Ar-Razi’s Inconsistency and the Weakness of the Argument for the Quran Being Created
Ibn Taymiyyah shows that Ar-Razi and those like him knew their argument was weak. Although they were eager to refute the Karramiyyah, Ar-Razi did not use this argument in his main works on Allah’s speech, like Ajl al-Kutub and Nihayat al-Uqul. This shows inconsistency, especially since the issue of speech is central to the debate.
The Consensus of Scholars on Allah’s Speech
The well-known view followed by al-Ashari and his followers, as well as scholars from the Hanbali and other madhhahib like Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi, al-Qadi Abu Yaʿla, and al-Juwayni, was that Allah speaks. These scholars, though differing on some technical aspects, agreed that the Quran is Allah’s uncreated speech.
The Debate Between Abd al-Aziz and Bishr al-Marisi
Bishr avoided using Quran or Sunnah and insisted on analogy and “logic”. When Abd al-Aziz agreed to argue on those terms, Bishr was unable to respond. Abd al-Aziz forced Bishr to admit that if the Quran is created, it must either have been created within Allah, in something else, or as something that exists by itself.
Each of these options leads to absurd consequences or contradiction. If created in something else, then all speech good and evil would be Allah’s speech. If created by itself, it contradicts the nature of speech as needing a speaker. If created in Allah, it implies created things exist in Him, which is invalid. Bishr was unable to answer and fell silent.
Further Arguments About Allah’s Action and Power
Abd al-Aziz continued by asking whether Allah had always had power and whether He had always been acting. Bishr admitted Allah always had power but denied that He was always acting.
Abd al-Aziz used this to show that Allah must have an attribute of action that is not identical to His power, nor is it the created thing. He affirmed that creation happened through a real action from Allah that came after not existing, but that this action was itself not created it was part of Allah’s attributes.
The Three Logical Possibilities and Their Refutation
The argument presented by Abd al-Aziz that created speech must exist either within Allah, outside of Him, or as an independent entity shows that all these views are invalid when applied to the Quran.
If the Quran were created outside of Allah, then all speech, including evil speech, would also have to be His speech, which is impossible. This was a known view among the Salaf, including Imam Ash-Shafiʿi, Imam Ahmad, Abu Ubayd, and others, who said whoever equates Allah’s words to Pharaoh’s words falls into kufr.
The Jahmiyyah, Muʿtazilah, and Philosophical Views
Jahmiyyah and many Muʿtazilah denied attributes altogether. They claimed Allah’s essence alone existed and everything else, including will and speech, is created. They argued Allah created without acting or speaking. Abd al-Aziz refuted this by showing that creation without an action is irrational and more absurd than claiming creation without power or even without a creator at all.
The Nature of Action and Speech in Allah’s Essence
Abd al-Aziz made a key distinction: action is an attribute of Allah and under His power, but it is not identical to created things. He did not claim Allah is always acting, only that He has always been capable of action. This preserved Allah’s perfection without implying that created things existed eternally. He affirmed that Allah speaks and acts by His will and power, unlike the view of those who say Allah’s speech is necessary and unrelated to will.
The Objection of Eternal Action and the Infinite Regress
Bishr attempted to force Abd al-Aziz into saying that Allah’s actions are eternal, implying created things are eternal too. But Abd al-Aziz did not accept this. He only affirmed that Allah is always capable of action, not that He is always creating. The argument of infinite regress raised by Bishr applied equally to his own position and was not unique to Abd al-Aziz.
Different Views on Allah’s Action and Eternal Power
Some scholars said Allah has always had eternal actions that occur successively like the Karramiyyah and many hadith scholars. Others, like the Kullabiyyah and Ashʿaris, said Allah’s action is eternal and unchanging. Some said the act of creation (takwin) is eternal, while created things are new. In all these views, Allah’s action is distinguished from what is created.
The Philosophers and the Argument for Eternal Universe
The philosophers used the argument that if the cause of creation was eternal, the universe must also be eternal. Ibn Taymiyyah answers that this only applies if the cause necessarily produces its effect. If Allah wills and acts successively, there is no need to assume the universe is eternal. An infinite chain of past events is possible if they occur successively, not all at once.
The Conclusion of Abd al-Aziz’s Argument
Abd al-Aziz succeeded in proving that created things must come through Allah’s action and power, and that these are uncreated attributes. He refuted Bishr’s core claim that Allah has no attributes and that the Quran is created. By showing that Allah’s power and action are not created and are necessary to bring about the universe, he exposed the irrationality in Bishr’s view. The Salaf rightly affirmed that the Quran is Allah’s speech, not created, and part of His attributes, which are not other than Him nor separate from Him, but essential to who He is.
Translation: Ar-Razi’s Weakness in His Argument and His Inconsistency
One of the things that shows you that ar-Razi and others like him believed this issue to be weak even though they strongly wanted to refute the view of the Karramiyyah whenever they could is that he did not rely on it in the issue of Allah’s speech in his book Ajl al-Kutub and Nihayat al-Uqul. Yet the issue of speech is one of the most important matters built upon this foundation.
The well-known view followed by al-Ashari and his followers on the issue of the Quran, along with those who agreed with them on this foundation among the companions of Ahmad and others, such as Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi, al-Qadi Abu Ya’la, Ibn Aqil, Abu al-Hasan ibn az-Zaghuni and others among Ahmad’s companions, and such as Abu al-Maali al-Juwayni, al-Qadi al-Baqillani, Abu Sa’id al-Mutawalli and others like them, as well as Abu al-Qasim ar-Rawasi the Shafi’i, and al-Qadi Abu al-Walid al-Baji, and Abu Bakr at-Turtushi and others
The Debate Between Abd al-Aziz and Bishr al-Marisi
After Bishr presented his argument to the Caliph using verses such as “Allah is the Creator of everything” (az-Zumar: 62) and “We have made it an Arabic Quran” (az-Zukhruf: 3), he said: “O Commander of the Believers, I have many things to say, but he (Abd al-Aziz) speaks using the text of revelation, and I speak with reasoning and analogy. So let him stop demanding from me the text of revelation and debate me using reasoning and analogy. If he does not stop saying this and agree with me and affirm that the Quran is created, then my execution is permissible!”
Abd al-Aziz mentioned that Bishr had asked him to debate using only reasoning and analogy, leaving aside textual evidence. (This story is reported in the book al-Haydah by Imam Abd al-Aziz ibn Yahya al-Kattani, p. 79 onwards, published by Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd al-Rahman Aal al-Shaykh, Imam Printing House, Cairo, undated. Ibn Taymiyyah later mentions that the copy he referred to differs from the one published, and he will refer to that other version later.)
Abd al-Aziz said to him: “Bishr, do you want to question me or shall I question you?” Bishr replied: “You may question me.” All his companions were hopeful, thinking that if I left textual arguments, I would not know what to say. I said to him: “Bishr, do you say that the speech of Allah is created?” He replied: “Yes, I say it is created.”
I said: “Then you must say one of three things there’s no escaping it: either you say that Allah created the Quran, which is His speech according to me, in Himself; or that He created it in something else; or that He created it as something that exists by itself.
So which of these do you say?” Bishr replied: “I say it is created, and that He created it as He created all things.” I said: “O Commander of the Believers, we have now left the Quran, the revealed text, the Sunnah, and the transmitted reports, all of which he fled from. I will debate him with pure reasoning, and I will…”
At this point, Bishr backed away from the discussion and fell silent. I said: “If he wants to debate me properly, then he must answer the questions I pose. If not, then the Commander of the Believers may dismiss me, for Bishr only wants to engage with people who do not understand, so he can confuse them about their religion and argue with things they cannot grasp. Then he appears victorious over them and makes it lawful to shed their blood.”
The Caliph al-Ma’mun turned to Bishr and said: “Answer Abd al-Aziz’s question. He has now left his own view and is debating you on your terms, using the reasoning and analogy that you claimed to master.” Bishr said: “I have answered him, but he is being difficult.” Al-Ma’mun said: “He is insisting that you give one of three answers.” Bishr said: “This demand is even stricter than him using the revealed text! I have nothing more to say beyond what I already said.”
Then al-Ma’mun turned to me and said: “O Abd al-Aziz, explain this matter and clarify it, and leave Bishr, for he has fallen silent from every angle.” I said: “Yes.” I asked him: “Is the speech of Allah created?” He said: “Yes.” I told him what this would entail, and it must fall into one of three possibilities: either he says Allah created His speech in Himself, or in something else, or as something that exists by itself.
If he says: “He created it in Himself,” this is impossible there is no way to support this with analogy or reason or anything comprehensible. That is because Allah cannot be a place for created things. Nothing created can exist in Him, and He is not deficient so that something could be added to Him once it is created. He is far above that and greater than such claims!
If he says: “He created it in something else,” then by analogy and reason, every speech created in something else must be Allah’s speech. He would not be able to distinguish between them. That would mean all speech including the speech of disbelief, obscenity, and every speech that Allah criticised and condemned would be the speech of Allah. This is clearly false, disgraceful, and disbelief against Allah.
If he says: “He created it as something that exists by itself,” then this is even more clearly false. Speech cannot exist by itself, just like will must come from someone who wills, knowledge from someone who knows, and power from someone who has power. No one has ever seen or known of speech that exists by itself and speaks independently. This is completely incomprehensible and unsupported by analogy or reason. So when all three possibilities are impossible, then speech must be a attribute of Allah and the attributes of Allah are not created. Therefore, Bishr’s claim is invalid.
The Further Argument Between Abd al-Aziz and Bishr
Al-Ma’mun said: “You have done well, O Abd al-Aziz.” Bishr said: “Ask something else. Perhaps we can agree on another matter.” I said: “Very well, I will leave this issue and ask you about another one.”
I said to Bishr: “Don’t you say that Allah was and nothing else was with Him, and that He had not done anything or created anything yet?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “So by what means did things come to exist after not existing? Did they bring themselves into existence, or did Allah bring them into existence?” He replied: “Allah brought them into existence.” I said: “And by what did He bring them into existence?” He said: “He brought them into existence by His eternal power.” I said: “He created them by His power, as you said. Don’t you also say that Allah has always been powerful?” He replied: “Yes.” I said: “Then do you say He has always been doing actions?” He said: “No, I do not say that.” I said: “Then you must say that He created by an action based on His power. But action is not the same as power, because power is an attribute of Allah. And no one says that the attribute of Allah is Allah Himself, or that it is something separate from Him.”
Bishr said: “But then you must also say that Allah has always been creating and acting. And if you say that, then you have admitted that created things have always existed alongside Allah.” Abd al-Aziz replied: “You have no right to attribute to me something I never said, nor to force upon me something that does not follow from my words. I never said: ‘The Creator has always been creating,’ or, ‘The Actor has always been acting,’ so that your consequence would follow from it.”
Bishr said: “I say that Allah brought things into being by His power. Say what you will.” Abd al-Aziz said: “O Commander of the Believers, Bishr has now admitted that Allah was, and nothing else was with Him, and that He created things after they were nothing by His power. I said: He created them by His command and His speech, with His power.
So the first creation Allah brought into being either He created it by a command He gave, or by a will He intended, or by a power He possessed. Whichever of these it was, it means that there was, before creation, will, a willer, what was willed, speech, a speaker, what was spoken, power, a possessor of power, and what was acted upon. All of this existed before creation. And whatever existed before creation is not itself created.”
“So I broke Bishr’s claim using the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the Arabic language, reason, and intellect. Then I presented another argument.”
The Three Impossible Places for the Creation of the Quran
The point here is that Abd al-Aziz argued: if Allah creates something, He must either create it in Himself, or in something else, or as something that exists independently by itself. All three possibilities are invalid.
There is no doubt that the Mu’tazilah say: He created it in something else. Abd al-Aziz refuted this with a logical argument widely used by the people of Sunnah: it is necessarily known from Islam that the Quran is the speech of Allah. So if it were created in some place other than Him, it would follow that all speech created in any other place is also the speech of Allah, since they are equal in relation to Him. That would mean that all speech created by Allah like the speech of skins, hands, feet would be His speech.
When they say, “Allah made us speak, the One who made everything speak” (Fussilat: 21), then it must follow that the one who made them speak is the one speaking. And Bishr was not from the Qadariyyah he was someone who affirmed that Allah creates the actions of His slaves. So Abd al-Aziz forced him to accept that all created speech must be the speech of Allah, including speech of disbelief and obscenity.
This conclusion was openly stated by the Hululiyyah from among the Jahmiyyah and Ittihadiyyah, such as the author of Fusus al-Hikam, al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, and others, who said: “Every word in existence is His word,
Its prose and its poetry are all the same to us.”
The Statement of the Salaf and the Comparison to Pharaoh
Because of this, some of the Salaf said: whoever says that the verse “Indeed, I am Allah; there is no god but Me” (Taha: 14) is created, has made the speech of Allah equal to the words of Pharaoh, who said: “I am your lord, the most high” (an-Naziat: 24). According to him, that verse was created by Allah in the tree, and Pharaoh’s words were created in him so if the first is the speech of Allah, then so is the second.
Sulayman ibn Dawud al-Hashimi one of the imams of Islam like al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah and others said: “Whoever says that the Quran is created is a disbeliever. If the Quran is created as they claim, then why is Pharaoh more deserving of eternal punishment for saying: ‘I am your lord, the most high,’ than someone who said: ‘Indeed, I am Allah; there is no god but Me’? Both, according to them, are created speech.”
Abu Ubayd was informed of this, and he approved of it and was pleased by it. This was mentioned by al-Bukhari in his book Khalq Af’al al-Ibad.
Something similar was mentioned by Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, Abdullah ibn Idris, and Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan. This is based on the view that Allah creates the actions of His slaves. If Allah created in one place the verse “Indeed, I am Allah; there is no god but Me, so worship Me,” and created in another place the words “I am your lord, the most high,” then the place where the first was created is more deserving of punishment than Pharaoh. And if the first is the speech of Allah, then Pharaoh’s words would also be the speech of Allah.
The Philosophical Views About Attributes Without a Place
As for saying that Allah created speech that exists independently by itself this is clearly false, because attributes cannot exist independently. But the Jahmiyyah said that He created knowledge without a place. The Basri Mu’tazilah said He created will and power without a place. A group among them said He creates one thing after another without a place. These kinds of views are clearly known by reason to be invalid.
As for the first possibility that Allah created it in Himself Abd al-Aziz also refuted this. But what is in Allah’s essence may refer to two types:
One: that it be said Allah brought about speech in Himself by His power after not having been speaking before. This is the view of the Karramiyyah and others who say Allah’s speech is originated and brought about within His essence, and that Allah began speaking after not speaking at all. They say it is impossible to say Allah has always been speaking. This is what Imam Ahmad and others rejected.
Two: that it be said Allah has always been speaking whenever He wills, as the leading imams said. And both of these groups do not say that what is within Allah is created. For them, created things are only what exist outside of Allah. What exists within Him His actions and attributes are not created.
There is no doubt that Bishr and others who said the Quran was created said that it was created outside of Allah, like all other created things. As for the act of creation itself according to those who distinguish between the act of creating and the created thing (which is the majority) they do not say that creation itself is created. Those who affirm that new actions, intentions, or perceptions arise within Allah do not say that these are created. For if there is a Creator, a creation, and an act of creation, then the act itself is not part of the created.
The Dispute Over the Nature of Allah’s Speech
Because of this, those who say that the speech of Allah is within Himself agree that it is not created. Then they differ about what it is: is it one eternal meaning, or five eternal meanings, as Ibn Kullab and al-Ashari said? Or is it eternal letters and sounds, as Ibn Salim and a group said? Or is it letters and sounds that occur within Allah after not having occurred, as Ibn Karram and a group said? Or is it that Allah has always been speaking whenever He wills, with a voice that can be heard, and with letters, as the people of hadith and the imams said?
The point is that whatever exists in Allah’s essence is not called created by any of them whether it is eternal or originated.
This is the basis of Abd al-Aziz’s argument against Bishr, because Bishr was among the leaders of the Jahmiyyah who denied all attributes. According to him, nothing at all exists within Allah no attribute, no action, no power, no speech, no will. He held that only Allah’s bare essence exists, and everything else is separate and created. This was the view of the Jahmiyyah from among the Mu’tazilah and others.
So Abd al-Aziz refuted him with two rational arguments:
First: if the speech of Allah is created, and He did not create it in something else, nor as something that exists by itself, then it must be that He created it within Himself which is false.
Second: created things that exist apart from Allah were created by something that is not itself created either by Allah’s power, as Bishr admitted, or by His action, command, and will, as Abd al-Aziz said. Either way, it proves that there were uncreated attributes before creation. So the root of Bishr and the Jahmiyyah’s claim that Allah has no attributes and that everything apart from His bare essence is created is false. It is proven that Allah’s essence contains meanings that are not created. This is a proof for those who affirm attributes and who say that the Quran is Allah’s speech and not created, against those who deny the attributes and say the Quran is created. For whoever denies the attributes must say the Quran is created.
The Final Dispute Among Those Who Affirm the Attributes
What remains is a dispute among those who affirm that Allah has speech within Himself: does any of this speech depend on His will and power? Was Abd al-Aziz among those who say that something may exist within Allah and still depend on His will and power? Or was he among those who say that whatever is willed and intended must be outside of Allah, and that what is intended is the created thing, and they are not the same?
These two views are well known. They were mentioned by al-Harith al-Muhasibi and others among the people of Sunnah, as already mentioned earlier.
The second view is the view of Ibn Kullab, al-Ashari, and those who followed them from the companions of Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others.
The first view is the view of the leading scholars of hadith, the Hushaymiyyah, the Karramiyyah, and groups of mutakallimun from the Murji’ah like Abu Mu’adh at-Tumani, Zuhayr al-Athari, and others, and those who agreed with them from the followers of Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others.
So someone might say: Abd al-Aziz agreed with Ibn Kullab, because he said: Allah is not a place for created things, and nothing created can exist within Him, and He is not deficient such that something could be added to Him. But if you reflect on the rest of Abd al-Aziz’s words, you will find that he follows the first view the view of the people of hadith.
Because he said to Bishr: “By what did things come into existence?” Bishr replied: “Allah brought them into existence by His eternal power.” Abd al-Aziz replied: “So He created them by His power, as you said. Do you not say that He has always had power?” Bishr said: “Yes.” Abd al-Aziz asked: “Then do you say He has always been acting?” Bishr said: “No.” Abd al-Aziz said: “Then you must admit that He created by an action based on His power, and action is an attribute.”
Abd al-Aziz also said later: “I did not say the Creator has always been creating, or the Actor has always been acting. Rather, action is an attribute, and Allah has power over it, and nothing prevents Him from doing it.”
So Abd al-Aziz affirmed an action that is under Allah’s power, which is one of His attributes, not from the created things and that He created the creation by that action. This is a clear statement that he considered the act of creating to be something other than the created thing, and that the action is one of Allah’s attributes. It is under His power, and He can do it whenever He wills, and nothing prevents Him from it. This is not the view of al-Ashari and those who agreed with him.
What remains to be said is that this act of creating called takwin by some is considered by some to be eternal, while others say it is something that is under His power and will. Abd al-Aziz clearly said that the action by which Allah creates is something He has power over. This means it exists within Allah and is subject to His power. And whatever is subject to His power must also be willed by Him this is agreed upon by everyone.
He also said: “Bishr has admitted that Allah brought things into existence by His power. And I said that He brought them into existence by His command and speech based on His power.” So he clearly said that Allah’s speech is subject to His power. He considered Allah’s speech to be one of His attributes, and also subject to His power.
This is the view of those who say that Allah has the power to speak, and that He speaks by His will and power. This is not the view of those who say His speech is necessary and not connected to will or power.
The Objection Raised Against Abd al-Aziz and His Responses
Here remains a question directed at Abd al-Aziz one that Bishr pressed upon him. Bishr said to him: “You too must say that Allah has always been acting and creating. If that is the case, then it means the created universe has always existed with Allah. For if a new event does not require a new cause, then the eternal power is enough. But if it does require a new cause, then the same question arises about the cause itself. This leads to an infinite chain of causes. That means Allah has always been acting and creating and so the created universe existed with Him eternally.”
Abd al-Aziz replied: “I never said that the Creator has always been creating, or that the Actor has always been acting, so that your argument could apply to me. I said only that action is an attribute, and Allah is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him from doing it.”
The meaning of his words is that he did not say Allah has always been creating and acting on things that are separate from Him, and therefore the objection that Bishr raised does not apply to him. Bishr had claimed that created things came into existence from the eternal power without any actual action taking place in Allah.
So if creation did not require anything other than power, and the power is eternal, then created things must have always existed alongside it. Otherwise, it would mean preferring one moment over another without any reason, and the appearance of new things without any cause.
But eternal power is not enough on its own to explain creation, because the mere possibility of something does not make it happen. Something possible only exists when there is a complete reason for it. If there is no complete cause, the thing remains only possible it does not become real. So just having the eternal power does not bring creation into existence. There must also be something else that Allah does.
Abd al-Aziz said: “This action is one of Allah’s attributes. It is not one of the created things that exist apart from Him. And Allah is capable of it, and nothing stops Him.” As for the question, “This action that did not exist before, but now exists if it happened through Allah’s power, which is an attribute, then what caused this action to appear?” this is the same question you ask about the appearance of created things.
Abd al-Aziz answered this in several ways.
The First Response: The Argument of Possibility
The first response is a combined answer. He said: “Whether a chain of new causes is possible or impossible if it is possible, then there is no problem. If it is impossible, that does not affect my position. The action that results in the creation of something is necessary we know that created things only exist because of an action. And something that is created only exists through creation. This is true whether an infinite chain is possible or not.”
That is why many groups said: the act of creating is not the same as the created thing, and the action is not the same as the result. They affirm this while also rejecting the idea of an infinite chain. This includes many of the scholars of Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad, as well as many Sufis, people of hadith, and theologians from the Karramiyyah, Murji’ah, Shia, and others.
Some of them said the act of creating (called takwin) is eternal, but the created things are new. They say the same about will: Allah’s will is eternal, but the things He wills are new. Others said the action is itself new after not having existed. But both groups agree that this action is not created. They say the created thing came into existence by it, just as it did by Allah’s power.
The Second Response: Shared Consequences
The second answer is: “What you mentioned about an infinite chain this is a consequence for anyone who says that a series of events began after not existing. So this is a problem for both of us. I am not alone in dealing with this objection.
But the idea that a created thing exists without any action that is your own problem alone. That is the very point I argued against you. My argument still stands against your view, but your objection applies to us both.”
The Third Response: The Nature of the Action
The third answer is: “I said that action is an attribute, and Allah is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him from it. The action itself is not the created thing. You only end up saying that created things existed eternally if you first assume that every action must have another action before it, and that all action leads immediately to the creation of something. But these assumptions are unproven, and each one needs its own evidence which Bishr never provided. Abd al-Aziz did not commit to any of these assumptions. His only point was that action is an attribute of Allah, and Allah is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him from doing it. That is enough to establish the point.”
In another version, if it is correct: “I only said the Actor has always been going to act, and the Creator has always been going to create” this means he denied that the action itself is eternal, let alone the created thing being eternal.
His words, “Action is an attribute, and Allah is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him,” deny that any particular action is eternal. However, it does not deny the type or category of action being eternal unless we first prove that an infinite chain of actions is impossible. But Abd al-Aziz did not say anything to affirm or deny that.
His words, “He has always been going to act,” can mean two things. One: that Allah has always been described as one who will act meaning He will eventually do every action He intends, one by one. This view implies that none of the actions or created things are eternal. Two: that Allah has always been going to do something or another, so He is always described as ready to act, but the specific actions are not eternal.
In both views, none of the created things exist eternally with Allah.
The View of the Majority
Altogether, what Abd al-Aziz forced upon Bishr destroys Bishr’s argument beyond doubt. And this is the view held by the majority of people. Most people say: creation is not the same as what is created, and action is not the same as what results from it. This is the view of the major scholars from the companions of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash-Shafi’i, and Ahmad, as well as the majority of Sufis and hadith scholars really all of them and many theologians and philosophers, if not most of them.
It is also the view of most of the Murji’ah from the Karramiyyah and others, most of the Shia, many of the Mu’tazilah and Kullabiyyah, and many philosophers. Among the followers of Malik, al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad, there are two views. But the leading scholars among them held that creation is not the same as what is created. This was the later view of al-Qadi Abu Ya’la and the majority of Ahmad’s followers. It was also the view reported by al-Baghawi from the people of Sunnah, and it is the view of many of the Kullabiyyah.
Allah’s Eternal Power and Will to Create
As for the phrase: “He is capable of action, and nothing prevents Him” this means He has always been capable of action, and nothing has ever stopped Him. This is the view of the majority of people. That is why they strongly criticised anyone who said: Allah was not capable of action in eternity. Those who disliked al-Ashari accused him of this view to turn people against him. Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni and others tried to defend al-Ashari from this accusation, as discussed elsewhere.
If Allah has always been capable of action, this is a description of perfection. That is why Abd al-Aziz said: “Action is an attribute, and Allah is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him. He created created things by His action, and they came into being through the act of creation. And this act of creation came through Allah’s power. The power to create something is the ability to act on it.”
As Allah said: “Is not He who created the heavens and the earth able to create the likes of them?” (Ya Sin: 81), and “Is not that One able to give life to the dead?” (al-Qiyama: 40), and “Say: He is able to send upon you a punishment from above you” (al-An’am: 65), and other verses that describe Allah as having the power to do actions which bring about results. These verses show that creation is not the same as the created thing. Just as the act of creating the heavens and the earth is not the same as the heavens and the earth themselves.
The ability to create was always there, but the created things did not come into being without an action.
As for someone who says: “That action, which is His attribute and which nothing prevents Him from doing if it is eternal, then it is like His power. And if it is new, then what caused it to begin, just as you asked me what caused the created thing to begin?”
Abd al-Aziz would reply: “I did not say it is eternal. I said it is an attribute, and Allah is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him from it. Just because something is within His power and nothing stops Him from doing it, does not mean it must be eternal. He can do it if He wills, and He can leave it if He wills.”
Two Responses to the Question of Action and Causality
As for your question about what caused the action to begin, the people who affirm the attributes give two responses.
The first response held by the Karramiyyah and those who agree with them is that affirming action and creation for the created thing is necessary. We understand that someone who is capable of acting, before he acts, does not have an action.
But when he does act, there is an action by which the result is produced, and a creation by which the created thing comes into being. Our goal is to affirm an action and attribute for Allah that exists within Him and is different from the things He creates. His speech is part of this. We are not the ones who introduce the idea of an infinite chain. That idea is false in our view, and also in yours.
The second response is that someone may say: there is no problem with there being an earlier action before this one, which Allah also did by His power. There is no harm in saying this goes on infinitely, because it is possible and allowed. This would be an infinite chain of actions, results, and conditions but there is nothing in reason that makes this impossible.
According to the first response, the meaning of his statement becomes clear: “I only said the Creator has always been going to create, and the Actor has always been going to act. I did not say He has always been creating and acting.”
According to the second response, when he says, “I did not say He has always been creating and acting, but rather that He has always been going to create and going to act,” this can be explained in two ways.
One way: action does not always lead to a created thing. An action can exist in itself, followed by another action existing in itself, and so on without there ever being a created thing that exists separately from Him.
The second way: even if we assume that the created things follow one after another, just like actions do still, every created thing and every action is something new that happened after not existing. Therefore, none of them existed with Allah in eternity. Each one of them came into being after not existing, and anything that comes into being after not existing cannot be eternal alongside the One who has always existed.
If someone says: “But the type or category of actions and created things has always existed” we reply: even so, types of events do not all exist at once. They only exist one after another. So if someone says, “Allah has always been acting and creating” but every action and created thing must be specific and defined then this may be misunderstood. It might sound like they are saying that Allah has always been creating the heavens and mankind, or always acting in a specific way. But that is not what is meant.
What is meant is: Allah has always been going to create the heavens and mankind. He has always been going to act. There is no created thing, nor any action, except that Allah has always been described as one who was going to do it not that He was already doing it or creating it, in the sense of it existing with Him in eternity.
Even if before this action He was acting in another way, or before this creation He created something else still, regarding each specific act and creation, He has always been going to do it or going to create it. It should not be said that He has always been acting or creating it in the sense that it existed alongside Him in eternity.
If it is said that Allah has always been acting with respect to the general type of action, this is the same as saying: “He has always been going to do whatever He does.” But the phrase “He has always been acting” might be misunderstood, whereas “He has always been going to act” avoids that misunderstanding.
Views Regarding Eternal Action
There are various views on this. The majority of the people of Sunnah say: “Allah has always been a Creator and Actor.” As Imam Ahmad said: “Allah has always been All-Knowing, Speaking, Forgiving.” In fact, they say He has always been acting either based on the idea that the action itself is eternal, even if the created thing is new, or based on the idea that successive actions arise in Him.
As for the view of Bishr and his companions, the Jahmiyyah they said that all created things came into existence without any action or creation. The speech of Allah was included among those created things. Abd al-Aziz argued against this based on their own view.
He said to him: “If you say that Allah existed and had not yet acted or created anything, even though He had always been capable then you are admitting that Allah has always been capable, but you do not say that He has always been creating.
That means there must be an action that happened based on His power. That action is neither the power itself because power is an attribute of Allah nor is it the created thing itself. If it were, then it would mean the created thing came into existence without creation, and the result came into being without action. But this is even more impossible to reason than saying it came without power.”
If we were to present to reason a created thing that came into existence after not existing, and claim that it happened without any action or creation, the mind would reject that more strongly than it would reject the idea that it came into existence without the Creator having power. And to claim it came into existence without any Creator at all is even more irrational than both of those. If someone says: “He did it without power,” the mind rejects that. If he says: “He did it with power, but without action,” the mind rejects that even more. And if he says: “It happened without any doer at all,” that is the worst and most irrational of all.
A doer without action is like a knower without knowledge, a living being without life, a powerful being without power. This negates a necessary part of the meaning of the word. As for denying power for the actor, that would be denying what is logically entailed by the word.
The Utter Impossibility of Creation Without Action
If someone says: “It is possible for a created thing to come into existence without any action or creation, because if it came by an action, then that action would need another action, leading to an infinite chain and that would mean the Creator is always acting and creating” then we respond:
If you allow something to come into existence without action, you must also allow it to come without power. Because affirming power implies affirming attributes, which in turn implies that things happen within Allah.
If he says: “Action without power is impossible. There is nothing in reason that prevents what follows from having power. In fact, we know that action without power is more impossible than attributes existing within Allah, even if someone calls them ‘accidents’,”
We say to him: A created thing that comes into being without any action or creation is more impossible in reason than anything else. There is nothing in reason that prevents what follows from action that is based on power. In fact, we know this is even more impossible than saying that actions arise within Allah no matter what someone chooses to call them.
This becomes clear when we realise that created things necessarily require an act of creation, and things that come into existence require an act of bringing them about. This is known by reason and by revelation. For someone to be a Creator and a Doer is like being a Speaker, a Willer, a Mover, and so on. All of these names imply that there are real meanings attached to the One being described.
So when the proof of Abd al-Aziz appeared against Bishr that there must be an action from Allah based on His power he said to him: “You must admit that Allah created by an action that came from power. But that action is not the power itself, because power is an attribute of Allah. And no one says an attribute is Allah, nor that it is separate from Him.”
Abd al-Aziz did not say the attribute is Allah, nor that it is not. He said: “It should not be said that it is Allah, and it should not be said that it is something else.”
This is the view of the leading imams of Sunnah, such as Imam Ahmad and others. It is also the view of Ibn Kullab and others. But some of Ahmad’s followers, along with some theologians among the Ashariyyah who affirm attributes, say: “It is neither Allah nor other than Allah.”
That phrasing is actually the correct one, as has been explained elsewhere. The word “other” is vague, so it should not be used either to affirm or deny something about attributes. But it is valid to say that we should not describe an attribute using that word neither affirming it nor denying it as the early scholars said about vague terms like “compulsion” and others. They said: “Do not affirm them and do not deny them.”
If we say: “We should not affirm or deny it,” that does not mean there is a third category something that is neither the attribute nor separate from the one being described. Rather, it means there is something we should not describe as being “other,” not that it is something separate.
The point Abd al-Aziz was making is that power is an attribute of Allah. It is not the action that results from power. He was saying: Allah has always been capable, but not that He has always been acting.
Bishr’s Invalid Counter-Obligation and Abd al-Aziz’s Consistent Argument
Bishr tried to counter Abd al-Aziz by saying: “Then the same applies to you you must say that Allah has always been acting and creating. And if you say that, then it means the created universe has always been with Allah.”
Abd al-Aziz replied: “You have no right to impose on me a consequence I don’t accept or to claim that I said something I didn’t. I never said anything that could be quoted like that. Rather, I said: either you accept what I’ve made binding on you, or you must admit that the created universe has always been with Allah.”
What Bishr tried to impose would only apply to Abd al-Aziz if Abd al-Aziz had denied every possible explanation that could be made in this situation. But he did not do that and there’s no way Bishr could prove such a denial. In contrast, what Abd al-Aziz imposed on Bishr is absolutely necessary for him to accept.
That’s because Bishr’s view was that all created things including the Quran came into existence after not existing, and that this happened not through any action of Allah, but through His eternal power alone.
Abd al-Aziz later explained that Bishr’s admission that Allah created things through His power was enough to establish the case in the matter of the Quran. Bishr acknowledged that Allah created it with His power, and that is enough to affirm that there exists something within Allah His attribute of power that is not created. This destroys Bishr’s foundational claim that Allah has no attributes, and that the Quran is created. Abd al-Aziz showed him what follows from his own admission and demonstrated that this was sufficient for the argument, whether through what Bishr admitted or through other points. But Bishr responded by saying: “You must also accept what you imposed on me.”
However, his response was built on assumptions he never actually stated.
One such assumption is this: “If Allah created things by an action that resulted from His power, then that suffices to explain creation, without needing to affirm anything eternal existing with Allah.” That is why Abd al-Aziz said: “I only said that action is an attribute of Allah, and He is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him from doing it.” In another version, there is an addition: “I only said: He has always been going to act, and always been going to create, because action is an attribute of Allah.”
This addition was not mentioned earlier in Abd al-Aziz’s words. Either someone added it into some versions, or it means: “This is what I mean when I speak,” or “This is what I believe and hold,” or “This is what I say and affirm.” But more likely, this addition was not from Abd al-Aziz himself it doesn’t match his clear and direct way of debating.
He had not said anything before that would point to this phrase. In contrast, his statement “Action is an attribute of Allah, and He is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him” is accurate and appropriate. He had not said those exact words before, so he did not say, “I said this,” but instead, “This is what must be said, and this is what I am obliged to say.”
He had shown that the created thing only comes into existence through an action that results from Allah’s power, and that the action is within Allah, not something created outside Him. That is what he meant when he said it is an attribute not that a specific action necessarily always exists within Allah because he also said: “Allah is capable of it, and nothing prevents Him.”
The Necessity of Affirming Preceding Attributes
With that, Abd al-Aziz achieved his goal: that there is an action by which Allah brought created things into existence, and that this action comes from His power. Therefore, there must be something within Allah that is not one of the created things His power and Bishr acknowledged this.
So either way, we are left with something that precedes the created universe and is not part of it whether that is just power, or power along with action, speech, and will. Anything that existed before creation is not created. This refutes Bishr’s statement: “Anything other than Allah must be created.”
Because these things power, speech, will are not Allah Himself, and they are also not created. They are His attributes. We do not say: “They are Allah,” nor do we say: “They are something other than Allah.” When we say “Allah is the Creator, and everything else is created,” then His attributes are included in the meaning of His name, because they are part of what defines Him.
When the Prophet said: “Whoever swears by anything other than Allah has committed shirk,” that did not mean swearing by Allah’s might or similar things was forbidden. (This hadith is reported from Ibn Umar in Sunan Abi Dawud in the Book of Oaths and Vows, and also in al-Tirmidhi. It is reported in detail in Musnad Ahmad, vol. 7, p. 229, hadith 3575; vol. 10, pp. 8–11, hadith 5993; and vol. 8, p. 278, hadiths 6072–6073.)
Al-Bukhari also reported several hadiths from the Sahabah in which people swore by Allah’s might. (See Bukhari, vol. 8, pp. 134–135, Book of Oaths and Vows, chapter: Swearing by Allah’s Might, Attributes, and Words.)
Why the Salaf Said “Everything Other Than Him Is Created—Except the Quran”
When the Jahmiyyah came and said the Quran was not included in the name of Allah, some of the Salaf said: “Allah is the Creator, and everything other than Him is created except the Quran, for it is the speech of Allah and not created.” They made an exception for the Quran because others had tried to include it among the created things. The phrase “everything other than Him” is like the phrase “something else” and we have already said that phrases like this are vague.
The Quran and all of Allah’s attributes should not be described as “Him” nor as “other than Him.” The same applies to whether they are included in “everything other than Him.” Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not, depending on the context.
When some people thought that the Quran might be included in “everything other than Him,” the Salaf said: “Everything other than Him is created except the Quran, for it is the speech of Allah and not created. It came from Him and will return to Him.” But those who never thought that Allah’s speech could be included in “everything other than Him” never felt the need to add this exception.
They simply said: “Allah is the Creator, and everything other than Him is created,” and they understood that the Quran, being His speech, is not created. They did not say, “except the Quran,” because they knew that His speech, action, knowledge, and all that exists within Him is not created. Only that which is separate from Him is created.
That is why the Salaf and the imams, such as Ahmad, said: “The Quran is the speech of Allah it is not separate from Him.” They said: “The speech of Allah is from Allah.”
Ahmad ibn Hanbal once replied to a man who asked him: “Am I not created?” He said: “Yes.” The man said: “And is my speech not from me?” He said: “Yes.” Ahmad replied: “Allah is not created, and His speech is from Him.” What he meant was: if a created being’s speech is his own attribute and part of what defines him, then Allah who is more deserving of every perfection must certainly have speech that is His own attribute and part of His very being. Speech is a attriute of perfection, and its absence is a deficiency. A speaker is more perfect than one who cannot speak, and the Creator is more perfect than all others.
The Salaf often said: “The attribute comes from the one who has it, and it belongs to him.” They would say: “The knowledge of Allah is from Allah, the speech of Allah is from Allah,” and so on. That is because these attributes are included in the meaning of His name. They are not something outside it they are part of it.
Abd al-Aziz’s Argument Stands, Bishr’s Does Not
Abd al-Aziz firmly based his argument on the idea that action is an attribute of Allah, stemming from His power, and that nothing prevents Him from doing it. That is enough. What Bishr tried to impose on him cannot stand, because it depends on assumptions that Bishr never even stated.
Whichever explanation someone chooses any of them is better than what Bishr claimed.
First possibility: some say the action is new and exists within Allah by His power, like some of the Karramiyyah say. This is still better than the Jahmiyyah view held by Bishr and his peers. Whatever consequences this view has like an infinite chain of events apply equally to Bishr, but the denial of creation and action applies only to Bishr’s view.
As for the claim that Allah becomes a place for new events that is like saying He becomes a place for “accidents” (in the philosophical sense). But this doesn’t apply to what Abd al-Aziz said.
Second possibility: some say the action is eternal and unchanging, as some of the Kullabiyyah say, and some of the scholars of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali madhhabs, and some Sufis. This is similar to the view of the Ashʿaris. These people do not say that events arise in Allah, nor that there is an infinite chain of them. If someone like Bishr says: “If the action and will are eternal, then the created things and the intended things must also be eternal,” and we reply: “But all created things must have a cause” then this becomes a shared question.
But Abd al-Aziz did not rely on this reply, because it would undermine his own proof. His argument was that Allah has always had power. If he said the action is eternal, Bishr could say: “Then Allah has always been acting, according to you.”
Third possibility: the action that came from Allah’s power was preceded by another action, which was also from His power, and so on endlessly yet no created thing existed with Allah in eternity. Action is of two types: some stay within the doer, others go outward and produce effects. Even if internal actions were always happening, that does not mean outward acts always were. So it is possible for Allah to always have had internal action, without any created thing existing with Him eternally.
Unless Bishr can prove this is impossible, then what he tried to impose on Abd al-Aziz is not binding.
The Philosophers’ Argument and the Real Refutation
Muslims and others who believe that Allah created the heavens and the earth and everything between them in six days can answer this type of argument using the same kind of response. The philosophers such as Ibn Sina, Ibn al-Haytham, and others relied heavily on a well-known argument to prove that the universe has no beginning. They used it against the Mu‘tazilah and those like them among the theologians. Their central claim was:
“If the complete cause for the universe’s existence was present eternally, then the universe must also be eternal. If the universe was not eternal, then the cause was not complete. But if the cause was not complete, then its completion required another cause, and the same question applies to that one. This leads to an infinite regress.” (Ibn al-Haytham: Some said his full name was Abu Ali Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham. Others said al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham, or al-Hasan ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Haytham. He was born in Basrah, moved to Egypt, and died around 430 AH. He was called “Ptolemy the Second” and wrote important works in geometry and optics. See Ibn al-Qifti, pp. 165–168; Ibn Abi Usaybi‘ah 3/149–162; Tarikh Hukama’ al-Islam, pp. 80–188; Encyclopaedia of Islam, article “Ibn al-Haytham”; and al-A‘lam 6/314–315.)
This argument had a strong impact on the theologians, because they believed in the impossibility of an infinite chain of events, and at the same time they believed that new things could begin without any new cause. They said a complete cause does not necessarily produce an effect, and that the Creator, or the willer, can choose between two options without any reason for choosing one over the other. So they ended up trapped between two impossibilities: either affirming that things can begin without any cause (which is irrational), or accepting an infinite chain of causes (which they also rejected). That’s why many of them resorted to arguments based on everyday observations and avoided directly answering this objection.
Proper Distinctions Between Different Kinds of Regress
We have already explained the answer to this in other places. One part of the answer is to recognise that the word “infinite regress” (tasalsul) can mean several different things.
One meaning: an infinite chain of causes, agents, or reasons. This is clearly impossible, by reason and by agreement of the philosophers.
Another meaning: an infinite chain required for the complete realisation of a single cause. This is logically impossible.
Another meaning: an infinite sequence of events, such as actions or effects that follow one another. This is not only possible, it’s real and observable. This is the kind of chain that does not exist all at once, but unfolds gradually like days and nights, like breathing, speaking, and moving.
So when people say that Allah has always been acting or willing, this does not mean that everything He does existed eternally. It means that He has always had the ability and will to do things successively, as He wills. The universe, then, is not eternal in its entirety, but what Allah has always been doing is willing and acting, one thing after another.
Therefore, the philosophers’ conclusion that the universe must be eternal based on the eternal nature of its cause is flawed. It confuses different types of causation and different kinds of chains.
In summary, Abd al-Aziz’s argument against Bishr is sound and complete. He demonstrated that created things only come into existence through Allah’s power and action, and that power and action are attributes that are not created. He refuted Bishr’s claim that creation can happen without any action or speech or will, and he showed that this leads to irrational conclusions like created things existing without a cause, without a Creator, and without any new event happening at all. And while Bishr tried to force him into affirming an eternal creation, Abd al-Aziz never said anything that would require that. He avoided the trap of infinite regress while proving, with clear reasoning, that Allah has real attributes and acts as He wills.
Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wal-naql (2/244-282)
