Quranic createdness

Thank you for your question!

I guess the negation of dumbness from Allah would be acceptable as long as by speech, we mean 'the conveyance of Allah's will.' However, it would be problematic if by speech we mean 'the sound that emanates from an opening articulated by the tongue, teeth and lips.' This is because if we negate dumbness from this type of speech, then we would fall into the same quagmire of the Asharis in that we would be forced to affirm that Allah's speech is of this type. This would of course imply corporeality by necessity. I hope this is clear.

As for your question about the import of the said verse Q. 21:2, from what I read on the issue, there are four possibilities for the interpretation of 'dhikr' this verse. One, it can refer to the warning/admonition of the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa salaam, and not Allah; two, it can refer to the revelation of the Qur'an and not the verses of Qur'an; three, it can refer to the non-Quranic statements of Allah; or four, it can refer to the verses of Qur'an.

If we accept the first view, it would be problematic because the verse clearly states that the dhikr is {from their Lord}. A parallel verse (Q. 26:5) further emphasises the point by saying {...from the Most Merciful (ar-Rahmaan)}. Although the text you referenced mentioned that the admonitions from the Messenger are ultimately from Allah, it would be rather superfluous to negate it from being from Allah in the first place, right?

Besides, if we look at the Sunni tafsir of the verses that the author cited to prove that the dhikr mentioned was from the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, it contradicts what the author intends. For example, in a tafsir of Q. 51:55 and Q. 87:9 from Tafsir Jalalayn, it says that the reminder is from the Qur'an.

If we accept the second view, this would contradict the rest of the verse because it says that the disbelievers mocked or played when they heard it. One cannot say that they heard the revelation of the Qur'an and not the Qur'an. So, the view that mudath describes the constant revelation of the Qur'anic verses is also disproven.

As for the third view, it is problematic for them because it would imply that Allah's non-Qur'anic Speech is muhdath,or created. If one says that His non-Qur'anic speech is created but His Qur'anic speech is uncreated, one would have to differentiate between His two types of Speech. This would also put them into the original problem of the nature of Allah's Speech--created or eternal?

This leaves the fourth view. This view is supported by other verses such as Q. 6:91, 44:9 . The parallel verse Q. 26:5 agrees with other verses such as Q. 9:127, 15:81 in that they are said to turn away from the Qur'an and its verses.

If it is established that the meaning of dhikr is the Qur'an in Q. 21:2 and 26:5 and that muhdath describes the dhikr, it follows that the Qur'an is what is referred to as muhdath. Nothing eternal can be described as muhdath.

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Thank you for your question! We posted an answer to the question here .

Also, if it is impermissible to seek refuge in other than Allah, as you said, wouldn't this also mean that it would be impermissible to seek refuge in His kalimaat? However, if you hold to the view that Allah is the same as His Word, then you affirm Christianity. Regardless, it doesn't imply that the Qur'an is uncreated just as it doesn't imply that Isa b. Maryam (also called kalaam in 4:171) is uncreated.

As for the opinion of Ibn Mas'ud permitting one to swear by the Qur'an, if the narration is authentic, it does not serve as a proof because this is the opinion of a fallible Companion. Zaydis only permit one to swear an oath by Allah. Swearing an oath by something else (i.e. the heavens, the Qur'an, etc) is invalid.

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Thank you for your question!

The analogy I was drawing was simply to demonstrate that if the kalimaat of Allah is eternal as per the Asharis, then the Christians can argue for the eternality of Isa b. Maryam (as) using the same logic. He is called the kalaam of Allah in the Qur'an. So the wording of the narration and the Ashari understanding of it can easily justify the Christian belief in the divinity of Nabi Isa (as).

As for your question regarding the Jahmis, our imams have refuted them in various works and on various theological points. The group is named after Jahm b. Safwaan, and they hold to the belief in the Fatalists. They say for example, that Allah creates the actions of the slaves. They also believe in the finality of Paradise and Hellfire, as well as the belief that gnosis alone comprises of imaan, or belief. {Ref. Al-Bahr az-Zakhkhaar)

And Allah knows best!

IRS