1

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) al-Mu”tasim /Mutasim[796-842] 3) Al Vas’iq/Wasiq[816-842]. During their reign an 'inquisition court' was created to deal with people who would not profess doctrines of Mu”tazilah 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-Ma’mun instituted an inquisition known as the Mihna. Any scholar who refused to accept Mu’tazili ideas was severely persecuted and punished. Many accepted the belief of Mamun under the fear of punishment or death. Scholars like Ibn Sa”d and Yah:ya Bin Ma”i: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.

Ibn Ḥanbal was ordered to appear before the new caliph, al-Muʿtaṣim. 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 Ḥanbal to yield at least a little so that he might grant him his freedom. Ibn Ḥanbal made the same reply he had been making from the beginning of the

2

2

inquisition; he would yield when given some ground for modifying his faith derived from the sources he regarded as authoritative, namely the Qurʾān and the Traditions of Muḥammad. 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 Ḥanbal’s unflinching spirit was beginning to have its effect upon the Caliph; but the latter’s advisers warned that if he desisted from punishing him, he would be accused of having opposed the doctrine of his predecessor al-Maʾmūn, and the victory of Ibn Ḥanbal would have dire consequences on the reign of the caliphs. But the Caliph’s treatment of Ibn Ḥanbal had to be suspended, nevertheless, because of the mounting anger of the populace gathering outside the palace and preparing to attack it. Ibn Ḥanbal 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 Mu”tazilah involvement. But days of Mu’tazilah’s 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-Ma’mun 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 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.

3

3

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.

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.

4

4

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 Mu”tazilahs 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 Mu”tazilah 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 ascribed to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal.

FALSE ALLEGATION OF JAHIZ:=Al-Jahiz [776AC-868AC] was a Mu”tazili 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 Mu”tazili opponent].The language of Jahiz is equally disgracing and insulting. He wrote:= “The man’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the truth when it was before his highest point when Ahmad ibn Abi Du’ad (the Mu‘tazili 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.

5

5

According to Jahiz aAbu Davud Asked:=

"Is it true that a thing must be either created or uncreated?""Yes.""And the Qur’an is a thing?""Yes.""Is it true that only God is uncreated?""Yes.""So the Qur’an 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.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 Qur’an 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 Qur’an 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.”

6

6

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.Qur’a: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 [Du’ad] 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:

7

7

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 Qur’a: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 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].

8

8

{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 Mu”tazilahs 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 Mu”tazilahs 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 Mu’tazilah’s 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 [Mu”tazili 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 [Mu”tazili ] theologian is accustomed to design such types of [fallacious] arguments.These two things doeth shew that whether Imam Ahmad knew Mu”tazilian 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 Mu”tazilah began to claim that even non existents are affirmed things. An affirmation is a state between Existence and Non Existence. So according to latter Mu”tazilah 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 Ma”duma:t].If it is said that Divine Attributes are Uncreated and Affirmed, the entire Mu”tazilah argument falls once for all.If affirmed and associated With Deity then there is no objection possible. The greatest objection of Mu”tazilite 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 Mu”tazilis 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:

9

9

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 Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazilah 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’]. This is a very powerful argument and can make Mu”tazilah 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 Deity’s Knowledge is Creation or Temporal or Both. A opinion held by Qadriyah and Jahmiyah alike. But Mu”tazilah 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.

10

10

THE ARGUMENT OF IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBALLuckily 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 Mu”tazilah’s 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 Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazilah. This is not only an objection on Mu”tazili 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 Mu”tazili 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 [Mu”tazili] theologian. FIFTH:- The word theologian in his time was restricted to Mu’tazilahs in general.So it is not the case that Imam disliked Theology since some theology is always necessary and is a necessary good,It is strongly probable with a very strong probability that he meant Mu”tazili Theology [Theology Of Mu”tazalahs].Hence by saying I am Not a Theologian [ Mutakallim] he only meant the He is not a Mu”tazili Theologian or more precisely He is not a Mu”tazilah.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 Mu”tazilahism in particular.But Al Jahiz try to convey that Imam exposed his Ignorance. This is an incorrect interpretation.

SIXTH Jahiz’s presence in the debait is not onfirmed from neutral sources. So it is necessary to state the source of informationAnd 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.

11

11

SEVENTH Mu”tazilahs 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 Mu”tazilahs 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 Van’s 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 Mu”tazilahs 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 Knowledge and Speech, is it other than 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 Mu”tasim that these Mu”tazilah are not capable to distinguish. Surely Qadi Abu Davud had supposed that Imam beleaveth that Qur’an is other than Deity. Same is true for Al Jahiz. This does shew that both of the two were ignorant of Imam’s View about Divine Attributes and their relation With Divine Essence [Deity].

NinthMu”tazilahs 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.

12

12

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 Mu”tazilite 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 Mu”tazilahs 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 Isma”i:l ‘Ash”ari 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 As’ari. He believed that Quran is Temporal [H:adis’] but neither Eternal Nor Created.2] ‘Abu M-“a:z Tu:mni. He believed Qur’a:n is neither Eternal nor Creation and additionally not Temporal, but Temporalizing [H:adas’].Inspite of the differences between the two they did agree that Qur’a:n Is Neither Created[Makh’lu: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 Mu”tazilah of the said period would have accepted it in some sense, How ever Post Jabai Mu”tazilah 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

13

13

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 Mu”tazili grounds.

TENThe number or plurality of ‘Existing Things’ depends upon the number or plurality of Existing Essences.So If there are η Existing Essences then there are η 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.

ELEVENA]The argument can be used other wise.This may be seen as below:=1]Either a thing is Created or Eternal [Major Premise]Quran is a Thing [Minor Premise]There Fore : Quran is Either Created Or Eternal.[Result]2]Quran is Either Created or Eternal [Major Premise]Quran is not Created.[Minor Primise]There Fore: Quran Is Eternal [Result]3] Deity is the Only Eternal.Quran is Eternal.There fore : Quran is Deity.Now Qad;I Abu Davud had no thing against this argument. So his argument is incomplete . Qadi had to shew that Quran is other than Deity. If he did not presented it , his argument is incomplete.B] ARGUMENT OF ABU DAVUD CAN BE USED BY JAHMITES TO PROVE THAT DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS A CREATION.Suppose that there is a debate between a Jahmite and Qad:I Abu Davud on the issue whether Divine Knowledge is Created and Temporal or Eternal.Let it be supposed that they had a dialogue as given below:=

Jahmite:="Is it true that a thing must be either created or uncreated?"Qadi Abu Davud:="Yes."Jahmite"And the Divine Knowledge is a thing?"Qad:iAbu Davud:="Yes." Jahmite :="Is it true that only Deity Is Uncreated?"Qadi Abu Davud:="Yes."Jahmite:"So the Divine Knowledge is Created?"Qadi Abu Davud cannot escape the consequence of his own argument.C] Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazili system.

14

14

TWELVE1]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 ]QUR’A:N IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. [MINOR PREMISE]QUR’A:N IS ETERNAL [RESULT].Now the Minor premise of syllogism--------1 is proved as follow:SYLLOGISM--------------------------2QUR’A: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 Du’ad 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.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 Mu”tazilah sects. So the word Mutakallim or theologian must be taken in the meaning “ MU”TAZILAH’S THEOLOGIAN” OR SIMPLY A MU”TAZILI.This means Imam denied that he is a a Mu”tazli several time when he faced an argument valid in Mu”tazili 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 Mu”tazilah in the trial. So this means that Imam did reject Mu”tazili reasonings and argumentations but not the very selves of reasonings and argumentations.So this also proves that Imam’s was misquoted and misinterpreted by Al Jahiz.Fifth:= I am not a [Mu”tazili] theologian may be understood as “I Know It Not” . In the context it may mean that if I was a Mu”tazili I would have responded to this type of fallacy.

15

15

SECOND OBJECTION OF JAHIZAn 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 Du’adasked him, "Do you consider Deity the Lord of the Qur’an?"

[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 Mu”tzilah’s poets did say some thing they are invalid in themselves.Mu”tazilah might have said such a thing but Qadi Abu Davud and Jahiz [ If Jahiz was present at the debate] both failed to notice thatThe 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. Mu”tazilah 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 needed traditions. They did not have any tradition which 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 Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazili 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 Ahadis’and 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 Qa’ilihi] 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 toaccept that His Omniscience/Knowledge Is created, so it is impossible to accept that His Speech is.

16

16

Ahmad ibn Abi Du’ad said to him, "Is it not true that God can substitue one verse for another, or withdraw thisQur’an and put another in its place, seeing that all this is plainly written in the Qur’an?"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 Mu”tazilah had refuted Imam’s argument.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD OBJECTION OF AL JAHIZFIRSTActually 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 againMu”tazili 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 Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazilah might have made an objection that Divine Knowledge and Divine Speech have some chracterstics uncommon.

But they were unable to prove that some Divine Attributes are creations.

SECONDSpeech 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 Mu”tazili 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

17

17

principles or postulates prior to the beginning of a debate or a discussion. If Abu Davud [Abu Du’a: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 Mu”tazili 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 ofMu”tazili system bit invalid according to the principles of Imam ‘Ah:mad bin H:anbal’s system.

‘Al Jahiz reports that Qadi Abu Davud[Du’ad] asked Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal:=

"Is it not true that God can substitute one verse for another, or withdraw this Qur’an and put another in its place, seeing that all this is plainly written in the Qur’an?"

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.

18

18

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.

It might not been possible in the Court of Mu”tasim to present a detail analysis of both systems and the fallacies commited by Abu Davud and his supporting Mu”tazili 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 Qur’an 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

19

19

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, Y”aqubu, Ma”udi 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:=

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 Mu”tazilah were in power but majority of the people in the Caliphatic Empire followed Orhtodox’s 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 Jahiz’s report in different directions.

SECOND

20

20

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 Mu”tas:im were unbelievers as according to him.

So in-spite of the fact that the territory was a Muslim Majority area it was ruled by Heretic Monarchs who were unbelievers due to their belief on the Createdness Of Quran as according to Imam Ahmad BinbHanbal. So all the Muslims were living in an infidel territory. There fore if it is assumed that Imam did use a mental reservation he did not practice it in the Territory Of Islam but in the Territory Of Infedels.

So the entire argument of Al Jahiz fails on this point if the story of copulation is assumed to be true, but the historicity of the story of copulation is doubtful , and not beyond the doubt of fabrication or concoction .D

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 Shafa”I and differeth from them on several occasions. So it may be the case that he may differ from Mu”tazili 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 Sha”i is reported to change his opinions about different Fiqhi issues. So it may be the case that Imam

21

21

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_a￣n’ (43: 3)? If He made it, didn’t he create it?” Ibn Hanbal replied, “He・made 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_tas・im.

SOME COMMENTS:=

Mu”tazilah themselves interpreted many words in Quran and Ahadis’ when the mension divine organs or parts [ ‘A”D: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. Mu”tazilah do interpret Texts of Qur’a:n and ‘Ah:adis’ when ever their theological system requires an interpretation. So they cannot bound others from doing so when Non Mu”tazili 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 Qur’a: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 Abı ￣ Du_a￣d rebuted this claim as fallow:= “TheProphet, Companions, and Successors said nothing about the createdness ofthe Qur_a￣n 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.

22

22

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 Mu”tazilah tried to use it in favour of their belief that Quran is Created. That is the reason if some one claims that Qur’a:n is Uncreated and a Mu”tazili responses that “If Quran is Uncreated then why Prophet and His Companions remained silent on this issue, and why did the not informed that Qur’an is Uncreated, this response is invalid. Since Uncreatedness of Quran is not as fundamental as the Uncretedness Of the Deity HimSelf. Mu”tazilah 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 God’s is created, and the Qur_an is of God.’ Now he comments that : ‘This declaration will lead the ignorant to regard the Qur_a￣n as the Christians regard Jesus”.ANSWER TO THE THIRD RELATED PROBLEMFIRST:=

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 Mu”tazili 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:

23

23

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 Mu”tazili interrogators claimed that neither Deity can see norbe seen.Imam Ahmad reporteth that they also claims about Divine 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 [Asha’irah 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] . One of their reasons is that the negation of Existence of Divine Essence is Per Se Absurd while the negation of Existence of a Substance is Per Se Possible which implieth that the Divine Essence is Per Se Subsistent but It is beyondEvery Per Se Possible /Per Se Contingent genus.

As Divine Essence is not a substance It is also not a subdivision of substance LIKE ‘Al Jahvahir ‘Al ‘Auvaliyah ,Al Javahir As’s’a:niyah.

24

24

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.

It all depends upon how one may define these disputed terms.

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.

25

25

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.

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 Mu”tazilahs 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 Mu”tazilah.

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

26

26

disgrace is neither a proper refutation nor according to the Divine Grace.

FIFTH RELATED PROBLEMIt 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.Even cooperson has accepted this with out any interpretation.

In subsequent exchanges, Ibn H・ anbal rebutted two argumentsderived from the Qur_a￣n but was forced to concede a point based on H・ adı￣th.Abd al-Rah・ma￣n b.Ish・a￣q recited a report to the effect that “God wrote thedhikr,” meaning the Qur_a￣n.W ith this text, reports the imam, “he defeatedme 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

27

27

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.

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] Qur’a: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

28

28

5] Divine Epithet

Is neither Eternal nor Uncreated.

There is a sharp difference between Quran Spoken Eternally By Deity and Recited by Created Rational Supposita.Imam could say that the discussion is on the Attribute of Speech Of Deity and not on the acts,accidents,attributes of Created Supposita.

So the argument is not a strong argument .So if ‘I:ma:m remained silent he did remain silent because he understood that the enquirers are not going to accept this answer .They were likely to deny either Qur’a: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 Qur’an .

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 Qur’an 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 Qur’a:n are Created’ is strictly prohabitted”. This may lead people to believe that One That is not a Divine Attribute is Not Qur’a:n. This may imply that people shall begin to believe that what so ever is recited or read or written or calligraphized is not Qur’a:n.

Conclusion:= Imam Ahmad Bin H:anbal was of the view that IT is prohabbited to say , “Written Copies Of Qur’a: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

29

otherwise and Mu”tazilahs would try to misinterpret his interpretation.

Seventh of all, we find that Great Traditionists even dislike to say “ LAFZ:IY BIL QUR’A:NI MAKHLU:Q” meaning “My Word With Qur’a: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 Mu”tazilahs. He might have not expected an argument from ‘Ah:di:s’ by Mu”tazilahs, since Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazilah cannot be satisfied by the is answer. In case of an interpretation a Mu”tazili would have demanded to state the interpretation explicitly in Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal’s 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:=

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

30

30

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”.

Qur’a: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.

Conclusion:=

The actual dispute between Mu”tazilahs and ‘Ima:m ‘Ah:mad Bin H:anbal was that Mu”tazilah failed to distinguish between Divine Attributes and Divine Acts, and Between Divine Acts and Acts of Created

Rational Supposita.

31

31

A DISCUSSION ON THE DISPUTESThe dispute between Imam ‘Ah:mad Bin H:anbal and Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazilahs.

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 Mu”tazilah whether it is other than Deity Or Not.

According to Mu”tazilah 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 Mu”tazilahs’ meaning.

32

32

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 Mu”tazilahs since they believe that nothing subsisteth in an Eternal Existent.

It may amuse some and may annoy some that Post Jabai Mu”tazilah accepted that even non existents are things.So the statement became false in this meaning since one that doeth not exist is neither an Eternal Existent nor a Created Existent.

But what if a person like Imam Ahmad recognizes all these fallacies ,errors and complexities in the middle of discussions and debates in front of a monarch who did not understand these theological and logical problems.

33

33

He had no way except to say that “I am not a [Mu”tazili ] Theologian or I am not a Mu”tazilah.

Qadi Abu Davud [Du’ad] 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

3] Melchert, Christopher. The Adversaries of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Arabica 44 (1997):

4] —, Classical Arabic Biography: The Heirs of the Prophet in the Age of al-Ma 'mun.

5] HANBAL B. ISHÀQ B. HANBAL. Dhikr mihnat al-imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.

6] SHARH AQAID TAFTAZANI

7] AL-JÀHIZ, Rasa'il al-Jàhiz, 4 vols. Ed. 'Abd al-Salam Hàrùn. Cairo: Al-Kliànjî.

8] Introduction toLogic, Irving M Copy ,Carl Cohen

;

34

34

35

35

36

36