I simply asked you to refute the claim that Maturidis followed Mutazilah regarding createdness of Quran. The Quran which we have in our hands, shelves, around us in book form. you started unleashing your anger and wrath on me. I am ex student of Jamia Al-Karam, now I study online because of financial obligations. My objective is to check if the claims and understandings of those who say that Maturidis say Quran is created is true or false. I wanted you to look into it. I am trying to gather and verify the quotes myself but if we work as a team, we can achieve it faster. The author of the article claimed: Then I checked up original arabic http://www.aslein.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1475&d=1211198241 ولما صرح بأزلية الكلام حاول النبيه على أن القرآن أيضاً قد يطلق على هذا الكلام النفسي القديم كما يطلق على النظم المتلو الحادث فقال: (والقرآن كلام الله تعالى غير مخلوق) وعقب القرآن بكلام الله لما ذكره المشايخ من أنه يقال: القرآن كلام الله تعالى غير مخلوق، ولا يقال: القرآن غير مخلوق، لئلا يسبق إلى الفهم أن المؤلف من الأصوات والحروف قديم كما ذهب إليه الحنابلة جهلاً أو عناداً. وأقام غير المخلوق مقام غير الحادث تنبيهاً على اتحادهما، وقصداً إلى جري الكلام على وفق الحديث، حيث قال صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((القرآن كلام الله تعالى غير مخلوق، ومن قال: إنه مخلوق فهو كافر بالله العظيم))، وتنصيصاً على محل الخلاف بالعبارة المشهورة فيما بين الفريقين، وهو أن القرآن مخلوق أو غير مخلوق، ولهذا تترجم المسألة بمسألة خلق القرآن. وتحقيق الخلاف بيننا وبينهم يرجع إلى إثبات الكلام النفسي ونفيه، وإلا فنحن لا نقول بقدم الألفاظ والحروف، وهم لا يقولون بحدوث كلام نفسي. (1/34) ودليلنا ما مر أنه ثبت بالإجماع وتواتر النقل عن الأنبياء صلوات الله عليهم أنه متكلم، ولا معنى له سوى أنه متصف بالكلام ويمتنع قيام اللفظي الحادث بذاته تعالى، فتعين النفسي القديم. وأما استدلالهم بأن القرآن متصف بما هو من صفات المخلوق وسمات الحدوث من التأليف والتنظيم والإنزال والتنزيل وكونه عربياً مسموعاً فصيحاً معجزاً إلى غير ذلك، فإنما يكون حجة على الحنابلة لا علينا، لأنا قائلون بحدوث النظم، وإنما الكلام في المعنى القديم، والمعتزلة لما لم يمكنهم إنكار كونه تعالى متكلماً ذهبوا إلى أنه متكلم بمعنى إيجاد الأصوات والحروف في محلها أو إيجاد أشكال الكتابة في اللوح المحفوظ وإن لم يقرأ، على اختلاف بينهم. وأنت خبير بأن المتحرك من قامت به الحركة، لا من أوجدها، وإلا لصح اتصاف الباري بالأعراض المخلوقة له تعالى عن ذلك علواً كبيراً. ومن أقوى شبه المعتزلة أنكم متفقون على أن القرآن اسم لما نقل إلينا بين دفتي المصاحف تواتراً، وهذا يستلزم كونه مكتوباً في المصاحف مقروءاً بالألسن، مسموعاً بالآذان، وكل ذلك من سمات الحدوث بالضرورة. فأشار إلى الجواب بقوله: (وهو) أي القرآن الذي هو كلام الله تعالى (مكتوب في مصاحفنا) أي بأشكال الكتابة وصور الحروف الدالة عليه (محفوظ في قلوبنا) أي بالألفاظ المخيلة (مقروء بألسنتنا) بالحروف الملفوظة المسموعة (مسموع بآذاننا) بذلك أيضاً (غير حال فيها) أي مع ذلك ليس حالاً في المصاحف ولا في القلوب والألسنة والآذان، بل هو معنى قديم قائم بذات الله، يلفظ ويسمع بالنظم الدال عليه، ويحفظ بالنظم المخيل ويكتب بنقوش وصور وأشكال موضوعة للحروف الدالة عليه، كما يقال: النار جوهر محرق، تذكر باللفظ وتكتب بالقلم، ولا يلزم منه كون حقيقة النار صوتاً وحرفاً. (1/35) وتحقيقه أن للشيء وجوداً في الأعيان، ووجوداً في الأذهان، ووجوداً في العبارة، ووجوداً في الكتابة، والكتابة تدل على العبارة، وهي على ما في الأذهان، وهو على ما في الأعيان، فحيث يوصف القرآن بما هو من لوازم القديم كما في قولنا: القرآن غير مخلوق، فالمراد حقيقته الموجودة في الخارج، وحيث يوصف بما هو من لوازم المخلوقات والمحدثات يراد به الألفاظ المنطوقة المسموعة كما في قولنا: قرأت نصف القرآن، أو المخيلة كما في قولنا: حفظت القرآن، أو الأشكال المنقوشة كما في قولنا: يحرم للمحدث مس القرآن. ولما كان دليل الأحكام الشرعية هو اللفظ دون المعنى القديم عرفه أئمة الأصول بالمكتوب في المصاحف المنقول بالتواتر، وجعلوه اسماً للنظم والمعنى جميعاً، أي للنظم من حيث الدلالة على المعنى لا بمجرد المعنى. someone claimed Imam Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi said his book Kitab al-Tawhid وأن القرآن الكريم العربي مخلوق I am searching for this quote here https://archive.org/details/Kitab_tawhid_Materidi I want to see the context But I did find this quote from Imam Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi ثم قوله: (كُنْ فَيَكُونُ). ليس هو قول من اللَّه: أَنْ كُنْ -بالكاف والنون- ولكنه عبارة بأَوجز كلام، يؤدي المعنى التام المفهوم؛ إذ ليس في لغة العرب كلام التحقيق بحرفين يؤدي المعنى المفهوم أَوجز من هذا، وما سوى هذا فهو من الصلات، والأَدوات، فلا يفهم معناها، والله أعلم.http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-95590#page-525
because i don't like clutter. people clutter everything everywhere. and why are you annoyed? i didn't delete your post, did i? take the pasted text below - i cannot make out who is saying what and who is being cited or what is the point being made. i won't waste my time parsing through garbled text - apart from the fact that it is seeks to revise history. i don't know, but if you are an admirer of the mutazilah or atabek-the-donkey, then i see this as a red herring. --- so what do you want me to prove? that this stupid, inane, ridiculous, ignorant, preposterous claim, that "maturidis believed qur'an is created" is false? hello, wake up. we are in the 15th century. next you will ask me to prove that nasafi is not nazzam reincarnated. al-iyadhu billah. sorry. get over it. nobody proves these things nowadays, and nobody makes such claims except certain idiots who think they know better than everyone else. ---- and your highlighting: so what are you saying? that maturidis followed the mutazilis in their heresy 'qur'an is created'? um, yeah. and iceland is an arid desert. introduce yourself. who are you? what is your persuasion? what exactly is your objective?
This was from facebook link in the discussion with shaykh asrar, arnold mol and nazzam http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/shaykh-asrar-arnold-mol-and-nazzam.13460 I don't know why you created a separate thread, although it is directly related to the above discussion.
As Salāmu ʿAlaykum, Sidi Abū Ḥasan, can you please refute this article which claims Maturidis followed Mu'tazilah that Quran is created. 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 – 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.
