1

A REFUTATION OF OBJECTIONS OF AL JAH:IZ: ON

IMAM AH:MAD BIN H:ANBAL
(0)SUMMERY:=
AL JAHIZ HAD MADE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS ON IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL. IN THIS
WORK IT IS TRIED TO REFUTE THEM AND TO SHEW THAT NONE OF HIS OBJECTIONS
ARE VALID.
FURTHER SOME RELATED OBJECTIONS ARE ALSO DISCUSSED.

(1)A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanba[780-855] was born in the city of Baghdad during the third month of
Lunar Calendar nounly Rabi-ul Awwal in164 A.H [780 AC]. His father passed away either
before he was born or shortly afterwards, and it was his mother who diligently brought up the
Imam.
He acquired his childhood education through the Maktab [a school]. Having completed his basic
education at the age of 16, the Imam went on to study ahadith by attending the study circles of
Imam Abu Yusuf (R.A). His love for learning took him to different parts of the world including
Kufa, Basra, Yemen, Makkah, Madinah and Syria, to benefit from their great scholars.
At the age of forty, in 204 A.H., the Imam began formally teaching hadith. Imam Ahmad was
acknowledged by the Ulama of his time as the Imam ul Hadith.
The strength of his views was tested under the caliphs 1) al-Ma'mu:n/Mamun[786-833] 2) alMutasim /Mutasim[796-842] 3) Al Vasiq/Wasiq[816-842]. During their reign an 'inquisition
court' was created to deal with people who would not profess doctrines of Mutazilah sect.
These dogmas were that1] the Qur'an was created and not eternal and beatific Vision Of Deity is
Impossible. Imam ibn Hanbal was arrested and brought in chains before the court, and suffered a
great deal. But he patiently submitted to corporal punishment and imprisonment, and resolutely
refused to change his beliefs. Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal faced the trial probably in the year 833
or 844 or 855 AC. How ever he was in the custody in the year 833 AC.
Al-Mamun instituted an inquisition known as the Mihna. Any scholar who refused to accept
Mutazili ideas was severely persecuted and punished. Many accepted the belief of Mamun
under the fear of punishment or death. Scholars like Ibn Sad and Yah:ya Bin Mai:n also
accepted it but latter reverted back to their initial believes. Imam Ahmad, as the most famous
scholar of Baghdad, was ordered to abandon his traditional Islamic beliefs about theology. When
he refused, he was tortured and imprisoned.
1

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.

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
2

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.

(3)The theological Believes of Hanbal:=

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.
Divine Attributes may differ in some of their Characteristics but their basic Nature is same that is
they are Uncreated.
3

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.
But some scholars did believe that Quran is made but Uncreated or neither Created nor
Uncreated.
These are weak opinions and cannot be ascribed4to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal.

FALSE ALLEGATION OF JAHIZ:=

Al-Jahiz [776AC-868AC] was a Mutazili scholar and an author of many books on
philosophy ,religion etc.
He in his zeal to insult Imam Ahmad fabricated reports in which Imam was unable to reply Qadi
Abu Davud [the Mutazili opponent].
The language of Jahiz is equally disgracing and insulting. He wrote:=
The mans stubborn refusal to acknowledge the truth when it was before his highest point when Ahmad ibn Abi
Duad (the Mutazili chief qadi) asked him,
The word Stubborn indicates that Jahiz forgot that no one can be forced to change his faith by argument of force.
Jahiz forgot that one hath a right to believe in what so ever he believes.
Leaving this stubbornness of Jahiz we come to the fabricated reports of Jahiz.
There are several arguments reported by Al Jahiz which according to him were not answered by Imam Ahmad Bin
Hanbal. It is necessary to shew that Al Jahiz was neither a reliable reporter nor a good critic.

First Argument Reported By Al Jahiz.

According to Jahiz aAbu Davud Asked:=
"Is it true that a thing must be either created or uncreated?""Yes.""And the Quran is a thing?""Yes.""Is it true that
only God is uncreated?""Yes.""So the Quran is created?""I am no dialectician," he replied at last.
This was his way when dealing with questions; when hereached an impasse, the point at which a single word from
him would have lost him the support of his followers, he would reply, "I am no dialectician.
The argument consist of two parts.
A] The argument of Qad:i: Abu: Davu:d against Imam Ah:mad Bib H:anbal.
B] The criticism which Al Jahiz made.
They are responses one by one.

It may be noted that:=

1]Refutation of First Part of First Argument.

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.
Before a proper definitization of the meaning of the Arabic word Shai
[ translated as thing] the argument has a fallacy of ambiguity. This does
shew that Imam does know enough logic to detect the fallacy in the
argument.
Abu Davud did not definitize the meaning of the word Shai before presenting
this argument.
5

Therefore it was not necessary to response a fallacious argument, an

argument which did commit the fallacy of ambiguity.
Let it be supposed that Jahiz is reporting the argument of Abu Davud at it
was said by him, then the argument of Abu Davud as quoted by Al Jahiz
consists of the following parts:=
1] "Is it true that a thing must be either created or uncreated?" ------------------[1] (A question By Abu Davud)
2]Yes.""-----------------------------------------------------------------[2](An answer by Imam as reported by Al Jahiz)
3]And the Quran is a thing?"------------------------------------[3]
(A question By Abu David)
4]"Yes."-------------------------------------------------------------[4]
5]"Is it true that only God is uncreated?"----------------------------[5]
6]"Yes."-------------------------------------------------------------[6]
7]"So the Quran is created?"-------------------------------------------[7]
8]"I am no dialectician," he replied at last.---------------------------[8]
When Abu Davud asked statement 1 it was not clear what was the meaning of the word Shai in his question.
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal according to his own theological grounds took it in the seventh meaning.That is a thing is
on that existeth with its essence and all its existing attributes. That is all the existing attributes of an existing thing
are included in the existing essence of the stated above thing. This means that in this meaning Imam accepts the
statement A thing is Either Eternal or Created.
But Qadi Abu Davud used the word in the fifth meaning. At this point the difference of meaning is not deducted by
Imam.
In the third sentence Abu Davud obviously took the fifth meaning. But Imam did not protest since when the word
Shai is used for an Attribute it was used in fifth or forth meaning. One may use a word in different meanings and it
is allowed in debates if its meaning is clear from the external or internal indications or implications. Uptill now there
was no formation of any argument. They were just independent statements.
The meaning of word Shai was clear from the intrinsic nature of each sentence.The meaning did differ from one
sentence to the other.
Now we come to the fifth sentence.
The first sentence implies that the fifth sentence means:
Is it true that only God is an uncreated thing?"
Now Abu Davud is referring to the first sentence skipping the third sentence.
In this dialogue there is no formation of any argument and the meaning of the word Shai is very clear from the
intrinsic evidence of each sentence. It must be noted the word Shai is a commonly used word in Arabic and its
meaning is always determined from intrinsic or extrinsic evidences or implication. When there is an intrinsic
evidence for a meaning in an independent sentence any extrinsic implication may not be considered.
Now Qadi Abu Davud did jump to an incorrect conclusion.
Qura:n is Created.
This is certainly not followed in any sense or meaning since it is just a fallacy of ambiguity.
Realizing this is Imam refused to answer the fallacy. It may be noted that it may be a satire that Mutakallimun
[ Theologians] commit fallacies, and as he is not a theologian he doeth not commit fallacies.
Possible Objections.
1]If Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal recognized a fallacy he would have pointed out it explicitly instead of saying I am not
a theologian.
Possible Answer:=
First of all it may be noted that Imam was a Traditionist [ Traditionalists] and not a Theologian. When ever he
detected a flaw in an argument he could response in any way . His words may be taken in the meaning I do not
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
existing essence are not Things. So there are several ambiguities not just onin regard to the word
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
7

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 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.
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].

10

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.

THE ARGUMENT OF IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL

Luckily one does find an argument of Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal which is
given below:=
Nouns Of Deity Are In Quran , and Quran is a part of Divine Knowledge, so
who so ever saith Quran is a creation is not a believer.[Sirah].
It does appear that this argument is based on the Mutazilahs concept
about the word Thing /Shai .
If Quran is not Eternal then Deity Doeth not Know it Eternally.Since if
Deity Eternally Knoweth every Thing then according to the meaning of the
word Thing taken by Mutazilah a thing that is Eternally Known Must Exist
Eternally other wise Deity Doeth not Know All Things Eternally. This is the
very argument used by Imam against Mutazilah. This is not only an
objection on Mutazili believes but also an objection on the meaning of
the word Shai /Thing taken by them.
If Deity is Eternal but His Omniscience Is Not then It is Created.
If Deity is Eternal and His Omniscience is also Eternal then Deity Knoweth
each and every Thing that is not Eternal, that is Deity Knoweth them even
when they were not Things and were not Things.This means Deity doeth
not know them Eternally. This implieth atleast some parts or portions of
Divine Knowledge is a Creation.
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:The word theologian in his time was restricted to Mutazilahs in general.

So it is not the case that Imam disliked Theology since some
10 theology is always necessary and is a necessary good,

11

It is strongly probable with a very strong probability that he meant Mutazili Theology [Theology Of
Mutazalahs].
Hence by saying I am Not a Theologian [ Mutakallim] he only meant the He is not a Mutazili Theologian or more
precisely He is not a Mutazilah.In his time the word Mutakallim [ Dialectic or Theologian] was not used for
Ahlussunnah Val Jama:ah, It was used for their theologians latter. So it is an equal fallacy to claim that he opposed
all sorts of Theology [ ILM AL CALA:M] , His dislikeness of theology was confined to the theology of his time ,
and Mutazilahism in particular.
But Al Jahiz try to convey that Imam exposed his Ignorance. This is an incorrect interpretation.

SIXTH
Jahizs presence in the debait is not onfirmed from neutral sources. So it is
necessary to state the source of information
And the chain of reporters. It may be the case that he was absent from the
event and got information through others. So his reports are not beyond the
doubts of being secondary reports.In such cases it also depend upon
reporters and their reliability.

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
If it is accepted that he was present in person even then as he was an
opponent of Imam he is distorting the actual events by reporting them
incorrectly. Imam did response and pointed at the fallacy of ambiguity. It may
be noted that Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal for the first time in his life had to face
Mutazilahs and this was a very new thing for him, So his answers
whatsoever are immediate. He hath done well in the discussion.
Shaykhul-Islam ibnu-Taymiyya rahimahullah, according to what was reported from him and
summarized by Imaam as-Safareeni, says "The position of the salaf and the ulema (who
followed them) is that if it is put to them: 'Allah's
11 Knowledge and Speech, is it other than

12

Allah or not?' DO NOT express denial nor confirmation. This is because if it is said that it is
other than Him it might be imagined that He is different to it and if it is said that it is not
other than Him, it might be imagined that it is He"
As both of them imply Self Absurdity the consequence is Nether Identical/same Nor
Seperate/other. But this is not a to violate the law of exclusion of middle. This means that
they are included and subsisted in Divine Essence.

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].

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].12

13

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.
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.
13

14

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?"
Qadi Abu Davud:="Yes."
Jahmite:"So the Divine Knowledge is Created?"
Qadi Abu Davud cannot escape the consequence of his own argument.
C] Mutazilah believe that Divine Justice is Necessary Upon the Deity. By a similar argument it can be shewn that
Divine Justice is also a Creation. Now the problem is that this implies that a Creation is Necessary Upon Deity. Such
a claim is impossible. So the argument of Qadi Abu Davud is inconsistent in the Mutazili system.

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.

Answer to SECOND part of the first objection

According to Al Jahiz Imam Ahmad used to say that he was not a theologian when ever he was unable to make a proper reply.
But this is once again improperly interpreted.
First := From the canonical sources of the trial , it is found that Imam did give a proper reply in regard to this fallacious
conundrum. See the seventh discussion of the first part.
14

15

Second:=Al Jahiz also comments that when ever Imam was unable to reply properly his answer was that I am not a theologian.
It may be noted that the word Mutakallim meaning dialectist and some time translated as theologian is not used in the meaning ,
one who study theology. It was generally used for the scholars of Mutazilah sects. So the word Mutakallim or theologian must
be taken in the meaning MUTAZILAHS THEOLOGIAN OR SIMPLY A MUTAZILI.
This means Imam denied that he is a a Mutazli several time when he faced an argument valid in Mutazili system.
But this was understood by Al Jahiz or he misinterpreted it deliberately.This has been discussed in discussion See discussion six
in the first part.
Third:= Theological objections are beyond Quran and Ahadis and they are not valid in the issues of believes. So What did Imam
mean was that whether if these arguments are correct or incorrect they cannot be used in religious believes. So they do not
require a proper refutation by pointing out at the flaws in the argument if any. It is just and sufficient to point out that they do
exclude Quran and Ahadis. If there is no flaw in them even then it is not necessary to accept them. At best they are just opinions.
Forth:= Imam used to response when ever there is an argument from Independent Axioms Of Islam even if they are not stated in
Quran or Hadis.. For example Divine Essence is Eternal. Althouh this Axiom is not found in the Texts of Quran and Aadadis
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.

SECOND OBJECTION OF JAHIZ

An other report of Jahiz is that Qadi Abu Davud questioned Ahmad Bin
Hanbal whether Deity is the Lord Of Surahs [Chapters] Of Quran say Ya Sin
Or Ta Ha or else.
Once again Jahiz reported that Imam Ahmad remained silent.
..When Ahmad ibn Abi Duadasked him, "Do you consider Deity the Lord of the Quran?"
[HANBAL REPLIED] If I had heard anyone say so, I would say so also."
"Have you never heard it in an oath or a question, on the lips of a stump orator, or in verses or hadiths?"
The caliph saw that he was as untruthful as he was stubborn in the face of irrefutable arguments.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND OBJECTION OF AL JAHIZ ON

IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL.
1]It must be noted that there are large collections of Ahadis and none of them reporteth that
Deity is the Lord or Creator Of Quran or Its Surahs. Words of poets are not authorative in this
regard. If there are some weak traditions they cannot be used in the scope of believes. How
ever if some
Mutzilahs poets did say some thing they are invalid in themselves.
Mutazilah might have said such a thing but Qadi Abu Davud and Jahiz [ If Jahiz was present
at the debate] both failed to notice that
The both failed to prove any explicit Hadis or A:yah [Verse] about the Creation Of Quran or
Surahs.
If they had a single authorative Hadis stating that Quran is a Creation or Surah of Quran [at
least one] is a Creation or Deity is the Lord of Quran or atleast one of Its Surah they would
have presented it there to win the debate.
Hanbal required a refrence from Quran or Ahadis and not from stump Orator. They are no
authority in the matter where othoraties are Quran or Hadis or Ijama".
[So the words Untruthful, Stubborn etc. can be applied on Jahiz him self for his deliberate fallacy in this regard.
But] this is not good to use such words against any one even against one who uses such words for others. We have a
large collection of Ah:adis of first and second catagories and such reports are not found. Mutazilah were not men
of traditions. In fact one of the reason they cease to exist is that hey had very small number of traditions , and they
depended on orthodox and traditionists when they needed15
traditions. They did not have any tradition which

16

mensions that Quran is a Creation.The Caliph was not a theologian and if he had heard that Deity is the Lord of any
Surah, say Ta:Ha:, then he must have heard from Mutazilah minded people and not from traditionists.
If some common men of Ahlussunnah did use this term for Deity , they are certainly not authorative.
Even Al Jahiz was unable to mention a single H:adis of Mutazili cult to support his claim. If some people have
said such a thing they have erred . What Imam did mean was not that he has not heard this phrase, he did mean that
he did not hear it from the reporters of Ahadisand Traditions. Once again Al Jahiz is distorting the sentences and
statements of Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal or is interpreting them with an interpretation which is not accepted by the
speaker of these statements and sentences. [Taujih va Taudih Al Qaul Lima La Yardi Bihi Qailihi]
2] There is how ever a tradition In Masnad Ahmad narrated and reported by Abdullah Bin Umar RD that Fasting
and Quran shall recommend human beings in the day of Judjement . It is reported that they shall call Deity as Lord
[Rabb] [but not as Creator].
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.

THIRD OBJECTION OF AL JAH:IZ:

An other fallacy of ambiguity is commited by Al Jahiz when he said:=.

He maintained on that day that the Speech of Deity is like His Knowledge/Omniscience: just as it is impossible to
accept that His Omniscience/Knowledge Is created, so it is impossible to accept that His Speech is.
Ahmad ibn Abi Duad said to him, "Is it not true that God can substitue one verse for another, or withdraw this
Quran and put another in its place, seeing that all this is plainly written in the Quran?"
Yes." "And is the same thing possible with His Knowledge/Omniscience? Can God amend it, or put another in its
place?"
"No."
After reporting this Jahiz thought that Mutazilah had refuted Imams argument.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD OBJECTION OF AL JAHIZ

FIRST
Actually Qadi Abu Davud and Jahiz are discussing the problem of Naskh.
This Arabic word hath different meaning inregard to two different a Divine Attributes. In reregard to Divine
Knowledge or Omniscience It meaneth Annihilation of Divine Knowledge or Mutation In Divine Knowledge.
In regard to Divine Speech it doeth not mean Annihilation Of Divine Speech or Mutation In Divine Speech.
It only meaneth that Humans need not to follow it.It doeth not mean that it is no more a Divine Attribute. Thw two
diifernt meanings of the same word in significant.
The Substitution of Speech doeth not mean that the previous or the latter is Created. It is Possible that they both be
Eternal yet for certain period of time one of the Eternal is to be followed by human and then the other one is to be
followed. Now consider the problem of withdrawing of a Verse.
So this objection was unable to refute the argument of Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal. Al Jahiz was unable to recognize
the invalidity of this argument , once again based on the fallacy of ambiguity.
According to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal Quran is not only the Divine Speech and a Divine Atribute/ Quality , It is
also a part of Divine Knowledge. The discussion about Quran as being the part of Divine Omniscience /Knowledge
is beyond the scope of this present work, but if it is so then it cannot be cancelled from Divine Knowledge. If no
verse of Al Quran can be annulled or cancelled from Divine Knowledge then it is clear that the word Naskh is used
in a very different meaning in regard to the verses. If each verse is a Divine Attribute Of Speech then no verse can
be ceased from being the Divine Attribute even if it is ceased no longer to be fallowed by human and jinn beings.
Similarly no verse can be ceased from the Divine Knowledge even if there is a Naskh in some meaning of the world.
So the meaning of the word Naskh differs from one Divine Attribute to another Attribute Of Deity. Thus once again
Mutazili scholars committed fallacy of AMBIGUITY while attempting to refute the argument of Imam Ahmad, if
Al Jahiz is reporting correctly.
It appears the case that Mutazilah might have asked about the proofs of the claim Quran is Un-Created.
Imam might have replied that All the Divine Attributes are Eternal or Uncreated or both with out any exception.
On this statement Mutazilah might have made an objection that Divine Knowledge and Divine Speech have some
chracterstics uncommon.
16are creations.
But they were unable to prove that some Divine Attributes

17

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.
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:=

17

18

"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?"
Imam according to Al Jahiz replied , No.
Unfortunately canonical version of this event is not found . So one has to continue with this non canonical version.
Imam must have replied properly.
Any how if it is assumed that Jahiz is reporting correctly atleast this part of the report then there are several
ambiguities in the terms or words used in the conundrum stated above.
If it is supposed that each verse is a Divine Speech then under this supposition:=
1] Withdrawing of a verse doeth not mean that an Attribute of Deity is withdrawn from being the Attribute Of Deity.
It only meaneth that one Eternal verse is not to be followed by Human [and Jinn] Beings.The Following is an act of
Created Rational Supposita say human beings . It is neither the an Act Of Deity nor An Attribute Of Deity.
The replacement or substitution of a verse by an other verse doeth not mean that a Divine Attribute Doeth Cease to
be the Divine Attribute and an other Attribute becometh a Divine Attribute instead of It.
It only meaneth that under the stated above supposition one Divine Eternal Attribute was to be followed by human [
and Jinn] Beings and after some time another Divine Attribute is to be followed instead of It.
In case of Divine Knowledge [ Omniscience] however the meaning of these words are different and due to this
reason the entire argument becomes a fallacy of ambiguity. Thus Qadi Abu Davud equivocated when he used the
words sated above in case of Divine Omniscence, and when he used then in case of Divine Speech. If the meaning
in which they are Self Absurd for Divine Omniscience are conserved, then in these meanings they are Self Absurd
of the Divine Speech as well. Also it may be seen that Imam was not allowed to explain his response. When ever it
is reported that the replied in Affirmation or in negation, the interrogators some how derived a result and claimed
that the had won the debate or Imam Ahmad was Unable to reply properly. But it was necessary to have a final
comments of Imam Ahmad to their alleged deduction ,so that one could see how did Imam response to the results
his opponents deduced from their arguments. As there is evidently fallacy of ambiguity in this argument, this
argument is invalid.
It may be noted that to shift the meaning of the fundamental terms [ words or phrases] in different parts of a given
argument is fallacy of ambiguity.
The terms which express in which Special Characteristics of Divine Speech in specific meanings does not prove the
createdness of Divine Speech.

18

19

It might not been possible in the Court of Mutasim to present a detail analysis of both systems and the fallacies
commited by Abu Davud and his supporting Mutazili scholars.
Note:= It is still required to shew that in some specific meanings the terms stated above do not imply the createdness
of Divine Speech. But it is once again beyond the scope of this work.

FORTH OBJECTION OF AL JAHIZ

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.

ANSWER TO THE FORTH OBJECTION.

FIRST
A] This objection of Al Jahiz is based upon the claim that Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal copulated. If this claim is true
then one may proceed to answer the objection. But if this claim is false or untrue then the entire objection becomes
invalid.
This even i.e the event of copulation is not found in the canonical biographies of Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal. On the
contrary it is fount in the non canonical biographies of him which are authored by his opponents , like Al Jahiz,
Yaqubu, Maudi and Al Murtad:a: .
Al Jah:iz was first of them , probably the one who concocted the event of copulation.
After making the allegation of copulation Al Jahiz began to argue and his argument was based upon the false
accusation.
But as this allegation is false and based on a fabricated report ,it is sufficient to make a reply that the report which
informs that Ima:m Ahmad copulated is neither reliable nor credible. Van Ess however tried to accept these reports
of non canonical biographies and to reject the reports of canonical biographies of Imam Ah:mad Bin H:anbal on
the basis of an argument which is not so strong as supposed by J Van Enn.
The argument is that the caliph would not have released Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal if he would not have copulated.
The discussion on these axioms are beyond the scope of this work. How ever it may be commented that:=

19

20

A] If a report informs about a super natural or a hyper natural event , it may be rejected as a concoction or a
fabrication. But the act of releasing stated above under any circumstances is neither a super natural event nor a
hyper natural event. So the report and tradition cannot be rejected so easily as Van Ess has considered it to be. There
might be some simple and some complex reasons for letting Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal release. Although Mutazilah
were in power but majority of the people in the Caliphatic Empire followed Orhtodoxs belief in regard to the nature
of Quran.
If Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal was killed or imprisoned for life there would have been unrest in all the territories of
the Empire. Suggestions of the nobilities and the courtiers might be one of the several factors for releasing him.
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.
20 There fore if it is assumed that

21

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
Mental reservation is not allowed in general in Islam. How ever in certain
conditions when a person is in torcher there is some permission. It is not a
punishment that is to kill some one but a punishment which a person cannot
bear. In this case when Imam was scourged atleast thirty times it might be
the case that It became unbearable it became permitable .

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.

21

22

SOME COMMENTS:=

Mutazilah themselves interpreted many words in Quran and Ahadis when

the mension divine organs or parts [ AD:A VAL JAVARIH:]. Like Hands, Eye,
Face,Palm etc. They interpret them by Divine Power.
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.

SECOND RELATED PROBLEM.

Murtad:a reports a response of Abu Davud to an argument given below:=
If early Muslims did not examine the issue, why should later generations be? In his work al Murad:a
reports the tradition that Ibn Ab Du_ad rebuted this claim as fallow:=
TheProphet, Companions, and Successors said nothing about the createdness ofthe Qur_an because no
one in their day voiced the wrong view.
ANSWER TO THE SECOND RELATED PROBLEM:=

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,

22

23

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.

THIRD RELATED PROBLEM

Al Murtad:a: reports that some followers of Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal publically announces in loud vices that
:=

Nothing of Gods is created, and the Qur_an is of God.

Now he comments that : This declaration will lead the ignorant to regard the Qur_an as the
Christians regard Jesus.
ANSWER TO THE THIRD RELATED PROBLEM
FIRST:=
It is well known to Christian and Muslim Scholars that Christianity and Islam have some issues
common and some uncommon.
In Christianity the Hypostasis nounly Word or Son is Per Se Subsistent and Rational , This
Hypostasis hath assume the Human Nature and became a human being nounly
Iesous/Iesus/Jesus/Isa.
In Islam Divne Speech nounly Quran/Furqan is not Per Se Subsistent and cannot not assume any
nature what so ever. An Attribute is not a Hypostasis. So the difference is clear.
SECOND:=
This Expression only means that No Attribute Of Deity Is A Creation, or No Noun Of Deity Is
A Creation or Both.
No Muslim believes in the Dogma Of Hypostases.
So there is no confusion.
THIRD.
If Quran is a Creation then It Can not be an Attribute Of Deity. If It is not an Attribute Of Deity
then then It is not a Speech Of Deity.
Did Murtada not see that if the dogma of Createdness of Quran is publicized a common man
shall began to believe that Quran is the speech of Prophet or Arch Angel Jibri:l?
FORTH: Murtada considered the announcement to common men as something which can make
common men to think Quran is like Iesus, but forgot that Mutazili used the monarchs to
propagate their believes by force.This would make a common man to believe that Quran is the
speech Of Prophet instead of the Speech Of Deity.
FIFTH:
Last but not the least One may not trust the report of Murtad:a.

FORTH RELATED PROBLEM

It is reported that on the third day of the trial the debate
turned to beatific vision.The Mutazili interrogators
claimed that neither Deity can see norbe seen.Imam
Ahmad reporteth that they also claims about Divine
23

24

Corporeality ( Divine Body) ,adducing arguments Ibn

H:anbal commenteth that he cannot repeat.
The objection on Ibn Hanbal is that he is an
anthropomorphist other wise he would have no difficulty
in repeating these arguments if he disbelieved in Divine
Corporeality.
ANSWER TO FOURTH RELATED PROBLEM:
FIRST:= The basic objection on Imam A:mad Bin H:anbal
is that if he disbelieved in Divine Corporeality he would
have no objection in repeating them. I f he believed in
Divine Corporeality then he is a corporealist and
anthropomorphist.
But once again there is a dispute of defination between
Anthropomorphists and Imam Ah:mad Bin Hanbal.
Majority of Ahlussunnah [Ashairah and Maturidiyah]
believe that Deity [Divine Essence] is neither a Substance
nor an Accident [La Jauhar Va La Ard:] and also not a
Body [La Jisma l Lahu] .
On the other hand Anthropomophists believe that Deity is
a body like human bodies, and a substance like known
substances. Some scholars of minorities of Ahlussunnah
[ Salafiah,Hanabalah, Zahites] some time use the word
Corporeal or Substance for Deity.
But this is just a verbal dispute between majorities of
Ahlussunnah and minorities of them. They use the words
Corporeal/Body and Substance in the meaning of Per Se
Subsistent [Qa:im Bidh Dha:t]. Divine Essence is Per Se
Subsistent and they neither mean Aristotelian Substances
nor Matterial Bodies.
24

25

It was recognized by researchers of Ahlussunnah that minorities of

Ahlussunnah use these words of Substance [Jauhar] and
Jism[Corporeal/Body] only in the meaning of subsistence [Qaim Bi Nafsihi],
and not in any anthropomorphic or Aristotelian meaning . How ever they
disliked to use these terms for Divine Essence due to several reasons and
one of them was that use of such terms is likely to cause fallacy of
Ambiguity.

So if Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal used the word Corporeal for

Deity then He only did mean Per Se Subsistent and no
thing else.
So any comment on the Corporeality Of Deity is just on the
Per Se Subsistence Of Deity.
Some of them only wanted to exclude accidents, since
Divine Attributes are not accidents.
So he could not repeat them since he considered such
expressions to be a disgrace for Divine Dignity . But he did
not predicate these words directly to Divine Essence in
general.
SECOND:
The objection on Beatific vision is that it contradicts Laws
of Visiblity and Vision.
But Laws of Visibility and Vision are either prescriptive or
descriptive or both. But
The Omnipotent Deity Hath Omnipotence to change them
or suspend them or annihilate them. Since these laws are
Per Se Possible.
25

26

So there is no objection. Similarly if Laws of sight are not

applicable to Deity then it doeth not imply that Deity
cannot see. There is no Absurdity in finite looking at
infinite and Infinite looking at finite.
The known objections of Mutazilahs against Divine Sight
and Beatific Visions are not strong enough to convince a
person. Rather as Deity is a Conscious Existent , negation
of Divine sight is tantamount to Divine Blindness.
THIRD:=
It is not the problem that Deity can turn invisible from
visible and visible from invisible according to His
Intention. Rather it is the problem of Creations that they
can see Him Or Nor. So Deity is not a locus of temporal
Visibility as suspected be Mutazilah.
Similarly is is not the case that images of corporeal things
are formed on the Divine Essence when Deity seeth them.
On the contrary Divine Sight is different from image
formation.
FORTH:=
Even if Deity Hath no corporeality but to say any thing
disgrace for some thing ascribed to Deity falsely is also
prohibited. In such cases the proper way is to refute such
ascription logically and rationally. But to say any thing
disgrace is neither a proper refutation nor according to
the Divine Grace.

FIFTH RELATED PROBLEM

It is reported that Imam Ah:mad Bin H:anbal refuted a
number of arguments fallaciously derived from Quran, but
he was unable to make a reply to a H:adis.
26

27

Even cooperson has accepted this with out any

interpretation.
In subsequent exchanges, Ibn H anbal rebutted two arguments
derived from the Qur_an but was forced to concede a point based on H adth.
Abd al-Rahman b.Ishaq recited a report to the effect that God wrote the
dhikr, meaning the Qur_an.W ith this text, reports the imam, he defeated
me and I fell silent.

ANSWER TO FIFTH RELATED PROBLEM:=

Why Imam remained silenced is a question. First of all
one must know that Imam was not convinced by the
argument . If he had accepted that the argumentation is
correct he would have accepted it as valid . But he did
not.This shews that there was a flaw in the argument but
Imam did not pointed out the flaw.
This is possible because Imam Ah:mad Bin H:anbal was
not a debater. He would have required some time to
analyze an argument ,the text from which the
argumentation is derived, and the Authenticity and
Authority of the Reporters of the Tradition of the H:adi:s.
So he may have remained silent for some time and many
people have considered it as a defeat.
Second of all, it may be the case that Imam Ah:mad Bin
H:anbal required some prerequisites to be stated and
with out stating them, it was impossible to answer the
Argumentation and to point at the flaws and the fallacies
of the argumentation.
But Imam Ah:mad did not have the time to state some
preliminaries and prerequisites.
So he did not give any response.
27

28

Third of all it only does shew that Imam Ah:mad Bin

H:anbal was unable to make a reply with out stating some
prerequisites and preliminaries.
Forth of all latter Ahlussunnah of different sects like
Asha:irah and Muturidiyah clearly made a distinction
between Cala:m An Nafci:y and Cala:m Al Lafz:i:y.
The former is Eternal and the latter is not.
Even Salafiah have accepted this in their own style.
Quran is Uncreated and Eternal in two meanings.
1] Quran is an Attribute Of Deity, and All Attributes Of
Deity are Eternal and Uncreated.
2] Qura:n in the Knowledge [Omniscience] Of Deity is
Eternal and Uncreated.
Anything affirmed or inscribed in the Divine Knowledge is
Eternal and is also a Subsidiary Divine Attribute.
But any thing which is not:=
1] Deity
2] Divine Attribute
3]Thing in Divine Knowledge [Subsidiary Attribute]
4] Divine Noun
5] Divine Epithet
Is neither Eternal nor Uncreated.
28

29

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.
Conclusion:= Imam Ahmad Bin H:anbal was of the view
that IT is prohabbited to say , Written Copies Of Qura:n
are Created even if they are.
Sixth of all, It may be the case that Imam Ah:mad Bin
H:anbal believed that this Tradition must be interpreted
29

30

otherwise and Mutazilahs would try to misinterpret his

interpretation.
Seventh of all, we find that Great Traditionists even dislike
to say LAFZ:IY BIL QURA:NI MAKHLU:Q meaning My
Word With Qura:n is a Creation.
This doeth not mean that they believe that Words of
Human beings are uncreated , yet they only dislike to say
such an expression.
Eighth of all, if it is accepted that Imam Ah:mad Bin
H:anbal was unable to response the argumentation, then
the reason was that he was perhaps the first person in
Traditionalists [Traditionists] who debated with
Mutazilahs. He might have not expected an argument
from Ah:di:s by Mutazilahs, since Mutazilah used to
deny any tradition if it contradicted their theological
believes, as one may see in the case of Beatific Vision. So
an argument may have caused some problem to Imam
Ah:mad Bin H:anbal in the meaning /sense he did not
worked out its interpretation. As in the case of a
Traditionist it was sufficient that the intended
interpretation if the text of H:adi:s is only known to Deity.
But a Mutazilah cannot be satisfied by the is answer. In
case of an interpretation a Mutazili would have
demanded to state the interpretation explicitly in Imam
Ahmad Bin Hanbals own words and sentences. On the
contrary Ima:m might not have any sinse he would be
easily satisfied by the article of faith that:=
Only Deity Knoweth the real interpretation of the Text Of
H:adi:s .
In What meaning Imam accepted the Defeat:=
30

31

In cannot be accepted that Imam was defeated in the

meaning he was unable to answer them properly, but in
the meaning that he could not provide an answer in simple
expressions due to some religious and theological
restrictions. An other meaning may be that the opponent
demanded some thing which Imam according to his
theological system could not fulfil.

AN OTHER TRADITION:=
We

found an other tradition in Masnad Ah:mad which is narrated

by Abdullah Bin Umar RD.
The text is:=
Fasting and Quran shall recommend for the human being in
Qiya:mah.
Fasting shall say Lord I kept him away from eating and fulfilling
his desire in the day,so accept my recommendation in this regard.
Qura:n shall say,Lord I kept him away from speeping in the
night ,so accept my recommendation in this regard.
But this tradition is not about the Divine Attribute but about the
human recitation. Human recitation of Quran is not a Divine
Attribute.

31

32

A DISCUSSION ON THE DISPUTES

The dispute between Imam Ah:mad Bin H:anbal and Mutazilah is a complex
combination of genuine and verbal disputes.
1] The did not agree on the meanings of fundamental terms of arguments.
2]They would not have agreed in results even if they had agreed on the
meanings of fundamental terms of arguments.
3]They did not have a common system for arguments.
For example consider the statement:=
Either a Thing is Eternal Or Created.
If the meaning of the term is One That Existed the statement is true
according to Mutazilah and Traditionists [Traditionalists].
If the word Thing meaneth An Existing Per Se Subsistent With all those
Existent Which do Subsist in the Per Se Subsistent then the statement is
true according to Traditionists but not according to Mutazilahs.
Since they did not believe in Divine Attributes and believe that Deity is a
Substance with out any Attribute.
So in this meaning All things are Creations.
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.
32

33

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.
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.
33

34

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
7] AL-JHIZ, Rasa'il al-Jhiz, 4 vols. Ed. 'Abd al-Salam Hrn. Cairo: Al-Klinj.

8] Introduction toLogic, Irving M Copy ,Carl Cohen

;
34

35

35

36

36

37

37