first sentence from the opponent. This is a very
important point. It must also be noted that Imam did not say I am not a theologian at this stage.
It is so accurate that one can presume that Al Jahiz is either deliberately distorting the truth or he is reporting
inaccurately since he was not an expert reporter.
THIRD
In latter period Mutazilah began to claim that even non existents are affirmed things. An affirmation is a state
between Existence and Non Existence. So according to latter Mutazilah Non Existents are Affirmed even in
Nothingness. And they are things,S o the themselves provided an other option for the meaning of the word thing,
They them selves began to claim that the essences of possible are uncreated things even in their non existence and
are Affirmed [ A state between existence and non existence which is Thubu: Al Maduma:t].
If it is said that Divine Attributes are Uncreated and Affirmed, the entire Mutazilah argument falls once for all.
If affirmed and associated With Deity then there is no objection possible. The greatest objection of Mutazilite
theologians on the Eternity Of Quran was that It implies plurality of Eternal Existents. But if Divine Attributes are
taken as Affirmed Ones then plurality of Eternal Existents is not implied.
At any rate if Non Existents Possibles are Eternally Affirmed then Deity is not the Only Eternal Thing.
Deity may be the only Eternal Existent but not the only Eternal Thing [ Ash-Shai, pl Ash-ya:]. If so then to
assume on same grounds that Divine Speech or any other Divine Attribute is an Eterrnal Thing doeth not creat a
problem for them. One may wonder what would have been the response of Mamun or Qadi Abu Davud if he had
ever heard of these views in their own circle.
One may also wonder why these Mutazilis like Jabai etc. did not begin to accept Divine Attributes as in the state of
Affirmation instead of in the states of Existence and non existence.
Forth
One may see that the word Thing is not used in the meaning of Existents.
It is often said that:
OMNIPOTENCE OF DEITY IS OVER EVERY THING
But It is well known that Deity Himself is a thing.
So one may use a syllogism to shew that OMNIPOTENCE OF DEITY IS OVER HIMSELF.
The syllogism:
Omnipotence Of Deity Is Over Every Thing. [Major Premise]
Deity Is A Thing, [Minor Premise]
There Fore : Omnipotence Of Deity is Over Himself.[Result]
But this result is purely Un- Islamic. Since it is an Islamic Axiom even accepted to Mutazilah that Omnipotence Of
Deity Is Not On the Very Deity Himself.
The fallacy in this syllogism is that the meaning of the word Thing in Major Premise is different from the meaning
of the word Thing in the Minor Premise. So this syllogism reduces into a fallacy.
Consider that Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal had faced this syllogism . What would be his response to a person who
would have used this syllogism in a debate with Imam.
Imam would not have pointed at the fallacy ,by saying that the word Shai [Thing ] is used in two different
meanings in Major and Minor Primises. He would have simply either said I Know It Not or He would have simply
said that Omnipotence Of Deity is Over every thing but neither on Divine Essence no on Divine Attributes
[Including Divine Omniscience ItSelf ] and also not on Absurdities. He would have stopped here. He would have
considered that he has refuted the argument once for all.
As it is obvious that at most he would have sensed that the meanings in the syllogism are not the same through out
the syllogism but he would not have bothered to know the meanings which are responsible to make the syllogism a
fallacy. He would have said I Know It Not or I am not a theologian.
If the meaning of the word Thing is conserved as it is in the conundrum of Qadi Abu Davud then Mutazilah are to
face a very strange problem about Divine Knowledge [Omniscience Of Deity].
If there are only two types of things:= 1] Eternal ,2] Creation, then No Created thing is Eternal.
Since the Or is Exclusive and it is impossible for a created thing to be Eternal and an Eternal thing to be Created.
If no created thing is Eternal then Deity Only Knew HimSelf in Eternity and did not Know any thing other than
Himself In Eternity.Since any thing other than Deity is not Eternal.
10
So if there is no thing except Deity In Eternity and Deity is the Only Eternal Thing then there is no other thing in
Eternity. If Divine Knowledge is Eternal then there is only one thing in Divine Knowledge, and that is Deity
Himself then Deity Did not know All the Things which were latter Created By Him with out their Knowledge in
Eternity So Deity ceaseth to be Omniscient in Eternity.Also Deity doeth not Know all the Things in Eternity [which
he did know after their creation].
This is a very powerful argument and can make Mutazilah defenceless . It is clear if Quran is a created thing then
Quran is not Eternal, If Quran is not Eternal then it is not an Eternal Thing,and if Not an Eternal Thing then not a
thing in Eternity, If not a thing in Eternity then Not Known to Deity in Eternally and not Eternally Known to Deity
or both.
And if Not Known to Deity In Eternally then Deitys Knowledge is Creation or Temporal or Both. A opinion held by
Qadriyah and Jahmiyah alike. But Mutazilah did not hold this belief. It may be noted that a similar argument was
latter used by Ismailiah to deney Divine Attributes. According to them if Omnipotence Of Deity is Eternal then it
Implies than objects of Omnipotence must also be Eternal since if there is no thing Eternally in Omnipotence then
Omnipotence ceaseth to be Omnipotence So there are three types of things in Eternity. A] Deity. B]Omnipotence
[Divine Absolute Power].C] Things in Divine Omnipotence or things over which Omnipotence is Eternally.
Similarly the same is true for Divine Omniscience [Absolute Divine Knowledge]
But Ismailiah believed in only one Eternal they denied all the Divine Attributes. According to this type of reasoning
Divine Attributes cannot be even Identical. So they believed that active nouns like knower [Omniscient] or
powerful[Omnipotent] etc .are only in metaphorical meanings. .
If the meaning of the word thing is conserved as stated above then then the Deity Did not
Eternally Know All the things he created and this imlieth that Deity is not Eternally
Omniscient. Similarly Deity Did not have Power [Omnipotence] Eternally, over all those
things which He Created .This implieth that Deity is not Eternally Omnipotent. If Deity Did
not have Power [Omnipotence] over any thing in Eternity then it becomes impossible to
create any thing than is not Eternal. So Deity cannot Create a single created thing. Since it
requires Eternal Power /Omnipotence to be over it. But Eternal Power/Omnipotence is over
nothing.Sinceno created thing is Eternal.
11
Not Eternal because that would violate the the Axiom"Only Deity Is Eternal". .
These two things are neither Separate nor Separable, the same is true in the Case
of Divine Speech and Deity. Divine Speech is not separate nor seperable from Deity.
In may be repeated that Deity is the ONLY Eternal Existent in the meaning of
Suppsitum [ An Existing Essence With All Its Existing Attributes] and not in the
meaning of an Existing Essence With Out any Attribute].
Divine Attributes of Perfection Subsist In Divine Essence and are not Separate from the Deity
[Not Other Than Deity]. Yet they Subsist in Deity but none of them is the One In Which it
Subsisteth, It is Not the very Deity It Self. This is neither the Deity nor Separate from Deity.
No Perfection, can be Attributed to any Per Se Subsistent Existent unless an
attribute of that Perfection is CONCIEVED ,as being possessed by the Per Se
Subsistent, Contained and Subsisted in the Per Se Subsistent. One that
Subsisteth in a Per Se Subsistent cannot be Separate from [i.e cannot be
Other Than] the Per Se Subsisntent. Even if it is considered as the Per Se
Subsistent it cannot be other than the Per Se Subsistent.
It must be noted that at the time Imam faced the Mutazili Argument in
the trial stated above , he did know it priorly.
This means that he had faced this argument before when he was in prison
and his trial had not begun yet. How ever Al Jahiz who was probably
unaware of these debates in prison , invented that Imam only replied that
he was not a [Mutazili] theologian.
FIFTH:-
SIXTH
11
12
SEVENTH
Mutazilahs were never the men of the field of reports. So it is almost
certain that the reports of trial of Hanbal in the work of Jahiz are
fabricationds. There is no proof from reliable sources that Jahiz was present
physically in the debates between Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal and Qadi Abu
Davud. So is must be reporting through and unknown reporter if not
fabricating them.
Even the weak reports of the traditionists are relatively strong than the
strongest Mutazilahs reports. Since former keep and state the sources weak
or strong, but the reports of latter are sourceless. Scholars like J Van Ess have
tried to make every ting topsyturvy , He opines that reports and traditions of
Traditonists circle are fabrications and traditions of anti traditionist cercles
are genuine , in general and the book of Al Jahiz in particular. But this cannot
be accepted. He accepts the non canonical traditions and reports and rejects
the canonical traditions and reports. A detail discussion on Vans opinion is
beyond the scope of this work. So he is not discussed in detail.
EIGHTH
This does shew that Quran is not OTHER THAN DEITY as according to Imam Ahamd
Bin Hanbal. That is why he asked the Mutasim that these Mutazilah are not
capable to distinguish. Surely Qadi Abu Davud had supposed that Imam beleaveth
that Quran is other than Deity. Same is true for Al Jahiz. This does shew that both
of the two were ignorant of Imams View about Divine Attributes and their
relation With Divine Essence [Deity].
12
13
Ninth
Mutazilahs them selves believed that Human Voluntary Acts are with out a
Creator. The called human beings as Inventor and not as Creater of them.
So in their opinion these acts had no Creator. Neither Deity was their Creator
not Human Beings were their Creators.
It was much latter when Jabai faced the problem about their Creator. He
began to claim that human beings are their creators. This was immediately
became popular in Mutazilite circles.
But in the time of Abu Davud they did not believe that humans are their
creators. If they had no creator then they were uncreated. Thus they were
neither Eternal nor Created but temporal.
This was the reason Ibn Bakka Al Asghar claimed that Quran is Nither Eternal
Nor Created but invented / made. He did not faced those problems which
were faced by Imam Ahmad.
If acts of rational supposita like human ,jinn and angelic beings are neither
created nor eternal according to the Mutazilahs of this period of time then
the same could be argued for the Acts and Nouns of Deity, that they were
neither Created nor Eternal but temporal [and made].
Abu Davud could be responsed as follow:=
Thou thyself do not believe that either a thing is Eternal or Created. Since
thou thy self do st not believe that:= A human act is either Created or
Eternal. This implieth that the acts of human beings are neither Created
Nor Eternal , since thou neither believeth human acts are Created nor
believeth they are Eternal, thy argument in invalid in theological system. So
on what grounds thou presentest this principle against thy opponents?
Imam Ali Bin Ismai:l Ashari in his work MAQA:LA:T AL ISLAMIYI:N reports
about two theologians who believed that Quran is Neither Created Nor
Eternal.
1] Z-hair Al Asari. He believed that Quran is Temporal [H:adis] but neither
Eternal Nor Created.
2] Abu M-a:z Tu:mni. He believed Qura:n is neither Eternal nor Creation
and additionally not
Temporal, but Temporalizing [H:adas].
Inspite of the differences between the two they did agree that Qura:n Is
Neither Created[Makhlu:q] Nor Eternal[Qadi:m]. This common believe may
be generalized to each and every Divine Act or Doing. That is Divine Acts are
Neither Created nor Eternal but Divine Attributes or Qualities are Eternal and
UnCreated. This does shew that if this position was held the Mutazilah of the
said period would have accepted it in some sense, How ever Post Jabai
Mutazilah might havenot accepted this type of solution. Since they did
believed that acts of rational supposita are Creations of their respective
supposita but not of Deity. In this case how ever Divine acts would have been
the Creation Of Deity. But in the time of Imam this would have silenced Abu
Davud and his supporters once for all.
13
14
It is ascribed to some Salfites that they also believe that Quran is Neither
Created nor Eternal but temporal [and made]. It is further reported that they
believe that Divine Essence is a locus [M-H:-L] TEMPORALS [Hadis pl
Havadis].But majority of Ahlussunnah believe that this Per Se Absurd. It is
clear that Mamun was more interested to force others in believeing that
Quran is Not Eternal then Quran is Created.
They have agreed with one voice and have asserted unequivocally that it is
eternal and primordial, not created nor originated nor invented in any way by God. Yet God has
(al-Tabari) .
In this part Mamun also comments on not originated, not invented (not made) as well . But when he found
that Ibn Bakka Akbar [Asghar?] believes that Quran is neither Eternal nor Created but Originated, invented
or made, he did not call him for a trial.
Ibn Bakka believed that Quran is made but not created.
This shews that their problem was the belief Quran is Eternal and Uncreated but not the belief Quran is
neither eternal nor created but made and temporal/originated.
This does shew that the argument of Abu Davud as reported by Al Jahiz and Imam Ahmad , was weak on
Mutazili grounds.
TEN
The number or plurality of Existing Things depends upon the number or plurality of Existing Essences.
So If there are Existing Essences then there are Things . So in this case if there is Only One Existing
Essence then there is Only One Thing. The number or plurality of Things doeth not depend upon the number
or plurality of Existing Attributes, irrespective of the opinion whether an Existing Attribute is termed as a
Thing or Not . So in this case If it is said that the Deity is the Only Eternal Thing , it meaneth that the Existing
Attributes Of the Deity are not considered in counting the number of Eternal Existents.
Existence of a thing is primary associated with the Essence of the thing.So plurality of things directly
dependeth on plurality of Essences and not upon the Attributes or Accidents of the thing to which the
Existence stated above is associated through the Essence stated above.
ELEVEN
A]The argument can be used other wise.
This may be seen as below:=
1]Either a thing is Created or Eternal [Major Premise]
Quran is a Thing [Minor Premise]
There Fore : Quran is Either Created Or Eternal.[Result]
2]Quran is Either Created or Eternal [Major Premise]
Quran is not Created.[Minor Primise]
There Fore: Quran Is Eternal [Result]
3] Deity is the Only Eternal.
Quran is Eternal.
There fore : Quran is Deity.
Now Qad;I Abu Davud had no thing against this argument. So his argument is incomplete . Qadi had to shew
that Quran is other than Deity. If he did not presented it , his argument is incomplete.
B] ARGUMENT OF ABU DAVUD CAN BE USED BY JAHMITES TO PROVE THAT DIVINE
KNOWLEDGE IS A CREATION.
Suppose that there is a debate between a Jahmite and Qad:I Abu Davud on the issue whether Divine
Knowledge is Created and Temporal or Eternal.
Let it be supposed that they had a dialogue as given below:=
Jahmite:="Is it true that a thing must be either created or uncreated?"
Qadi Abu Davud:="Yes."
Jahmite"And the Divine Knowledge is a thing?"
Qad:iAbu Davud:="Yes."
Jahmite :="Is it true that only Deity Is Uncreated?"
14
15
TWELVE
1]Qadi Abu David is not asking about the human recitation of Quran or copies of Quran. He is asking about
the Divine Speech which is an Attribute Of Deity. He argued that verses of Quran can be withdrawn or
replaced by Deity. It may be pointed out that it is Impossible for a thing to be replaced in the Divine
Knowledge . Similarly it is Impossible for any thing that is in Knowledge Of Deity that it can be withdrawn
from It. So if Qadi Abu Davud is about the Divine Knowledge or Quran in the Divine Knowledge, or Quran
as a Divine Attribute and not as An Act of Human Recitation, then he contradicts himself. When some one
recites Quran no one says that Deity Is Himself Speaking. So the entire discussion was about the Attribute Of
Deity ,and as every Attribute Of Deity is in the Divine Knowledge they cannot be withdrawn or replaced or
abrogated from Divine Knowledege.
So Qadi Abu Davud did shift the subject of debate .
2] Consider a counter argument.
SYLLOGISM..1:=
ALL ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY IS ETERNAL [MAJOR PREMISE ]
QURA:N IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. [MINOR PREMISE]
QURA:N IS ETERNAL [RESULT].
Now the Minor premise of syllogism--------1 is proved as follow:
SYLLOGISM--------------------------2
QURA:N IS THE DIVINE SPEECH [Ma.P].
THE DIVINE SPEECH IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY.[Mi.P].
QURAN IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY [RESULT].
3] One may ask Abu Duad the following question:=
Is Divine Omniscience a thing or not a thing?
4] One may see that if Divine Omniscience is considered as Deity then the Divine Speech can also be
considered as Deity.
15
16
Imam Ah:mad accepted this statement but rejected the argumentation of Mutazilah in the trial. So this means that Imam did
reject Mutazili reasonings and argumentations but not the very selves of reasonings and argumentations.
So this also proves that Imams was misquoted and misinterpreted by Al Jahiz.
Fifth:= I am not a [Mutazili] theologian may be understood as I Know It Not . In the context it may mean that if I was a
Mutazili I would have responded to this type of fallacy.
16
17
But Mutazilah themselves cannot take the tradition literally since fasting is an Accident but not a Substance. So it is
impossible for an accident to talk as such, Similarly the word Quran must be taken in the sense of Human Recitation
which is the act of a human being and not the Divine Attribute. So this tradition is silent over the controversy . It
must be recalled that the controversy was not te creation of Human Acts but over the Divine Attributes.
SECOND
Speech Of Deity may have some characteristics uncommon to Other Divine Attributes and unshaired by Other
Divine Attributes, such as in certain cases the Divine Attribute Of Speech may be read , may be copied in some
letters, words,sentences ,expressions by Rational Created Supposita say human beings etc. Ssimilarly it is the case
with the Naskh stated above in the valid meaning. But there cannot be any Characteristic Of Any Divine Attribute
which contradicteth its Uncreativity or Eternity or both. 17
18
So this argument reported in the tradition of Al Jahiz is not valid in the Theological System O f Imam Ah:mad Bin
H:anbal , even if it is valid in Mutazili System of Theology.
If two Theological System differ from one another then their respective sets of Axioms also differ from one another,
At best they may not be distinct sets but over lapping different sets with some Axioms common and some not
common and at worst they may be distinct with no Axiom common. In such cases a valid argument or a valid proof
in one theological system may not be valid in other theological systems. Muslim theologians, philosophers, logicians
and debaters did know that in a debate or a discussion it is necessary to agree upon some common principles or
postulates prior to the beginning of a debate or a discussion. If Abu Davud [Abu Dua:d] did want to present an
argument against Imam Ahmad Bin H:anbal, first he would have to discuss the common principles, terms and
postulates before presenting some arguments or proofs for his claim, and then he would have proposed a set of
common principles etc., common to both systems and agreed by both parties. But he did not do so. This violates the
laws and principles of argumentations.
Anyhow the specific characteristics of Divine Attribute Of Speech pointed by Abu Davud according to the report
in the book of Al Jahiz doeth not break the argument or proof Of Imam Ah:mad Bin H:anbal. It is a common agreed
upon principle in the laws of argumentation that one cannot try to proof or to argue using a principle or a postulate
which the opponent doeth not accept.
CONCLUSION:=
The Characteristics Of Divine Speech in the valid meanings or definition which are not the Characteristics of
Divine Knowledge. But these specific characteristicsof Divine Speech which are unshared by Divine
Omniscience /Knowledge cannot prove that Divine Speech is a Creation, atleast in the System Of Imam Ahmad
Bin Hanbal. In general Differences in Characteristics of some Attributes of Deity cannot be a proof that their basic
nature of Uncreatedness or Uncreativity is different.
For example Omniscience Of Deity is Upon Necessaries, Possibles and Absurds but Omnipotence of Deity is only
Upon Possibles. Such a difference of Characteristics of the two Divine Atrributes cannot prove any one of the two
stated above Divine Attributes is a Creation. This proves with certainty that Imam Ahmad not only proved his claim
but also no Mutazili was able to refute the argument of Imam. All they could do was:A] To commit the fallacy of Ambiguity and they did it.
B] To attempt to prove a proof with a proof or an argument or both which was [were] valid in accordance to the
principles ofMutazili system bit invalid according to the principles of Imam Ah:mad bin H:anbals system.
Al Jahiz reports that Qadi Abu Davud[Duad] asked Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal:=
"Is it not true that God can substitute one verse for another, or withdraw this Quran and put another in its place,
seeing that all this is plainly written in the Quran?"
According to Jahiz Imam said ,Yes
Al Jahiz then reprts that Qadi Abu Davud then asked:
. " Is the same thing possible with Divine Knowledge? Can Deity amend it, or put another in its place?"
18
19
20
Al Jahhiz reports that Imam Ahmad copulated when he was scourged in thirties.
Our friend said, "Mental reservation (taqiyyah) is permissible only when a Muslim is
in infidel territory." If his statements about the creation of the Quran are the result
of his using mental reservation, then he has practised it in the territory of Islam, and
has been dishonest with himself.himself.Conversely, if what he says is what he really
thinks, then you no longer have anything in common with him, and he is not one of
you.
21
It may involve some high politics as well.Since Hanbal did hold a very special position among Traditionalist
scholars.
B]The argument of Van Ess may be refuted by an other equally powerful or more powerful argument, which is given
below:=
If Imam Ah:mad Bin H:anbal had copulated then his copulation would have been officially announced and
publicized by the regime. If no thing of them did occur then he did not copulate.
One must not have received this report from the only person Al Jahiz but it would be received from several sources
of different sects and cults of his time. If Al Jahiz had not reported this in his book no one would have known it.
Latter works which reports this event are more unreliable and probably evolutions of Al Jahizs report in different
directions.
SECOND
It must be noted that this objection if assumed to be correct converts into a
legal debate. The question is what Imam believe about one who denied the
Uncreativity Of Quran.
According to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, one who believes that Quran is a
Creation , he contradicteth the basic article of faith of the creedis of
Traditionalists [traditionists] , that Quran is UnCreated. One who denieth or
contradicteth this axiom of the orthodox system is an unbelievers. So it is
implied that both the
Abbasid Monarchs i.e Mamu:n and Mutas:im were unbelievers as according
to him.
So in-spite of the fact that the territory was a Muslim Majority area it was
ruled by Heretic Monarchs who were unbelievers due to their belief on the
Createdness Of Quran as according to Imam Ahmad BinbHanbal. So all the
Muslims were living in an infidel territory. There fore if it is assumed that
Imam did use a mental reservation he did not practice it in the Territory Of
Islam but in the Territory Of Infedels.
So the entire argument of Al Jahiz fails on this point if the story of copulation
is assumed to be true, but the historicity of the story of copulation is doubtful
, and not beyond the doubt of fabrication or concoction .D
21
22
THIRD
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal is a great Faqih [Legalist]. He is the founder of his own
school of Fiqh. He doeth not follow any one of his predecessors i.e Imam Malick,
Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam ShafaI and differeth from them on several
occasions. So it may be the case that he may differ from Mutazili opinion on the
issue of mental reservations its conditions of validity etc. Al Jahiz is not a reliable
source of the statements of Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal. Entire Fiqh Hanab-lah is
known to us and is convey to generations after generations from most authentic
and autherative sources. So it is required to prove what Al Jahiz said from
autherative Hanbali sources.
FORTH:
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal may have changed his opinion and the opinion reported
by Al Jahiz might be the first one. It is not a new thing. Imam Shai is reported to
change his opinions about different Fiqhi issues. So it may be the case that Imam
Ahmad Bin Hanbal hath two opinions. One of them is prior to the other. Al Jahiz
might not have received the posterior opinion.
SOME RELATED PROBLEMS
FIRST RELATED PROBLEM:=
The prefect of the Caliph is reported to have present the following argument:=
Does Deity not say, We have made it an Arabic Qur_an (43: 3)? If He made it, didnt he
create it? Ibn Hanbal replied, Hemade them like a field of chaff (105: 5), in which the
same verb (ja_ala) clearly means to make into, not to create. Unable to answer the
argument, the prefect sent Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal to the caliph al-Mu_tasim.
SOME COMMENTS:=
23
So if they had this right then they had no right to compel others not to
interpret where they do not. Others may interpret the word Making.
Mutazilah do interpret Texts of Qura:n and Ah:adis when ever their
theological system requires an interpretation. So they cannot bound others
from doing so when Non Mutazili Systems also require some interpretations.
Now the question that even if the word Making does not mean Creation
any thing made is a Creation as according to the Axiom of Majority O
Sunnis,so one may ask about the interpretation of this word that it does no
implieth to be a creation. A simple response to this enquiry is that the
interpretation of some verses of Qura:n is Only Known to Deity.
This verse belongeth to the set of those verses. So it is not necessary for us
to know the proper Interpretation , but just to know that there is an
interpretation only known to Deity and the word making doeth not mean
creation.
FIRST:=
Murtada is not a reliable reporter and he does not refer to the source from where he is copying . He does not
narrate the nouns of the reporters in the chain of reporters. So this is not a reliable report.
SECOND:=
This response is weak since it assumes that the belief that Quran is uncreated is wrong. The case may be
otherwise.
So this alleged response is based on an unproved assumption. Some what close to beg the question.
It may be the case that it was not discussed by them since no one held the incorrect view of Createdness of
Quran. So this response is incorrect.
THIRD:
This response can only be used for the fundamental Axioms Of Islam like Deity Is Eternal and Un-Created.
But Mutazilah tried to use it in favour of their belief that Quran is Created. That is the reason if some one
claims that Qura:n is Uncreated and a Mutazili responses that If Quran is Uncreated then why Prophet
and His Companions remained silent on this issue, and why did the not informed that Quran is Uncreated,
this response is invalid. Since Uncreatedness of Quran is not as fundamental as the Uncretedness Of the Deity
HimSelf. Mutazilah confused these two types of Articles of Religions.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
4] Divine Noun
5] Divine Epithet
Is neither Eternal nor Uncreated.
There is a sharp difference between Quran Spoken
Eternally By Deity and Recited by Created Rational
Supposita.Imam could say that the discussion is on the
Attribute of Speech Of Deity and not on the
acts,accidents,attributes of Created Supposita.
So the argument is not a strong argument .So if I:ma:m
remained silent he did remain silent because he
understood that the enquirers are not going to accept this
answer .They were likely to deny either Qura:n as
Attributes Of Deity or as recitations or c of Created
Supposita or Copies. In either case there is a problem .
Imam Ahmad did not want them to deny any one of the
two types of Quran .
Fifth of all, Traditionists [Traditionalists] believe that
every thing that is neither Deity [Divine Essence] nor
Divine Attributes is Created. Now any copy of Quran or
recitation of Quran is neither of the two stated above
things, so it is Created and Non Eternal.
Yet they opined := To say explicitly that Copies or
Writings or Calligraphies [or Printings] of Qura:n are
Created is strictly prohabitted. This may lead people to
believe that One That is not a Divine Attribute is Not
Qura:n. This may imply that people shall begin to believe
that what so ever is recited or read or written or
calligraphized is not Qura:n.
30
31
32
AN OTHER TRADITION:=
We
33
33
34
35
Similarly It Is agreed upon that Quran is not Deity but there is a dispute
between Traditionalists [Traditionists] and Mutazilah whether it is other than
Deity Or Not.
According to Mutazilah Quran doeth not subsist in Divine Essence [Deity]
and is Separate from Deity, it is Other than Deity in this meaning.
According to Orthodox and Traditionist view like All Divine Attributes It
Subsiteth In Divine Essence [Deity] and is Not Separate From Deity [Divine
Essence].
So it is not Other than Deity, at least in Mutazilahs meaning.
Since the meaning of the words/expression Other Than Deity hath
[atleast]two meanings.
1]One That is Other Than Deity is:=
A]It is not Deity.
B] It doeth not subsist in Deity.
C] It is not Associated With Deity.
D] It is separate from Deity.
But according to Orthodox, Quran is neither Other Than Deity Nor Deity since
Divine Speech Subsisteth In Deity But Not the Deity.
2]If Divine Speech is said to be Other than Deity then it is Only in the
meaning It Is Not the Deity even if it subsisteth in Deity [Divine Essence].
Not in the first meaning stated above.
Now consider the statement:=
Deity Is the Only Eternal Thing.
If the word Thing meaneth One That Existeth then Deity Is not the Only
Eternal Thing as according to traditionalists and Orthodox circles.. According
to them there are several Eternal things since each Existing Divine Attribute
is a Thing in this meaning.
35
36
But if the word Thing meaneth An Existing Per Se Subsistent with all Its
Existing Attributes Subsisting In It then Deity is the Only Eternal Thing in this
meaning according to Traditionalists.
But in this meaning there is no Eternal Thing according to Mutazilahs since
they believe that nothing subsisteth in an Eternal Existent.
It may amuse some and may annoy some that Post Jabai Mutazilah
accepted that even non existents are things.So the statement became false
in this meaning since one that doeth not exist is neither an Eternal Existent
nor a Created Existent.
But what if a person like Imam Ahmad recognizes all these fallacies ,errors
and complexities in the middle of discussions and debates in front of a
monarch who did not understand these theological and logical problems.
He had no way except to say that I am not a [Mutazili ] Theologian or I am
not a Mutazilah.
Qadi Abu Davud [Duad] is responsible for the fallacies because if he
wanted to debate with
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal , he must have to make an agreement on the
meanings and definitions of fundamental terms and words which he would
use in his arguments. Also he had to make some common sets of principles
before making an argument.
BIBLOGRAPHY
1] Hurvitz. The Mihna as Self-Defense
2] al-Tabari
Melchert, Christopher. The Adversaries of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Arabica 44
(1997):
3]
4] , Classical Arabic Biography: The Heirs of the Prophet in the Age of al-Ma 'mun.
5] HANBAL B. ISHQ B. HANBAL. Dhikr mihnat al-imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
6] SHARH AQAID TAFTAZANI
36
37
7] AL-JHIZ, Rasa'il al-Jhiz, 4 vols. Ed. 'Abd al-Salam Hrn. Cairo: Al-Klinj.
37
38
38
39
39