http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234931308-is-the-quran-created-or-uncreated/ A RESPONSE TO ISNA ASRITE VIEW; The sunni view is that the Quran is the eternal uncreated word of Allah. Do the Shia share the same view as the sunnis? If yes then does the idea the the Quran is the uncreated word of Allah conflict with the belief in Tawhid? In other words, the word ‘Kalām’ is usually applied to the beginningless attribute of Allah present with His being referred to as His ‘Speech.’ But sometimes when it is used, it means the ‘Qur’ān,’ which is the revelation sent to Muhammad who proclaimed it to humanity. http://www.masud.co....speech_word.htm This posting sums up the doctrine of the massive majority of the Muslims, namely the People of the Sunna and the Congregation, concerning the pre-existent, pre-eternal, beginningless, and uncreated nature of the Divine Speech Allah Most High has named al-Qur'an, as held by the Salaf al-Salihun and as formulated by the two Masters, Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and their respective schools. http://www.livingisl...rg/uncrq_e.html
We disagree with the Sunni views on this. Saying anything other than Allah is pre-eternal, preexistent, beginningless, etc., is dangerous territory. ANS NOT SO DANGEROUS. DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE ETERNAL. TO CLAIM THAT DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE IDENTICAL DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. SINCE PLURALITY CANNOT BE IDENTICAL TO UNICITY. THIS IS ABSURD AND IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST INCONTINGENT.
We say it is neither khaaliq nor makhluuq, as the latter when applied to kalaam in Arabic can have the sense of being a lie, fabrication, fictitious, etc. Rather, we use the term (muhdath), originated. ANS:- A THING IS EITHER CREATED OR NOT CREATED. THE LAW OF EXLUSION OF MIDDLE IS APPLICABLE. SO IF QURAN IS CREATED THEM IT IS NOT UNCREATED. IF UNCREATED THEN NOT MAKHLUQ. FURTHER IT IS NOT THE QUESTION WHETHER QURAN IS KHALIQ OR NOT, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER QURAN IS MAKHLUQ OR GHAIR MAKHLUQ. KHLIQ IS GHAIR MAKHLUQ BUT THERE ARE GHAIR MAKHLUQAT WHICH ARE NOT KHALIQ. DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NOT KHALIQ. ISNA ASRITES AGREE WITH MU’TAZILITES ON THIS ISSUE The Sunnis entangled opinions on this are perhaps partially due to a failure to make a distinction between the eternal attributes of Allah and His action. As Shaykh Saduq says in his creed: ANS ;AHLUSSUNNAH DO KNOW THE DIFFERNCES BETWEEN DIVINE ACTS AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTE. THEY EVEN DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ACTIVIE ATTRIBITES AND ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES. THEY DO NOT FAIL TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AND DIVINE ACTS OR DIVINE DOINGS. THIS IS A FALSE ALLEGATION. RAITHER ISNA ASRITES CLAIM THAT JUSTICE IS NECESSARY UPON ALL-H. IF ACT OF JUSTICE IS AN ACT THEN IT CANNOT BE NECESSARY, OTHER WISE IT IS IMPLIED THAT IT IS ETERNAL.
"For example, we say that Allah was from ever Hearer, See'er, Omniscient, Wise, Omnipotent, Having power, Living, Self-existent, One and Eternal. And these are His personal attributes. and we do not say that He was from ever Creating, Doing, Intending, pleased, displeased, Giving sustenance, Speaking; because these virtues describe His actions; and they are not eternal; it is not allowed to say that Allah was doing all these actions from eternity. The reason for this
distinction is obvious. Actions need an object. For example, if we say that Allah was giving sustenance from ever, then we will have to admit the existence of sustained thing from ever. In other words, we will have to admit that the world was from ever. but it is against our belief that nothing except God is Eternal." ANS : = AHLUSSUNNAH BELIEVE THAT EIGHT DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE ETERNAL AND ESSENTIAL. THEY ARE :- LIFE, OMNISCINCE ,OMNIPOTENCE, SEEING,HEARING, INTENTION, TACVIN, CALAM AN NAFSI. RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES AND ACTIVE ATTRIBUTES LIKE TRUTH [ IN SPEECH] , JUSTICE, MERCY ETC ARE NOT ETERNAL AND IN DIVINE POWER. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE ATTRIBUTES AND ACTS. THE RELATION OF TACVIN OR OMNISCIENCE BETWEEN A DIVINE ACT AND OMNIPOTENCE OR TACVIN IS CALLED AN ACTIVE ATTRIBUTE. NOW IT IS CLEAR THAT THE POWER TO DO AN ACT IS ETERNAL BUT THE ACT IS NOT. BUT THE ABILITY TO SEE IS NOT AN ACT OF DIVINE OMNIP[OTENCE OTHER WISE ALL-H MUST HAVE THE POWER TO SEE A THING OR NOT TO SEE THE THING, TO HEAR A THING OR NOT TO HEAR A THING. THIS DOES PROVE THAT SEEINF IS NOT AN ACT OF POWER BUT OF ANOTHER ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE . If we are to say that His speech is eternal, therefore the Quran is eternal, well why should we stop there? Is His creating and giving sustenance eternal to? So therefore, is the universe and everything in it eternal? ANS: ONCE AGAIN THE OBJECTIONER MAKER MISSED THE POINT. DIVINE SPEECH IS ETERNAL AND ACT OF SPEAKING IS NOT. ACT OF SPEAKING IS RELATED TO A; CALAM AL LAFZI AND DIVINE SPEECH IS AL CALAM AN NAFSI. THE LATTER STATED SPEECH IS AN ATTRIBUTE AND FORMER STATED SPEECH IS JUST AN ACT. ONE MAY MAKE AN OBJECTION THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE DIVINE SPEECH NOT TWO. BUT THIS IS INCORRECT. DIVINE SPEECH IS AS ETERNAL AS DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE OR DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. HOW EVER ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES MAY BE NOT ETERNAL. COMING BACK TO ISNA ASHRISM , LET IT BE SEEN THAT THEY BELIEVE DIVINE JUSTICE IS NECESSARY UPON THE ESSENCE OF ALL-H. AS ALL-H IS NECESSARY, AND IF NECESSARU UPON NECESSARY IS PRIME NECESSARY, IT IS IMPLIED THAT JUSTICE IS INFINTELY MORE NECESSARY THEN ALL-H HIMSELF, [ AL “AYAZ BILLAH TA”ALA] IF NECESSARY THEN ETERNAL. SO WHY ISNA ASHRITE STOPPED HERE . THEY WOULD HAVE SAID THAD DIVINE FORGIVENESS, DIVINE MERCY ALL ARE NECESSARY. IF ALL-H IS DOING JUSTICE IN ETERNITY THEN THERE IS SOME ONE TO WHOM JUSTICE IS DONE, AND THAT ONE IS ETERNAL?? Really, this talk of the kalaam being eternal does sound an awful lot like the Christian doctrine of the pre-existent logos, word, which they identify as being God, incarnated in the Christ (a`udhubillah). ANS: ONCE AGAIN A FALSE ANALOGY. DIVINE SPEECH IS NOT AN ACT BUT AN ATTRIBUTE. IT IS NOT EVEN AN ACTIVE ATTRIBUTE BUT AN ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE. NOW WE COME TO CHRISTIAN DOGMA OF HYPOSTASES. THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERNCE BETWEEN AN ATTRIBUTE AND A HYPOSTASIS. IT IS NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CATHOLIC HYPOSTASES AND SUNNI ATTRIBUTES:= The classic definitionOF A HYPOSTASIS OR PERSON is that given by Boethius in "De persona et duabus naturis", c. ii: Naturæ rationalis individua substantia (an individual substance of a rational nature). 1] Substantia -- "Substance" is used to exclude accidents: "We see that accidents cannot constitute person" (Boethius, op. cit.). Substantia is used in two senses: of the concrete substance as existing in theindividual, called substantia prima, corresponding to Aristotle's ousia prote; and of abstractions,substance as existing in genus and species, called substantia secunda, Aristotle's ousia deutera. It is disputed which of the two the word taken by itself here signifies. It seems probable that of itself it prescinds from substantia prima and substantia secunda, and is restricted to the former signification only by the word individua.
2] Individua — Individua, i.e., indivisum in se, is that which, unlike the higher branches in the tree ofPorphyry, genus and species, cannot be further subdivided. Boethius in giving his definition does not seem to attach any further signification to the word. It is merely synonymous with singularis. 3] Rationalis naturae -- Person is predicated only of intellectual beings. The generic word which includes allindividual existing substances is suppositum. Thus person is a subdivision of suppositum which is applied equally to rational and irrational, living and nonliving individuals. A person is therefore sometimesdefined as suppositum naturae rationalis. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT A HYPOSTASIS OR APERSON IN DIVINE OUSIA IS PER SE SUBSISTENT. BUT A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS NOT PERSE SUBSITENT. SO THE ANALOGY IS INCORRECT. AS FOR INCARNATION ONE FIRST KNOW THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVES ABOUT INCARNATION:= Thus far we have that which is of Faith in this matter of the nature of the Incarnation. The human and Divine natures are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that exactly which they are, namely, Divine and human natures with distinct and perfect activities of their own. Theologians go farther in their attempts to give some account of the mystery of the Incarnation, so as, at least, to show that there is therein no contradiction, nothing that right reason may not safely adhere to. This union of the two natures in one Person has been for centuries called a hypostatic union, that is, a union in the DivineHypostasis. What is an hypostasis? The definition of Boethius is classic: rationalis naturae individua substantia (P.L., LXIV, 1343), a complete whole whose nature is rational. This book is a complete whole; its nature is not rational; it is not an hypostasis. An hypostasis is a complete rational individual. St. Thomas defines hypostasis as substantia cum ultimo complemento (III:2:3, ad 2um), a substance in its entirety. Hypostasis superadds to the notion of rational substance this idea of entirety; nor does the ideaof rational nature include this notion of entirety. Human nature is the principle of human activities; but only an hypostasis, a person, can exercise these activities. The Schoolmen discuss the question whether the hypostasis has anything more of reality than human nature. To understand the discussion, one must needs be versed in scholastic Philosophy. Be the case as it may in the matter of human nature that is not united with the Divine, the human nature that is hypostatically united with the Divine, that is, the humannature that the Divine Hypostasis or Person assumes to Itself, has certainly more of reality united to it than the human nature of Christ would have were it not hypostatically united in the Word. The DivineLogos identified with Divine nature (Hypostatic Union) means then that the Divine Hypostasis (or Person, or Word, or Logos) appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes in every respect the place of thehuman person. In this way, the human nature of Christ, though not a human person, loses nothing of theperfection of the perfect man; for the Divine Person supplies the place of the human. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm
Internally, it also makes no sense. The Quran is described as being in Arabic, was the Arabic language therefore eternal? It describes specific people, places, times, some events as having happened in the past. If it's pre-eternal, does this make any sense? WHAT IDF ARABIC IS ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE? BUT THE OBJECTION MAKER HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE. THE IS NA ASHRITE OBJECTION MAKER FAILS TO DISTINGWISH B\W CALAM AN NAFSI AND CALAM AL LAFZI. HE FAILS TO SEE THE SENCES.