HANBAL CONTRAMUNDUM

8/17/2019 HANBAL CONTRAMUNDUM

1/83

1

1

PART 1ISLAM is not a terrorist religion , but it faced terrorism from inside andoutside. Terrorism is the worst kind of eres!. Such a eres! does contradict

"rthodo# $Isla%m.

The third &ali'h (sman was )rst to face the terrorism from inside.The

insurrectors, some of them latter became the most terrorist sect in the

histor! of Religious istor! namel! *har+ites terroried Muslim world for

centuries after.

-ut there were some monarchs who became a s!mbol of terrorism for the

"rthodo# Islam such as Mamu%n Ar Rahid/, Akbar Son "f umaiun% etc.Mamu%n was a liberal to all the religions of the world with the 0#ce'tion of

"rthodo# Islam, and Akbar was liberal to all the religions e#ce't Islam not

+ust "rthodo# sect of Islam/.

e come to the worst 'eriod of Muslim istor! when the Mu2tailite

Liberalists tried to use the Im'erial Power against the "rthodo# Islamic sect

called Sunnism. After Mamun Al Mu3t4sim was an other 'erson who

continued brutalit! and in+ustice to "rthodo# Islam.

The stor! begins with the 5uestion %6 hether 7uran is a &reation "f 8eit!

ALL4/9.

This is a corollar! of a fundamental 5uestions%6 :71;8oeth 8eit! Possess

Attributes of Perfection like Power, Life etc9.:7ot. If the! are not 0ternal then this means in the

0ternit! 8eit! as Powerless, *nowledgeless etc. If the! are 0ternal then%6


2/83

<

<

0ither the! are Identical to the 8eit! or the! are 8istinct ?rom the 8eit!.

In the )rst case the 8i=ine Self is im'lied to be Plural as well as Singular. This

im'lies that 8i=ine Self i.e 8eit! is Identical to 'luralit! and Singularit!. This

is Absurd ,Surd and Im'ossible. If the! are 8istinct ?rom 8i=ine Self then this

is Analogous to &hristian Trinit! ,rather Pol!nit! since the number of 0ternalAttributes is greater than the number three.

Mu3taalah took a 'osition that the! denied All the 8i=ine Attributes !et the!

claimed that the! belie=e that Attributes are Identical to the 8i=ine Self i.e

8eit!. This claim was ne=er checked and for a long time Identit! and 8enial

of Attributes were considered as a Tautolog!. -ut the dogma of Identit! "f

Attributes doeth ha=e its own 'roblems. Ma+orit! of Ahlussunnah re+ected

this dogma.

The! make is clear that an Attribute is neither a Substance nor it is ParseSubsistence, and it 0#isteth in 8i=ine 0ssence not included in the 0ssence

but Associated ith the 8i=ine 0ssence i.e 8i=ine Self. That is wh! An

Attribute "f 8eit! is not a !'ostasis "f Athanasian &hristianit!. A !'ostasis

is a Per Se Subsistent e=en if it is not a Substance. ow e=er Mu3tailah were

unable to distinguish between a Per Se Subsistent !'ostasis and an

Attribute hich Is Associated ith the 8i=ine Self i.e 0ssence.A lesser

number of Asharites and Maturidites belie=e that Attributes of 8eit!

areIdentical to 8eit! ,but the! make a distinction between in the 8ogmas of

Identit! of Attributes and denial of Attributes.

-ut in the time of Imam Ahmad -in anbal Sunnites s!stem of Theolog! did

not use Philoso'hical terms in order to con=e! their beliefs. @reat Sunni

Theologians like Imam Ashari, Imam Maturidi, and Sul)tes Philoso'hers were

not born !et. e return to the time of Imam Ahmad to see what was the

Religious situation.

All the Muslims belie=e that 7uran is the 8i=ine Attribute "f S'eech e#ce't

ahmites. Mutailah who disbelie=e in 8i=ine Attributes began to belie=e that

7uran is a &reation. There this belief was re+ected b! all fractions of Sunnism

Ahlussunnah al amaa3ah/ alike.

The )rst one were to face Mu22tailah were Muhaddisun and ?u5ha.The hero

of our Stor! is IMAM AMA8 -I> A>-AL. e was the leader of both Sunni

?ractions. The 'roblem begin when a liberal Monarch who like Mutailah who

was liberal to all religions and all sect became a s!mbol of terrorism to


3/83

B

B

Sunnis Scholars and e#cercised his 'ower to con=ert Ahlussunnah to

Mu3tailism .

It ma! a''ear to be strange that a 'erson like Mamun who was so liberal

towards all the religions in his dominion became so 0CTR0MIST against

"rthodo# Islam that he used all the means of -rutalit! against them once forall. Such )gures ma! be seen in Muslim istor! how were liberal and secular

in their 'olicies for all religions e#ce't Islam or "rthodo# Islam as in the case

of Mamun.

Mamu%n tried to con=ert "rthodo# Muslims to eterodo# and eretic

Mu3tailism b! using force of arguments and arguments of force both alike.

As for the case of force of arguments, this was the )rst time that Sunnism

realied that Rationalit! and Reasons are also necessar! then strict

traditional a''roach.

Imam Ahmad bin anbal stood like a Mountain against the im'erial might . In

the terms of &ricket , he was the last man on the wicket facing the fastest

ballers of Mutailism. e )nall! won the match against all the odds .

(nfortunatel! no work is done in this regard to shew the west that Islam is a

target of terrorism , it is not a terrorist religion. Perha's the stor! ma! bring

our readers an other image of Islam.

Sunni Islam consists of four theological sects which are Asharism, Maturisim,

Ashari4 Maturidi Amulgam / anbalism and Sala)sm Also anbali DSala)Amalgam /.e ha=e not counted Amalgams asSe'erate sects.

A 'art from 0#tremists who do not make an! com'romise with an! other

Sunni sects all of them are Sunnites in 0ssence and regard Imam Ahmad -in

anbal as their undis'uted leader.

Imam Ahmad -i anbal did belie=e that 7uran is (n&reated Attribute "f

8eit! .

The Sunni sects howe=er diEer on minute details on the issue and not e=en a

single issue is remained un discussed. So lea=ing theological 'roblem aside

we come back to the original 'roblem of histor!.

I was greatl! ins'ired b! a 8rama on Imam Ahmad in the 7uran >umber "f

Si!arah Planet/ 8igest. -ut this digest had some 'roblems. I re+ected some

of the contents of the 8rama and tried to rewrite it . -ut as details of histor!

are scattered in diEerent books some authentic and some not it is diFcult to


4/83

G

G

reconstruct the 'ast at it is in the book. ?urther the 'ro'er order in the

e=ents are not found with certainit! and certitude. That is wh! the best thing

is to use the 'robable a''roach to suggest their order. ith addition of some

more works one can a''roach to the 'ast if not with certainit! then with a

good 'robabilit!.

?urther I ha=e tried to add some )ctious additions to make a continuit! in

the series of e=ents which were lacking as according to m! limited

knowledge. Such additions do not ha=e an! historical =alue in the least sense

but with out them it is im'ossible to )ll the ga's of a=ailable Matterials.

Some e#'lanations are ascribed in dialogues which ma! not be found in

works of histor!. Some statements are added to make the theological

res'onses as clear as 'ossible which ma! not be known to 0nglish readers

and audiences.

-ut the 0ssence and the Substance of the e=ents are attem'ted to beconser=ed .?or some technical reasons I ha=e used the secondar! sources

'rior to the 'rimar! Sources . ow e=er the! were latter tested.

At times the ca'italiation of )rst letter of nouns ,'ronouns, =erbs, ad+ecti=es

're'ositions etc are e#ercised in case of 8eit! ,and onorable Persons,

s'eciall! for anbal imself. "ne ma! call It &a'italiation of ma+est!. Also at

times block letters are also used either for more em'hasis then normall!

used of for greater ma+est!. 8iEerent colours are used , for diEerent reasons.

ow e=er this work is not a historical work , so it is not the res'onsibilit! of

the author to

-e faithful to the canonical histor! works of Imam. The author hath taken

liberties and combined it with imaginations as well. It ma! be e=en

interesting to those who are interested in theological discussions.

The word 8eit! is used instead of the most common word for Su'reme -eing.

I think this word can con=e! a number of im'lications which the well known

word cannot. "ne ma! diEer !et an author must write what he thinketh to be

the best.

The language is not so old !et the words thou etc and its relati=e =erbs are

used to gi=e an old look in the dialogues. Similarl! for the =erbs relati=e the

third 'erson singular nouns Hth3 is used instead of common singular used

now a da!s. I do think it is necessar! to understand the situation of the 'ast.


5/83

The >oun "f &hristos or Messeiah which is used is Iesous. I ha=e neither used

Arabic ?orm HI%sa% nor 0nglish form esus but the @reek form Iesous.

Some time colours are used to shew diEerences of em'hasis and

e#'lanations of situations.

I ha=e not acce'ted Mu3taalahs2 re'orts about the e=ents of trial,since the!

are not canonical but a'ocr!'hal ,hence unreliable, untrustworth! ,and

unauthorati=e. Mu3taalah were not men of the )eld of conser=ing traditions,

narrations re'orts and oral dictum.

?or e#am'le ah%i% who was a Mutaili and literar! 'ol!math who wrotebooks on oolog! and 'hiloso'h! re'orteth an e=ent of trial as follow%Ahmad ibn Abi 8u2ad :the Mu$taili chief 5adi; asked him anbal/, JIs it truethat a thing must be either created or uncreated9J

an%bal%6/ JKes.JJ

7a%d%i% $Abu%8a%=u%d%6/ JAnd the 7ur2an is a thing9J

JKes.J

7a%d%I% $Abu 8a%=u%d %6/ JIs it true that onl! 8eit! is uncreated9J9J

%anbal/JKes.J

7a%d%i%6/Then the 7ur2an is created9J

%anbal%6/JI am no dialectician,J he re'lied at last. This is a fabricated re'ort for se=eral reasons.0ither Al ahi hath in=ented itin his imagination or acce'ted the unreliable source with out testing thereliabilit! and credibilit! at the chain of re'orters and sources of the re'ort,1/ It is well known that all the Ahlussunnah sects re+ect the Mutiilah2s A#iomof "nl! "ne 0ternal.It is certainl! not the belief of Imam Ahmad -in anbal .So this is a false ascri'tion to im if the word Shai2 is in the meaning of0#istent i.e "ne That 0#isteth.ow abai was forced to chose that their res'ecti=eagents i.e doers are their &reator ,not the 8eit!.-ut this was not stated b!Mu3tailah before him.So the alleged argument of "nl! "ne 0ternal is not e=en according to theMu3tailah2s standerd.


6/83

In regard to Ibn al4-akka2 al4Akbar, it is re'orted that he re'lied to Isha5 theoFcial 7uestioner that the 7ur2an was something made but not &reated.Ibn al -akka2 was clea=er enough to send a silent message to Mamun , Abu8a=ud and other Mu3tailah scholars that as the! themsel=es belie=e thatoluntar! Acts and 8oings "f uman beings etc,. are neither 0ternal >or

&reated but tem'oral and made or done or both, the same is true for 8i=ineActs and 8oings. Although Ma+orit! of Ahlussunnah of Post anbal 'eriodbelie=e that an! thing that is not &reated b! 8eit! is either 0ternal or non0#istent, the same is not true for Mu3tailah and their 'roto sect 7adri!ah.

An! how, could Imam Ahmad -in anbal be easil! res'onse b! Ibu 8a=ud, ifhe was actuall! asked to answer the abo=e argument as follow%68oeth 8eit! a=e Power "=er All Things.0ither e ath or e 8oeth >ot a=e It.If e 8oeth >ot a=e It then It &ontradicteth =erses "f 7uran which sa!8i=ine "mni'otence Is ('on All Things.

If e ath It then e Must a=e Power N"mni'otence "=er imSelf Since8eit! Is imSelf a Thing.If 8eit! Is >ot a Thing then Sim'l! 8eit! Is >othing. In more sim'le words ifall things are 'ossible to 8eit! then it im'lieth that 8eit! is imself Possibleto imSelf. -ut this cannot be. "b=iousl! the word thing is not in themeaning of 0#istent.An other conundrum would ha=e been a 'roblem for $Al ah%i% and Abi 8uada like is as follow%6 8oes 8eit! ath Power o=er e=er! Thing or not. If notthen 8eit! is eak. If 8eit! ath Power o=er e=er! thing then Is that Powersince 0ternit! or >ot. If >ot then 8i=ine Power is not 0ternal. This againIm'lieth 8eit! is 0ternall! eak and 0ternall! >ot "mni'otent. If this Power

o=er all Things are 0ternal then the Things in the 0ternal Power are also0ternal. If 0ternal then 8eit! is not the onl! 0ternal , but each and e=er!thing that is in is 0ternal Power is also 0ternal. This im'lieth the 0ternit! ofall the Things "T0R TA> 80ITK and -0SI80 80ITK.This conundrum is soPowerful that it is =alid if atleast a single thing is belie=ed to be in 8i=inePower.It would ha=e been im'ossible to be answered on Mu3tailah2s own ground.Since the! can onl! res'onse that 8eit! is an 0#ce'tion. If 8eit! Is an0#ce'tion then 8i=ine Attributes like 8i=ine "mniscinence, 8i=ine"mni'otence and 8i=ine S'eech are also 0#ce'tions along ith 8eit!. APossible res'onse ma! be gi=en that the word Thing in Mu3tailahian

nomenclature means onl! &ontingents and 8eit! is neither &ontingent norAbsurdNO.-ut in this case Mu3tailah must face an other 'roblem. 8eit! 8oeth *noweach and e=er! Thing . The word Thing in this regard meaneth a generalterm which is e5uall! 'redicated with out an! change in meaning to Absurds,PossiblesN&ontingents and >ecessaries. So If this word meaneth "nl!&ontingents or Possibles then this is Tautological to the claim that 8eit!>either *noweth Im'ossibles, Absurds , &ontingents that hath not occurred


7/83

or shall not occur, and e=en is "wn 8i=ine Self which 'ertaineth im as a Tautological A''ertainment.So if the word Thing is used for the =er! 8eit!imSelf and doeth not make an! 'roblem for Mu2tailah, the =er! same wordif used for 8i=ine Attributes &annot make an! 'roblem to "rthodo# as well.So it is clear that all of these are +ust 'roduct of ahi2s own mind.

If Imam was to be asked the 5uestion %6 Is 8ei! the "nl! 0ternal, is was tore'l! them as follow% The! "nl! 0ternal 0ssence is 8i=ine or 8i=ine 0ssence Is the "nl! 0ternal0ssence. B/ The language used b! Al ahi is disgraceful for a 'erson like ImamAhmad.

B,a/ The cali'h saw that he was as untruthful as he was stubborn in the faceof irrefutable arguments..&ali'h was not a scholar and could not +udgehimself. This statement e#'oses falsehood of ah%i% .

B,b/ e 7adi Abu 8a=ud/ /merel! wished to bring out the insolence of the man2s lies I,e Iman Ahmad/, +ust as he had e#'osed theshamelessness of his obstinac!. These are two e#am'les to 'ro=e that ahi was a >"T doing ustice while hewas writing these words and sentences.Still I ha=e tried to answer some of the false re'ortings of ahi at the cost ofhistoricit! in this 'la! since this is a drama not intended to 'reser=ehistoricit! e=ent b! e=ent but in 'rinci'le. "n the contrar! Re'orts of ahicannot be acce'ted as the records actual and factual e=ents which occurredbefore him with out 'ro'er sources and re'orters. Since he is not attem'tingto write a drama but wanteth to write with historical certainit!. ere he

faileth. an 0ss and his co'ulation argument.

A scholar like an 0ss an 0ss, ThQologie und @esellschaft/ has tried to den!

the )rmness of anbal on =iews and lo!alt! of %anbal to to his belief b!

making an argument stated below%6

If Imam Ahmad had not co'ulated , he would not been released from his

im'risonment.

-ased on this argument based on con+ecture tries to den! all the canonical

re'orts and to second the non canonical re'orts of Mas3udi,Ka35ubi,ah%i%and $Al Murtad%a%.

-ut historical e=idences can not be refuted with such an eas! method.

8IS&(SSI">S A-"(T A>TI %A>-AL R0P"RT0RS


8/83

Three of the four non canonical re'orters were certainl! not 'resent at the

e=ents and at best the! can ha=e re'orts from human sources. These were

the sources and narrators of the e=ents. This 'ro=es with certaint! that these

three were not e!e witness of the acts and e=ents which the! re'ort in their

works. -ut the narrators of the e=ents cannot be trusted. Since the! are not

authentic re'orters. A 'ro'er discussion on ann2s argument is be!ond the

sco'e of this work/.

This makes $Al ah%i% the onl! candidate to be a 'ossible e!e witness. -ut as

a Mu2taili he himself has great 're+udices against $Imam $Ah%mad -in

%anbal:Pronounciation% %AMM4-AL;.

I is certainl! im'ossible for a Mu3tail to acce't that a 'erson sur=i=es all the

'unishments O sentenced to him +ust for a belief which Mu3taili think as

absolutel! wrong. This might ha=e inclined him to concoct and fabricate

re'orts. If there is some truth in them e=en then there are distortions inthem.

"ne cannot trust in $Al ah%i%2s re'orts .

Ma! I ask the learned scholar that if all the canonical re'orts of Imam

Ahmad are false then what is the authorit! of Al ahi himself. ?urther Imam

was not freed but sent to his home where is was ke't as a ca'ti=e in his

house and was not allowed to teach. Similarl! if the canonical re'orters are

to be disbelie=ed at worst according to ann/ or to be doubted at best

according to ann/ then wh! he belie=es that >on &anonical re'orters atere'orting the truth with historical certaint!99

Is this not like to re+ect >ew Testamental @os'els and to acce't A'ocr!'hal

@os'els, which ma! not be acce'table on religious and seculat grounds since

>ew Testamental orks 're4e#ist A'ocr!'hal @os'els.

-ased on a single argument ann tries to refute the credibilit! and reliabilit!

of canonical$Al 7a%nu%ni/ re'orts and to second non canonical re'orts. "n

what authorit! he has the right to dis'ute with canonism $Al 7anu%inah/.

-ut the argument it self is a weak one. It is 'ossible that Monarch who ruledwith a 'ower resting in him and not sub+ect to an! constitution , whether

Islamic or Secular , and to follow Islamic Laws was a matter of choice not a

com'ulsion in regard to him in se=eral cases, released Imam $Ah%mad -in

%anbal. hat im'ossibilit! ann has found9. "ne must not talk about Logical

and Mathematical Possibilities Im'ossibilities but onl! discuss istorical


9/83

Possibilities. If such an e=ent is historicall! 'ossible then ann2s argument

becomes too weak to be considered worth! to be refuted. ow e=er some

ma! modif! ann2s argument and ma! claim that% Although it is istoricall!

Possible !et it is istoricall! Im'robable. -ut )rst this claim of istoricall!

Im'robable is highl! contro=ersial, and ma! not be acce'ted. Second , a

Reliable istorical Re'ort can onl! be challenged if there is a istorical

Im'ossibilit!. -ut not u'on a istorical Im'robabilit!.It is once again to

esca'e the sco'e of the 'resent book to discuss the istorical Probabilit! of

this e=ent in 'articular and such e=ents in general. Laws and 'rinci'les of

istoricit! cannot be sus'ended b! the greatness of ann2s scholarshi'.

Although I res'ect him as a scholar , but e=en his arguments be sub+ect of

critical studies

h! Mu3tasim sent him and not ke't him in the 'rison in the ca'ital is a5uestion but not an argument.

A 5uestion about an e=ent cannot challenge the historicit! of the e=ent. So it

is not the res'onsibilit! of a historian to answer the 5uestions which he

re'orts. There ma! be a number of reasons can be suggested but this

5uestion e=en if not answered can not be a dis'ro=e of the re'orted e=ents .

A 'ossible answer is that Mu3tasi%im did admire the knowledge of Imam. e

onl! ordered to scourge him so that he ma! co'ulate. -ut when he found

out that Imam is not going to co'ulate he ordered him to send him to hishouse since it was clear to him that this 'rocedure is +ust useless and is not

going to work. Ancient Monarchs who ruled b! degrees and orders some time

can be diFcult to rationalie and to reason.A lot de'end u'on their will which

ma! =ar! from one time to an other time, e=en if the time 'eriod between

these two times is short. If an 0ss2s )ndings are trusted then it is im'lied

that all the reliable and trustworth! records and re'orts are wrong and

incorrect the! distort, modif! and transform the original and actual

informations that were circulating about him in Sunni centres and circles

the! suEer so much that Sunnis acce'ted the transformed and distorted

re'orts as legal and legitimate. This im'lies that is contem'oraries were

unable of remembering and memoriing the e=ents ad sa!ings related to him

with accurac! and correctness. If what $Imam

8id, and hat was 8one to im, hat $Imam said and what was said to him,

no thing was re'orted correctl! then the historicit! of $Imam does cease to

e#ist once for all. This is certainl! ann2s -ias against the canonical, oFcial


10/83

1U

1U

and authentic re'orts about $Imam and a bias for the inauthentic and non4

canonical Anti %anbal re'orts. Since ann 0ss not onl! acce'ts Anti %anbal

re'orts uncriticall!, but also tries to argue in fa=our of them. The image

Ima%m $Ah%mad -in %anbal thus 'roduced from the work of ann 0ss is not

followed from the alleged neutral and &ritical methods ado'ted b! ann 0ss,

but from the 're4su''osed and 'resumed ann2s own designed &haracter of

Person of $Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal. The methods of criticism are also

chosen , using the a#iom of human choice,to be in accordance and in

concordance with the 're4su''osed image of $Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal.

ann2s =iew of $Imam, images of Acts ,0=ents and Sa!ings including the

alleged co'ulation is certainl! not based on critical methods but on the 're

su''osed a#ioms like%6

a;The oFcial re'orts of Sunni orks are distorted,b;The re'orts of

unconsciousness are false,c;2Imam could ne=er a=e been reliesed if

he had not co'ulated,d;the memorable e=ent of sustaining on his

=iews did not occur, e; other memorable e=ents also did not occur, etc.

The Prime weakness and 'owerlessness of the entire designed s!stem

of criticism is imbedded in the bias against $Imam. ann2s

reconstructed alleged histor! does lack historicit! and 'roduce an

imaginati=e character which does lack actualit! and e#istence

simultaneousl!. It can ne=er be e#'lained that, wh! such a 'erson

would ha=e become a s'ecial case, wh! rich and 'owerful e=ents were

ascribed to him within a =er! short 'eriod of time.

If $Imam would ha=e reall! co'ulated b! the argument of force and'unishment, then it would !not be a new thing for Sunnis, since some

Sunni Scholars did co'ulate under the im'erial threats , !et the

re=erted latter when the! found them sel=es in some what safe

'osition.Sunnis were certainl! not looking for a hero who could withstand the

im'erial force. It is well known to them that an! force con=ersion is not

a con=ersion and if a 'erson drifts from sunni belie=es under 'ressure,

and if he is unable to bear it, it is 'ermitted to co'ulate a''arentl!, but

to re=ert as soon as the force ceases.

An! how it is not an image of Imam that emerged from the allegedcritical methods of ann 0ss but the image is 'rior to the emergence in

the mind of ann 0ss and he selected a method not so critical but

biased against the historical character of the 'erson of $Imam $Ah%mad

-in %anbal. To transform historicit! of $Ima%m to concoction and

concoction to historicit!, con=erting the histor! of Imam to a stor!

about him is thus a fallac! .As stated abo=e, the stated abo=e fallac!


11/83

11

11

in terms of the a''arent method of ann 0ss is de)nitied, as that his

book 're4su''oses an alleged certaint! which ma! be accuratel!

worded as H -! a''lication of the assumed criteria of his criticism , he

arri=es as a de)nite and 'osati=e re'l! to the en5uir! of e=ents of

$Imam3, i.e what did actuall! ha''ened and occurred to him and what

did he do etc. -ut the stated abo=e fallac! is multifold and com'le#

since the 'resu''osed rules of acce'tance or re+ection of a re'ort or a

narration or a tradition, is once again based on the bias against $Ima%m

$Ah%mad -in %anbal and Authentic sources about him. Although ann

0ss did not write the rules of acce'tance or re+ection of a re'ort about

$Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal e#'licitl! but the! are embedded in his

work against $Ima%m im'licitl! .The! can still be e#ca=ated and

e#tracted from his work and his work is a good mind reading machine,

but onl! for his mind which can clearl! be read b! anal!ing is work. In

addition to abo=e mentioned a#ioms of ann2s biased critical s!stemthese a#iomatic rules ma! also be added. A; an 'resumed a image of

$Ima%m which can co'ulate. -; an Pre4su''osed a Vawed and biased

Sunni S!stem of acce'ting incorrect re'orts about his central and co4

central )gures. &; ann 'resu''osed that the )rst re'orters i.ee!e witness re'orters were s'eaking falsehood and were s'eakers of

falsehood, modif!ing the actual e=ents su''osing $Imam $Ah%mad as a

'seudo hero of their circles and elli'ses.8; e also 'resumed that

$Imam is himself not telling the truth but is s'eaking falsehood about

himself in order to hide the act of co'ulation and relati=e acts. Thus a

're su''osed 'ortrait of $Imam $Ah%mad did com'el an 0ss to

'resume some more su''ositions and to s'eculate his character

according to them. ann used these a#ioms in his work intelligentl! so

make the emergence of 're su''osed image graduall! as if the work of

his methods. It is a''ro#imatel! like a no=elist makes a 'lot of a stor!

then is com'elled b! the 'lot to make the stor! re+ecting man!

'ossible e=ents in the stor! of the no=el which could be added to the

no=elic stor! if the author had made some latter modi)cations in the

'lot. -ut due to rigid and immutable 'lot the! are re+ected. The 'seudo

intention of ann 0ss is to test diEerent traditions about $Imam$Ah%mad , and this is what that an uncritical reader is likel! belie=e, but

a critical stud! of the work re=eals a the realit!, that is diEerent from

the 'retended and a''arent form. So when an assum'tion about

$Ima%m is )st made , then used as a testing de=ice , whether a gi=en

tradition is according to it or not , the 'rime criteria of ann 0ss2s work.

Thus a 'resu''osed image and a 'resumed 'otrate of $Ima%m was


12/83

1<

1<

'ro'osed and +udgement about traditions were made according to it,

as stated earliar.It can ne=er be e#'lained assuming ann2s self St!led Portrait of $Imam

$Ah%mad is correct, wh! such a 'erson would ha=e become a s'ecial

case and wh! rich and 'owerful e=ents were ascribed to him. Sunnism

hath sur=i=ed e=en if $Ima%m had co'ulated. A number of Sunni scolarsco'ulated under im'erial terror , like $I"bn Sa3d, etc. but Sunnism

Sur=i=ed, and Sunnis ne=er in=ent false tradition to sa=e their scholars

from co'ulation under force and 'ressure from the @o=ernment. So

such a suggestion is highl! im'robable and strongl! im'lausible, e=en

if no other argument is use. The moti=e behind all such labour of an 0ss is nothing but to make a

historical character as an unhistorical one and to make an im'licit

accusation on &anonical circles and centres that the! are not reliable in

their science of traditions, their acce'tance and re+ections. Thus a totalre+ection of the entire Sunni &anonical S!stem against the >on Sunni ,

and >on &anonical s!stem or both. There ma! be some more desired

conse5uences !et the abo=e mentioned are suFcient for the 'resent

work to PR0S0>T. "ne of such intentions is almost certainl! to make

doubt in the olumetric work of M4snad $Ah%mad -in %anbal, one of

the source of man! &anonical Traditions. As a 'roof one ma! once again 'resent that if ann was neutral he

would ha=e been neutral to both of t!'es of the works and he would

ha=e treated e5uall! the reliable and unreliable literatures.e would

a=e come to the conclusion that both t!'es of the reliable andunreliable traditions are iunreliable and no one knows what ha''ened.

-ut this is not reall! T0 &AS0.

It must be noted that there is a diEerence between istorical

&ertaint! and Mathematical &ertaint!. It a''ears that in the case of

&anonical Sunni works a mentalit! is some how de=elo'ed that the!

re5uire Mathematical &ertaint!, and if this t!'e of certaint! is not

ful)lled then there is falsehood in them the! e=en do lack historical

certaint! and in the case of eretical works and works of ereticalwriters, he has 're4su''osed istorical &ertaint! e=en if the! are not

onl! not reliable but also unauthentic and untrustable. The self

designed image of $Imam was in the mind of ann and the reasons

ma! be initiall! known to ann 0ss himself and in his work made his

image to a''ear.0'ilogue%


13/83

1B

1B

&ritical stud! of his criticism re=eals that s!stem of his alleged

criticism is chosen as according to the 'resu''osition.This work ma! be re'roduced inde'endent of this Pla!N8rama with

some modi)cations. -ut for the time being it is suFcient for rational

minds to be awared from the 're su''osed image of Imam Ahmad in

the work of ann 0ss.

I detail and inde'endent discussion on ann 0ss2s argument ma! be seen in

an other article which ma! not be the 'art of this work. -ut let it be

su''osed that after being Vogged Imam did co'ulated but this is a

con=ersion b! force. >o court of law in the religious or secular world can

acce't such a con=ersion b! force. All the courts secular or religious allows a

'erson to re=ert to his former belie=es since thirt! lashes are no thing but

con=ersion b! force. HArgument of force3 not Hforce of argument3. If @alileoco'ulated b! force that 0arth is static and stationar!, did his heart also

co'ulated. 8id earth sto''ed re=ol=ing around the Kellow sun. 9 So there is

no fault if IT IS ASS(M08 TAT Imam re=erted back. -ut this is +ust a

su''osed case. "ne ma! most humbl! ask ann 0ss , Hhat if ann 0ss is

com'elled to write a refutation of his own work b! force.3 &an his heart also

co'ulate.9 Also if $Al a%h%i% was 'resent , one might ha=e asked hime how

man! Voggings he is going to resist before he might ha=e co'ulated the >on

Mu%tailite belie=es if he was e=er forced to change his sect b! Vogging and

scourging. Perha's he knew his heart better that it is estimated b! others.

Let it be su''osed that Imam after being scourged se=eral times did

co'ulate but no court of law can acce't this as a legal co'ulation, it is a

co'ulation b! force and when Imam got rid of the a''lied force he re=erted

to his 'rinci'le and 're=ious belie=es. >o one can consider it as a h!'ocris!

since it was a con=ersion b! Vogging and not e=er! one stand against the

'ain. -ut the canonical traditions and re'orts do sa! that such an

assum'tion is incorrect and wrong. It can ne=er be e#'lained , wh! such a

'erson ha=e been lo=ed b! 'eo'le so much that $imam $Ah%mad became a

s!ble of )rmness on once =iews.

o'ing that it will hel' 'eo'le in the 0nglish s'eaking world to understand

Muslims and their 'atience against diEerent sorts of terrorism and in+ustice ,

I ma! now de'art from m! readers with lo=e, aEection and good will, all at

the same time. An other allegation of ann is that he imagines that Imam

ca'ulated and to hide this e=ent canonical books re'ort he did fall

unconscious . -ut the contrar! ma! be said that the stor! of co'ulation was


14/83

1G

1G

concocted be omitting the e=ent of being unconscious while whi''ing and

Vogging. The 'ortrait of Imam which ann has tried to shew b! his self

reasoned argument is a 're4su''osed one. It 're e#isted in ann2s mind.

"nl! he has tried to 'roduce e=idences as if it is the result of his work. That

is wh! his arguments are uni4directional and single dimensional. That is wh!

he is not allowing the 'ossibilit! of con=erse. That is wa! he is acce'ting the

truth of >on &anonical re'orts as so trustworth!. If he was so +ust , he would

ha=e taken both t!'es of work ,for and against , e5uall!, and would ha=e

assigned e5ual 'robabilit! to each one of them. -ut e=er! thing in this case

is 'resumed. "ne ma! reconsider =eer! thing once again. An! how I do

res'ect him for his works but as for as his arguments are concern , the! can

be criticied on rational grounds. Since Laws of argumentations are im'artial,

and his arguments ma! be +udge according to them.

PART<An Indian *ing"nce u'on a time some where in the Subcontinent of the continent Asia

called Indian Subcontinent, there was a kingdom ruled b! a indu ruler. e

some how got the knowledge of Islam and tried to know about details about

this relati=el! new religion.

In the court he tried to discuss the matter with the courtiers and nobilities.

Maha Ra+a%6 I ha=e heard that the religion of Arabs is 're=ailing and 'eo'le

of diEerent 'arts are acce'ting this religion.

&ourtier1% Maha Ra+a if I ma! be allowed to s'eak I ha=e heard that is newreligion is s'read b! the Argument "f ?orce and not b! the ?orce of

Arguments.

Mara Ra+a% And hat are th! sources for this claim.


15/83

1

1

&outier1% Iha=e heard it from some of our scholars that Arabs generall! do

not like Philoso'hical 5uestions.

Mahara Ra+a %6 I doubt it .

&ourtier1%6 Maha Ra+a , we can )nd the truth +ust b! asking the Muslim&ali'h to 'ro=ide us some answers to some Philoso'hical 7uestions.

Maha Ra+a %6 8ost thou ha=e an!9

&ourtier1% Kes Maha Ra+a we ma! ask to our theological scholars to send

some 5uestion.

MahaRa+a%6 Let a Philoso'her be called.

After some time a Scholar inters the court.

indu Philoso'her%ari "m

Maha Ra+a stood from his thrown to shew res'ect.

Maha Ra+a% @reat Saint I ha=e called thee for a 'ur'ose.

indu Philoso'her% Sir I ha=e been informed and I ha=e brought a set of

5uestions.

Maha Ra+a %6 I want thee to state +ust a single 5uestion and thou maist udge

the weight of the re'l! when th! 5uestion is re'lied b! the Scholars of the

new faith.

indu Philoso'her%6 I ha=e a better idea, h! not ask the Muslim Ruler to

send us a Muslim Scholar so that we ma! discuss with him in 'erson.

Maha Ra+a%6 A =er! good idea indeed.

Maha Ra+a to the 0'istle writer.

Maha Ra+a% rite as I sa!.

Ro!al riter%6 As thee commandest.

Maha Ra+a%6

?rom Mahara+a to The @reat Muslim &ali'h%

Res'ected &ali'h "f Muslims I am interested in th! religion .ow e=er I am

informed that th! religion does not like reason. If thee canst send me a


16/83

1

1

Muslim Scholar to answer some of our 5uestions in regard to th! faith and

articles of faith I shall be obliged. I want to know the truth where this

allegation is true or false.

?rom Maha Ra+a.

In the court of &ali'h arun Rashid a sound breaks.

S'eaker%6 &ali'h a deligation from India ants to be in th! &ourt.

&ali'h arun%6 The deligation is 'ermitted to enter the court.

The deligation enters the court.

A Member "f the 8eligation%

@reat &ali'h "f Muslims I ha=e an 0'istle from our Maha Ra+a. ilth thee

'lease 'ermit me to read it in the court.

&ali'h arun. Thou art 'ermitted.

The leader of the delegation reciteth the contents of the e'istle.

A fter hearing the 0'istle the &ali'h arun said.

arun%6 Thou art our guest . e shall send a legal Scholar ?a5ih/ as thou

hast re5uested.

Some da!s latter a legal scholar was chosen to be send to India with theIndian 8elegation.

The delegation returned with res'ect and gifts to the Indian Maha Ra+a.

In the court of Indian Mahara+a a courtier sa!s to the Maha Ra+a.

Leader of the delegation.

Maha Ra+a "ur &ali'h has send a Scholar for the 'ur'ose of discussion.

Thou ma!st ask him an! 5uestion about our faith.

Maha Ra+a%6 &all for our Scholars and tomorrow we shall see b! m! own

e!es.

The =er! ne#t da! A the court was waiting for the debate.

The indu Scholar%6 ith th! 'ermission am allowed to ask the Arabian

Scholar a sim'le 5uestion of theological Philoso'h!.


17/83

1

1

Maha Ra+a% Thou ma! ask right now.

indus Scholar asks the Arabic Legal Scholar%

indu Scholar% Sir I ha=e heard that thee belie=est that th! 8eit! is

"mni'otent and all Things are Possible to im.Muslim Scholar%6 Kes that is true . e do belie=e that 8eit! is "mni'otent

and &an do all things.

indu Scholar%6 If th! 8eit! is "mni'otent then 8oeth e the Power to make

an other 8eit! like im9

If e doeth >ot then e ceaseth to be "mni'otent. If e doeth ha=e this

'ower then this meanth e can destro! is "ness.

If e can 8estro! is (nit! then e ceaseth to be the 8eit!.Muslim Scholar% This is a theological 5uestion and legal scholars do not like

to indulge in such 5uestions.

Maha Ra+a%6 Is that all thou canst sa!9

Muslim Scholar %Kes Sir.

Maha Ra+a%6 Thou disa''ointed me. I ha=e seen enough. Thou ma!st return

to th! countr!.

To the Ro!al riter of 0'istle.

Maha Ra+a% rite to the &ali'h "f Muslims. Seeing is belie=ing. I ha=e seen

that th! religion cannot answer a sim'le 5uestion of theolog!. h! should

one acce't th! religion. It is not for enlightened 'ersons.

In the court of the @reat Muslim &ali'h a s'eaker saith that the "ur scholar

hath returned but was unable to re'l! a single 5uestion.

arun%6 This is a disgrace .

S'eaker%6 Ma! I read the Te#t of the Indian Monarch2s e'istle.

After hearing the 0'istle &ali'h asked the delegation about the 5uestion

asked in the Indian &ourt.

Member of 8elegation% Sir e asked a 7uestion which I do not like to re'eat.

&ali'h% hat was the 5uestion9.


18/83

1

1

Member% The 7uestion was % If 8eit! is "mni'otent then 8oeth e Possess

the Power to Make Another 8eit! Like imself. If e doeth not hath this

Power e ceaseth to be "mni'otent. If e doeth ath this Power e ceaseth

to be (nit 8eit!.

&ali'h% &an an! one answer this conundrum9

A &ourtier% Sir if I ma! sa! that onl! 8ialectics and theologians &an Res'onse

to Theological 7uestion. Theologian are disliked in th! court. If onl! thou

hath allowed them in th! court Sir , e would not be ashamed of this

disgrace.

&ali'h% Is there a theologian in the court. If no one then bring some one.

"nl! a !oung student acce'teth that he is a student of theolog!. >o one else

acce'teth./

The !oung student is brought in the court, who sa!th. Sir I am a student of

theolog! as well. ow e=er as theologians are not liked in the court I ke't it

as a secret.

&ali'h% If thou can answer a theological &onundrum. Then a courtier

re'eateth it/

Student%6 @reat &ali'h "f Muslims. This 5uestion is analogous to the

7uestions , H&an 8eit! make imself eak9 &an e 8estro! or Annihilate

is "wn "mni'otence39 &an 8eit! become Ignorant and make is"mniscience to cease.

&ali'h% Some other 'roblematic 5uestions.

Student % >ot at all Sir. 8i=ine Power is "mni'otence in the sense that it is on

each and e=er! Possible and &ontingent. Absurdities,&ontradictions

Im'ossibilities and Incontingencies all 0#clude "mni'otence of 8eit!.

0#clusion "f them do not limit 8i=ine Power from being "mni'otence.

"ne &ourtier% If the! 0#clude 8i=ine Power then it becomes )nite , limitedand bounded.

Student%6 >ot at all Sir, It is still in)nite since there are in)nite Possibilities

and &ontingencies. >o &ontingent and no Possible 0#clude the 8i=ine Power,

so it is Absolute and "mni'otence.


19/83

1

1

&ali'h%6 I do acce't m! mistake to im'ose an useless ban on Theologians

and 8ialectics. Let this bo! be send to Indian Mahara+a.

&ourtier. Sir he is +ust a student. e ma! not be able to answer more

com'le# 5uestions. It is there fore re5uested that thou ma!st send a Scholar

of theolog!.

&ali'h% More com'le# 5uestions. Is there a single 5uestion that is more

'roblematic then these. So send him soon.

Student to the &ali'h%6 Sir I am +ust a beginner. There are man! things to be

learned.

&ali'h% -ring me a Scolar of the sub+ect of theolog!.

A theological Scholar is brought in the court.

A courtier narrates all the e=ents.

The Scholar% Sir I am 're'ared to face all sorts of 5uestions. Like a

Mathematician who when )nds a new 'roblem attem'ts to sol=e it, we also

attem't to sol=e theological 'roblems if a new 'roblem cometh in our

knowledge.

&ali'h %6 8ost thou agree to =isit the Indian Subcontinent.

Theologian res'ondeth in aFrmation..

a%ru%n the &ali'h %6To the ro!al riter of the court.

rite as dictated.

Indian Maha R+a I am sending thee a 'erson 'erfect for discussion.

(nfortunatel! I chose a 'erson who was not a theologian but a legal

s'ecialist.I ho'e thou ma!st reconsider th! o'inion once again.

Mamu%n one of the sons of The @reat &ali'h a%ru%n $Arrashi%d/ was hearing

all this with @reat &are. e said to one of the courtiers.

Mamun%6 I want to stud! Theolog!. Arrange a Teacher for me.

History doeth not recard what doeth happen to the theologian,after he is

send to India.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


20/83

ot at all. This is her right and I ha=e assured e=er! one freedom of

e#'ression.


21/83


22/83

the court of Mamun there was a 'eriod of Religion discussions. ews,

&hristians, Ma+usis , all sort ofreligous scholars were 'resent in the court.7adi Abu 8a=ud was one of the leading scholars of Mu3tailah sect and used

to defend Islam as according to Mu3tailah.

PART

A @RA>8 8IS&(SSI">

In the court there was a discussion between a Ma+usi Xoroastrian or

Magus/scholar and 7adi Abu 8=ud Al Mu3taili on the Issue of Two 8eties. A/8eit! "f @ood. -/ 8eit! "f 0=il. The Ma+usi Scholar was tr!ing to 'ro=e that

the dogma of a single good deit! is incorrect. e was attem'ting to 'ro=e

that if there is a Single @ood &reator then the e=ils and bad in the world

cannot be e#'lained 'ro'erl!. The debate was near its end. Two &reator

8ogma was is an attem't to answer the 7uestion of the 0#istence "f 0=il


23/83

ot onl! the Logical Absurdities andIm'ossibilities 0#clude the 8i=ine Power but there are in)nite Possible:s;

which are Im'ossible for the 8eit!.

?or e#am'le %6 To do fornication, to do se#ual acti=ities , to s'eak a false

statement,


24/83


25/83


26/83

o one hath the right to com'el thee. Thou hast e5ui=alent right as I ha=e

it. .

Ma+usi Scholar%6 @ratitude for thee and th! ustice. @reat is th! ustice.

S'eaker%6 Tomorrow there is going to be a debate between 7adi Abi 8a=ud

and &hristian Scholars.

Time is o=er for toda!2s debate.

This is re'eated se=eral times in the &ourt.

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

111111111111111111111111111

Part

T0 @R0AT 80-AT0 -0T00> 7adi Abu 8a=ud and his o''onents.

>e#t da! at same time the debate was about to begin between 7adi Abi

8a=ud and &hristian Scholars.

S'eaker%6 Toda! we are ha=ing a great discussion between 7adi Abi 8a=udand his &hristian Re+oinders.

Mamu%n%6 -! m! 'ermission the debate must begin now.

S'eaker% Let the grand debate begin.


27/83


28/83

8 I? >"T 0ternal then not (ncreated, and If not

(ncreated then &reated. owe=er I do second 7ad%I Abu 8uad and If there is"ne 8i=ine "usia then there is "nl! "ne 8i=ine !'ostasis. A logical

im'lication between the them.

An other ewish scholar%6 @reat &ali'h%6 Ma! I be allowed to sa! some thing

in this regard.

Mamu%n %6 AFrmati=e, thou ma!st.

The second scholar% ?irst I want to add that from )rst ebraic Pro'het to the

last ebraic Pro'het that we know, none of them did belie=e in the dogma of

Trinit!. So to claim that the -ooks in the ewish Tanakh tell about Trinit! is +ust

to accuse all of the ebraic ol! Pro'hets that the! are ignorant of their own

books in the "nl! ewish &annon. ow e=er I want to sa! that I do dis'ute in

regard to the nature of S'oken ords of 8eit! with our @reat Schola%r. I do

sa! that The ords s'oken b! 8eit! which are 5uoted in -ereshit @enesis/

are >either 0ternal >or &reated but 8one and S'oken. I belie=e that act of

doing is an act other than the act of &reation, and act of s'eaking is diEerent

from both of them. 8eit! ath Power to 8o diEerent t!'es of acts and doings.

&reation is +ust one among them. It ma! be said that those who claim all the

acts and doings of 8eit! are creation do belie=e that 8eit! &an "nl! 8o "net!'e of act or doing and that is &reation. This ma! not be correct.

As act of listening and act of watching are also distinct not onl! from one

another but from the rest.

Mamu%n% I do Thank thee for th! o'inion but I do belie=e that an! thing that

is not &reated is 0ternal and an! thing that is not 0ternal is &reated.


29/83

ot &reated then the

8i=ine ord is also (ncreated. If so then Iesous is im'lied to be (ncreated.

"rthodo# Scholar%6 @reat &ali'h , Ma! I be 'leased be allowed to res'onse

to 7adi Abu 8a=ud.


30/83

BU

BU

Mamun%6 "rthodo# &ircles cannot debate in Philoso'h! and Theolog!. The!

onl! use traditions and in intellectual debates Traditions cannot be used. I

cannot allow thee .

&hristian Scholar%6

@reat &ali'h, 'lease allow me to suggest that make a single o'inion about

7uran among Muslims before discussing other religions. I suggest that there

must be a debate among Muslims about the =er! nature of 7uran 'rior to

an! debate with &hristians.

Then the sound of the announcer raised% HTime of the debate is o=er3 . It

shall be continued tomorrow.

Part

TRA>SITI"> "? A (ST I>T" A> (>(ST.

In the e=ening 7adi Abu 8a=ud was in 'ri=ac! with Mamun.

The! were discussing the issue of 7uran and its &reatedness.

7adi% If we sa! that 7uran is a ord of 8eit! then either It is &reated or

(ncreated . If (ncreated then it is almost the same thing the Athanasian

&hristians sa! about Iesous Messiah. So @reat &ali'h I do suggest that the

"rthodo# must be com'elled to change their =iew about 7ur2a%n.

Mamun% hat if the! refuse.

7adi% Then "rthodo# should be declared as as eterodo# and eretic.

0#ercise th! Power ,?orce and 0nerg! to make a consensus on the issue.

?orce them to acce't Mu3tiili =ersion of Islam.

Mamun% -ut in m! &ali'hate e=er! one hath a right to belie=e what he liketh

to.

7adi%6 ews, &hristians ,Xoroastrians ma! ha=e such rights but heretics and

A'ostates do not ha=e such a right. I assure thee that if thou 'unisheth them

then b! 8eit! It Shall be >ecessar! ('on 8eit! to Reward thee. A necessit!

which is ine=itable e=en for the @reat 8eit! imself and not in is Power to

remo=e the necessit! of reward.ews , &hristians and Xoroastrians do not

re'resent Islam. -ut these "rthodo# re'resent Islam. So it is a matter of

re'resentation of Islam. Ma! I remind thee that these "rthodo# also belie=e

in -e)tic ision "f 8eit! as well. hat an Irrational mind. If the! are


31/83

B1

B1

acce'ted as the true re'resentati=e of Islam then the! Islam shall no more

be a rational religion.

Ma2mu%n recalling the 'ast.

Ma2mun% Kes I remember an e=ent in m! ?ather2s time when an "rthodo# was unable

to re'l! a sim'le 5uestion of an Indian Scholar in India. Then M! father sent a

8ialectic to discuss with them . All I know to the best of m! knowledge that

the 8ialectic ne=er returned . I ho'e that he ma! ha=e )nd a =er! good 'lace

in the court of the Indian Monarch. -ut this shall not be re'eated again.This

was the turning 'oint in m! life. I began to take interest in Theological

'roblems. "nl! Mu3tailite =ersion of Islam a''eared to me as the rational,

and all others are irrational. An! how e shall meat an argument b! an

argument.

7adi% 0#actl! that is the 'oint. Thou ma!st see that if 7uran is (ncreated

then there is no wa! to sa! that

Iesous is &reated . If the Pro'het Iesous is &reated then 7uran is &reated.

Ma2mu%n% 0#actl! that is .

7adi % The basic 'rinci'le is that There is onl! one 0ternal. Pluralit! of

0ternals whether It be 'luralit! of !'ostases or "usias or 0lse is

unacce'table that is wh! we do not agree with Athanasian &hristianit! andXoroastrianism. "ur Mu3taili A#iom $Al (sul Al Maudu%3ah/ that there is

"nl! "ne 0ternal , based u'on which we refute Pluralit! "f 0ternal

!'ostases and Pluralit! "f 0ternal &reators is in danger. If we re+ect

&hristian Pluralit! and Xoroastrian Pluralit! then the same is true for these

"rthodo# elements. -ut the! I know do not sto' here. The! -elie=e that each

and e=er! 8i=ine Attribute is (ncreated and (nmade. An! theng unmade is

0ternal be!ond doubt.

Mamum6 I know it. Their belief is irrational , since there are in)nite 8i=ine

Attributes. Is there a wa! to annihilate there theological s!stem. The 8ogmaof (nit! "f 0ternal is the fundamental Princi'le u'on which we Mu3tailite

can challenge Pluralit! "f 0ternals whether it be Pluralit! of 0ternal&reators

or Pluralit! "f 0ternal !'ostases or else.

7adi % ilst thou issue a degree to all "rthodo# to change their =iew about

the (ncreatedness of ol! 7uran. See 7uran is a S'eech and a S'eech


32/83

B<

B<

consisteth of more then one word. If Se=eral words are (ncreated then on

what ground can we argue &hristians to belie=e Iesous as &reated uman

-eing.

?or he is +ust a 8i=ine ord among se=eral 8i=ine ords.

Like "ne we ha=e. There is essentiall! no diEerence between 8i=ine ords

and uman ords.

Mamun%6 Kes thou art right.

I Must Issue a degree tomorrow .0=en If m! res'ected teacher $Imam Ma%lic

would ha=e been ali=e at this time I would ha=e attem'ted to con=ert him.

ow e=er unwillingl! I would ha=e shewn no s!m'ath! for him. ?ortunatel!

e is not ali=e . "ther wise I would ha=e used argument of force if force of

argument would ha=e failed.If he were ali=e I would ha=e e=en included his

res'ected >oun as well.

Part

T0 @R0AT I>(STI&0

>e#t 8a! in the &ourt of Mamun%

S'eaker% Attention Please% The @reat &ali'h is going to address the court and

to issue a degree Mih%na/.

Ma%mu%n%6

I as the leader of all Muslims claim that 7uran Is a &reation "f 8eit!. It is not

(ncreated as belie=ed b! "rthodo# who are actuall! (northodo#. If 7uran is

ords "f 8eit! and "R8S "? 8eit! are (ncrearede then on hat grounds

e can claim that Iesous is &reated. So an! one who belie=eth that 7uran is

not &reated is not a Muslim and Shall be Punished in e#treme. The! do noten+o! an! right or freedom of belief since the! are distorting the face of Islam

due to their Irrational and (>R0AS">A-L0 -0LI0?.

The! belie=e that 8eit! Shall be seen after then 0nd of the world. This de)es

all the laws of =isibilit! and =ision. The! belie=e that uman Acts are

&reations of 8eit!. This de)es 8i=ine ustice. The! belie=e that 8eit! hath


33/83

BB

BB

Power to dohat e ath 'romised not to do . -ut 8eit! cannot do this. ?or

this is nothing but a 'ower to make a ?alse Promise which is nothing but to

s'eak falsehood. The! belie=e that Mu3a=iah R,8/ is a &om'anion of ol!

Pro'het and deser=eth to be res'ected as a &om'anion "f ol! Pro'het. An!

one who saith well or good to Mu3a=iah is outlawed .0=en m! res'ected

teacher held these belie=es. -ut now I ha=e the 'ower . I must not make an!

com'romise on the Issue on the &reatedness of 7uran. "ne who doeth not

change his belief on this 'articular issue shall be 'unished with full might .If

m! res'ected teacher was ali=e, I would ha=e shewn him absolutel! no

merc!. ow e=er it is not +ust argument of 'ower, we are read! to remo=e

an! doubt if raised b! an! "rthodo# or traditionalist in this regard.

-ut it must be made clear that if after the remo=ing of doubts no one is

allowed to remain on his former belief of (ncreati=it! "f ol! 7uran. 7adi

Abu 8a=ud and I Shall decide weather the doubts are cleared or not. "f

cource we cannot continue the debate inde)nitel!.If some one attem'teth to

answer our answers he shall be 'unished.

?rom now on all the udges in the courts of law shall be a''ointed after

confessing that 7uran is a &reation. 7adi a5di is +ust an e#am'le of

belie=ers in the creati=it! A>8 &R0AT08>0SS "? 7ur2a%n..

?inall! I send a 5uestionnaire to diEerent orthodo# scholars in regard to their

belie=es about 7uran.

There names are%

1/ -ishar -in alid

uh.

A &hristian Scholar%6 At last Abu 8a=ud has di=erted his attention from us.


34/83

BG

BG

Second &hristian Scholar%6 &an such useless debates change the belief, I do

doubt.

?irst &hristian Scholar%6 It shall be interesting to see how 7adi Abu 8a=ud

dealeth with Muslim "rthodo#.

Second &hristian Scholar% Kes "f course it Shall be. "rthodo# and Rationalists

are two 'arallel lines which ne=er meet. ?or the )rst time on the globe one

ma! see how these two 'arallel line meet.

?irst% I su''ose it shall be a historical moment in the histor! of histories.

Part

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

111111111111111111111111111111111

Isha5 -in Ibrahim the chief en5uirer gathers a meeting and en5uireth about

the faith in regard to the >ature "f ol! 7uran.reation sus'end his +udicial

'owers.

Sa! to -ishar, that he liethfor there is no sti'ulation between me and him.

Ask him to acce't the belief of &reati=it! "f 7uran. If he recanteth 'ublish it

in 'ublic , and if 'ersisteth, bring his head to me.

Sa! to Ali -in Abi Mu5atil %6 H Thou art not he who said to the &ali'h that

thou =eril! canst absol=e and bind.

Sa! to X!adi that he used falsel! to claim clientshi' with a s'urious son.

Sa! to Ibn >uh thathe em'lo!eth himself in taking usur! to the hindrance of

his knowledge, now he hath added in)delit! as well.

Sa! to Ahmad -in anbal that I m! self am aware of the manner of his

arguments, which is 'ure ignorance and in=alidit!.

Sa! to Sa++adah that his occu'ation hath made him to forget (nit! "f 0ternal.

Sa! to (bidullah -in (mar &arirri that it is e#'osed that he taketh bribes.


35/83

B

B

To Isha5% "ne who acce'teth the belief 'ublish it in general 'ublic. And one

who re+ecteth it bring him in chains to the &a'ital e#ce't -ishar and Ibrahim.

If the 'ersist then their heads must be brought instead of them.

Isha5 maketh an en5uair!.

All e#ce't the faith e#ce't four. The! are as Sa++adah, Ahmad -in anbal,

Muhammad -in >uh and(baidullah -in (mar.

S0&">8 0>7(IRK%6

In the second en5uir! Sa++adah losteth his wicket and submiteth himself.

Isha5% >ow who is going to acce't the faith of the &ali'h. Thou Thou thou

thou.

Sa++adah%6 I acce't his =iews. I 'ronounce 7uran is &reated.Isha5% Release Sa++adah at once.

TIR8 0>7(IRK

In the third one (baiduallah is bold out and acce'teth the faith of Mamun.

Isha5%6 I sa! now who is going to acce't the belief that 7(RA> is &R0AT08.

If !ou 'eo'le insist and 'ersist on th! "rthodo#! then be 're'are to meet the

&ali'h in 'erson.

(baidullah%6 Sir Iam 're'aired to acce't the belief of the &ali'h.

Isha5 % Release (baidullah .

>ow he looketh at the two remaining 'ersons still struggling for the truth of

"rthodo#! and 7uranic Truth.

Isha5 % hat thou sa!est Ibn >uh.

Ibn >uh%6 I am 're'aired to face m! fate. I belie=e what I ha=e belie=e in

Past and shall continue to belie=e in it in future.

Isha5 % &hain him.

And what thou sa!est " Ahmad -in anbal.

Imam Ahmad -in anbal%6 I 'ersist on m! belief .


36/83

B

B

Two of them refuse to surrender and to submit. The! had to )ght the might

of the Mornarch.

In the darkness when orthodo# hath last all ho'es like wickets in a &ricket

Match two men were still struggling to end the match on the last ball of the

match, not before it.

The! are standing the most fast bowling of the Monarch. The last wicket of the

"rthodo# was struggling to sa=e the match as often seen in @reat game of &ricket.

Ma%mu%n seeth in de'th all the re'orts in the &ourt of Mamun.

Mamun becometh =er! angr! as the! hath not acce'ted his Mu3taili

-elie=es. e dictateth another e'istile to Isha5.

Mamun%6 An! one who belie=eth in the "rthodo# =iews is a heretic.

hosoe=er belie=eth that 7uran is a >ot a &reation is not a Muslim,

according to m! reasoning.

Part 1U

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

I-> >( 8I0T%6

Ibn >uh%6 If thou art ali=e to face the trial , thou must not fail.

Imam Ahmad%6 Self of Mine *noweth It.

Ibn >uh%6 Look Ahmad , 8eit! is imself the sa=ior of is Religion. e

re5uireth not me or thee.

Togather we are a team. If thou dieth I shall be left alone.

Imam Ahmad%6 Ma! I be as fortunate as thee.


37/83

B

B

Ibn >uh%6 I am fortunate enough to die before the trial.

Imam Ahmad%6 Ma!st thou li=e.

Ibn >uh%6 I think Iam about to die.

8uring the tra=elling fro -aitine to -ughdad Ibn >uh falleth ill. is illnessincreases before the trial hath to begun. e is about to die .

Mamun is in Roman Terrotaries namel! -!antine.

I> T0 &"(RT "? MAM(%>.

A &ourtier asketh him that a scholar wanteth to come in the court.e

informeth Mamun that the scholar saith that he hath some 5uestions about

the belief of &reation "f 7uran. e saith he Shall acce't this belief if his

doubts are re'lied logicall!, other wise he saith that the &ali'h ma! allow in'eace. 7adi Abu 8a=ud is in -aghdad but -ashar -in Muraisi is 'resent who

is an e5ui=alent to 7adi Abu 8a=ud and useeth to assist him in debates.

Mamun himself is o=er con)denced u'on his own knowledge.

So he granted him 'eace if the! are unable to refute his doubts on the

&reati=it! "f 7uran.

Man %6 &ali'h m! noun is Abdul HAi% $Al Makki.

Mamun%6 Thou are a scholar of Shafa3I school of thought. I do ha=e heard

th! name. I ha=e also heard that thou art a theologian e=en if thou art an"rthodo#.

Imam Abdul HAi%6 I ha=e come to challenge Mu3taali scholars on the issue

of &reation of 7uran. &an the! with stand the 'urit! 7uranic realit! and

truth.

Mamun%Thou wantest to debate with us.

Imam Abdul Ai% That is the onl! reason I ha=e risked m! life to come to

thee.

Mamun%6 If thou are defeated then thou must not ha=e an! o'tion but to

acce't the belief that 7uran is &reated. In that case if thou 'ersistest on th!

belie=es then thou shall be 'unished.

Imam Abdul Ai% -ut what if I win, If I win then let me go in 'eace.


38/83

B

B

Mamu%n%6If.

Imam Abdul Ai%6Sir >o "ne *noweth AL @haib 0#ce't 8eit! and no one

can claim who shall win in the debate.

I 'ersist that thou ma! im'ose a condition that the debate must be from thete#t of AL 7(RA>.

Mamun looking at -ahar%6 e is the debater from our side. 8efeat him and

go in 'eace. "ther wise I ha=e stated what shall I do if thou 'ersistest on th!

"rthodo#ial -elie=es.

-ashar%6I re5uest thee to dro' this condition. If this condition is dro''ed I

shall 'ro=e the claim that 7ura2an is a &reation, a &reature of 8eit!. If I fail to

do so b! blood is 'ermitted .

Mamu%n% I do dro' the condition.

Imam Abdul HAi looking at the ri=al debater/%6 It is u'on thee to decide

whether I do begin the debate or thee.

-ashar% Thou ma!st begin.

Abdul Ai%6 8ost thou belie=e that 7uran is a &reated9

-ash4r3 Is this a 5uestion to be asked9 7ur2a%n is &reated.

Abdul3Ai%6 If 7ur2a%n is &reated then 7ur2an is a &reation.-ash4r% Kes . It is +ust a tautolog!.

Imam Abdul Ai%6 0=en tautolog! are necessar! some time to annihilate

ambiguities. M! ne#t 5uestion is, HIf 7uran is the &reation then ho is the

&reator "f 7uran , 8eit! or some ">0 0lse3.

-ash4r%6 "f course It is the 8eit! ho is the &reator "f 7uran.

HAbdul HAi%%6 If 8eit! is the &reator "f 7uran then 8eit! Must a=e

&reated 7uran.-ashr%6 "nce again it is nothing but a Tautolog!. ast thee come to ask

about tautologies9 hat t!'e of ambiguit! e#isteth, which tou art attem'ting

to annihilate b! tautological 5uestions9

HAbdul HAi%%6 I do want thee to con)rm th! belie=es so that there must not

be an! confusion.


39/83

B

B

-ashar%6. I 8o -elie=e That 7uran is A &reation "f 8eit! , and 7ur2a%n is

&reated -! the 8eit!. -oth of the two statement do im'l! one an other.

I do re'eat that, This is not a 5uestion to be asked since it is a =er! ob=ious .

Abdul Ai%6 >o As 'er rules of argumentation thou art the claimant, and aclaimant must state his claim in e#'licit words.

Mamu%n% Thou art right.

-ash4r%6 hat sort of 0#'licit sentences thou wantest9 I do belie=e that I do

ha=e re'lied thee in the most e#'licit sentences and e#'ressions.

Abdul Ai%6 Kes thou hast, now m! 5uestion is%6 HIf 8eit! ath &reated

7uran Then there are onl! following cases and thou hast to acce't an! one

of them necessaril!39

-ashar%6 Sa! so.

Imam Abdul Ai%6 0ither the 8eit! ath &reated 7uran in is "wn 8i=ine

Self "r e ath &reated the 7uran In Association ith is 0ssence "r e

ath &reated 7uran Se'arate ?rom imSelf.

There is no forth o'tion for thee.

-ashar is silent and doeth not make an! res'ond. e is astonished.Ma2mu%n after some time asketh Abdul Ai.

Mamun%6 It is clear that -ashar hath no 'ro'er answer for th! argument ,

how e=er before lea=ing the court thou shall e#'lain th! argument. 0=en I

ha=e ne=er thought of this in m! entire 'olemic life.

Abdul HAi%6 Sir It is =er! clear . If -ashar o'teth for the )rst, then it is Per

Se Im'ossible and Per Se Absurd that an! thing Is &reated In 8i=ine Self.

Mamu%n %6 True%

HAbdul HAi%6If -ash4r o'teth the second o'tion then this is e5uall! Perse

Absurd and Perse Im'ossible. I re'eat that, If an! thing sa! 7ur2a%n is

&reated In Association ith the 8i=ine 0ssence then this is again Per Se

Absurd and Per Se Im'ossible for an! thing to be created In Association ith

8i=ine 0ssence, is Per Se Im'ossible. It is Perse Im'ossible for an! &reation

to be Associated ith 8eit!.


40/83

GU

GU

Mamun%6 So the )rst two "'tions are Im'ossible. If Im'ossible then not in

8i=ine "mni'otence. -ut what about the third o'tion.

Abdul HAi%6 >ow if the third o'tion is acce'ted then 7uran is not a 8i=ine

S'eech and 8eit! is not the S'eaker "f the S'eech. &reator "f a S'eech

cannot be the S'eaker "f the S'eech. In this case 7uran is a S'eech with out

a S'eaker. To do an act is one thing and to &reate an act is an other thing. So

8eit! cannot be an Acti=e Partici'le i.e S'eaker "f an! S'eech what so e=er.

If so then this meaneth that ahmites are right that 7ur2a%n is not the 8i=ine

S'eech. Thou belie=eth that It is created !et it is 8i=ine S'eech. Logicall!

either It is (ncreated 8i=ine S'eech or not the 8i=ine S'eech at all. In this

case thou must ha=e to acce't the dogma of ahmite that 8eit! is not thes'eaker of 7ur2a%n and 7ur%an is not is S'eech. -ut Mu3tailites diEer.

&reation of 7ur2a%n logicall! and rationall! im'licateth ahmites and not

Mu3tailites.

-aha4r is silent so is Ma2mu%n.

Abdul Ai looking at Ma2mu%n asketh, Ma! I ask another related 7uestion to

m! learned o''onent.

Ma2mu%n%6 Thou canst.

Abdul HAi% %6Is 8eit! the &reator "f Act "f &reation as ell. If e is then

this is absurdum ad in)nitum.This is that each Act "f &reation is a &reation

,there for there is a &reation 'rior to each and e=er! creation. And this is Per

Se Absurd.This im'lieth that 8eit! cannot &reate an! thing. If e is not then

e is ust a doer of the act or doing of &reation and not the &reator "f the

Act. The Prime 8oer and the Prime Agent.

-ash4r is silent. Mamun is 'uled, the court is confused."ther Mu3taili

scholars are furious.

Mamun2s sound like a sound coming from the gra=e %Thou hast won the

debate. I do not ha=e an! idea , how to res'ond thee. Thou art allowed to

lea=e in 'eace.

HAbdul HAi lea=eth the court.


41/83

G1

G1

Mamu%n looking at -ashar.

Mamun% Although I am not losing m! faith in the 8ogma "f &reation "f

7uran , but it a''ears that thou hast to work hard to work out all the 'ossible

arguments of the o''onents. This man hath surel! made a 'roblem in m!

head.I must consult 7adi Abu 8a=ud to )nd a wa! in order to refute thisargument. -ut I m! self belie=e that this argument is going to trouble e=en

7A8I A-( 8A(8. If we two are unable to make a 'ositi=e res'onse I am in

doubt that addition of 7adi Abu 8a=ud is going to make an! diEerence.

-ASIR%6h! didst thou not kill him9

Mamun%6 I granted him 'eace with the condition he shall win. e did win it. I

cannot =iolate m! words.

-ash4r %6 Murmuring. "nl! 8eit! cannot =iolate his 'romice, but humans

can.

Ma2mu%n%6 &on)rmed, but umans Shall not, e=en if the! can. 8eit! &annot

s'eak a false statement and human must not s'eak a false statement,

s'eciall! not the &ali'h, and I am the &ali'h.

See I ha=e re+ected th! 'ermission of th! blood.

-ash4r%6 @ratitude.

MAM(> -0&"M0T SI&* and dieth

The 'roblem in the mind made Mamun some what sick. e soon becometh

ill.

ow 0=er Mamun did not li=e long after this debate. e died in August BB

A&.

>ot be!ond the sus'ition of curse of two noble characters of istor!.444444

If this was not the onl! cause of his ultimate illness then it was 'robabl! oneof the causes of it.

R0P"RT "? 80AT "? MA%M(> &">0K08 T" %A>-AL

A man % anbal dost thou know Mamu%n hath died.


42/83

G<

G<

anbal% Looking u' as if he is watching hea=ens be!ond skies . -ut this is

not the end. It is the beginning of something e=en worse then the things in

the 'eriod of the 8ead Mamun.

$Abu $Is4h%a%5 -in a%ru%n Al Mu3tasim -illah 4G


43/83

GB

GB

?ollowing the terms of the agreement,Ibn %anbal is remo=ed from the'rison and taken to the house of the 'refect to meet with two Mu3tailiScholars re'resentati=es of Mu3tasam.?irst Mu3taali scholar%6

e ha=e to shew thee some thing.Imam Ah%mad -in %anbal% hat is to be shewn9At )rst, the imam was m!sti)ed b! his interrogators. The! showed him H some 'ictures of the hea=ens and the earth, and otherthings.3Imam %hat are the!9Second Mu3taili% Pictures "f ea=enl! ell and ea=enl! Paradie.Imam% So the! ha=e e=en come to this.?irst Mu3taili%6 Is it not so 7ur2a%n is an accident. An Accident needs a locusto be sustainte in9 Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal%6 HI don2t know what !ou two talking about.3

Looking at the )rst one of the two.Imam Ah%mad -in %anbal%6-ut shalt thou tell me ,3If 8eit! is 0ternal and"mniscient, then e alwa!s ha=e known the te#t of the 7urans >ecessaril!., Therefore 7ur2a%n 0ternal atleast in the 8i=ine *nowledge.?irst "ne% 7ur2a%n is &reated e=en in 8i=ine *nowledge.Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal%6 An! thing in 8i=ine *nowledge is certainl! and>ecessaril! 0ternal other wise 8i=ine "mniscience is im'lied to be a&reation. The Second "ne%6 Then 8i=ine *nowledge is &reated.$Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal%6 Then thou art an unbelie=er.

>ow it is not onl! the matter of 7ur2an but also of 8i=ine "mniscience.

"ne "f the Mu3taali scholar%6 e cannot continue to discuss further afterth! this statement.

The! lea=e.

The 'refect maketh a lasteEort to 'ersuade Ima%m $Ah%mad -in %anbal to be con=inced %Prefect%6HAh%mad -in %anbal, it2s !our life at stakeY The cali'hhas =owed

not to kill !ou b! the sword, but instead to thrash thee and cast thee$Ah%mad -in %anbal and to trans'ort to the 'alace, whereinto a 'lace where thou shalt ne=er see the sun.3.Imam Ah%mad -in %anbal%6 Is this the 'roof the! ha=e for their belie=e inthe &reatedness "f 7ur2a%n9

Prefect% >o we ha=e a number of 'roofs. H8oeth 8eit! not sa!, $e ha=e made 7ur2a%n in Arabic. :GB% B;9 If


44/83

GG

GG

8eit! made it, didn2t he create it93Imam Ahmad -in anbal%-ut thou th! self belie=est that the in)niti=e a3alMaking/ is not used in the meaning of creation. 7ur2a%n saith Hemade them like a )eld of chaE3 :1U% ;, in which the same =erb : ja Z3ala;clearl!

means Hto make into,3 not Hto create.3Prefect%6 >ow I know that th! obstinac! is great.I gi=e u'.$Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal%6 Is this not obstinac! to make others toco'ulate b! force and take their freedom from them.

Prefect ordereth %6 Send him to the &ali'h al4MuZtas・im.

e s'ent the night in con)nement.IMAM2S (>&L0 "> T0 M"0%

Is4h%a%5 b.anbal goeth to the 'refect, Is4h%a%5 b.Ibra%h[%m, re5uesteth forhisrelease.e remindeth the 'refect that the! both the are descended from theabna ̄Z of Mar=, and that their ancestors had fought side b! side. Thisa''eared to works some how.$Is4h%a%5 -in anbal%4 M! ne'hew hath done no a'ostac!. e onl! diEereth inthe inter'retation.$Ish%a%5 -in $Ibra%hi%m%6 So what I ma! do for thee.$Is4h%a% -in %anbal%4 I suggest thata grand debate ma! be held under su'er=ision of &ali'h himself and in ma!

consisteth of scholars and +urists.I do not insist that it ma! be of Ahmad -in anbal2s =iew9Prefect% I shall con=e! th! re5uest to the &ali'h 'ersonall!.Imam2s (ncle%6 I am sure that if the! are able to 'ro=ide con=incingarguments and =alid 'roofs m! ne'hew shall acce't their belief.?amil! members andfriends and (ncle "f Imam Ah%mad -in %anbal"ne of the friends to Ish%a5 -in anbal%6

Thou hast suggested a tra' for th! ne'hew. All his o''onents and ri=als shall

be in=ited and a single 'erson cannot debate with a grou' of o''onent

scholars how so e=er great he ma! be.

(ncle%6 I shall beg Ahmad -in anbal to acce't their belief , this is the best

I can do, and I do ha=e no other alternati=e.This is no choice.It is a

com'ulsion.

Imam% If there is no choice then it is necessar! to make it." 8eit! , Make a

&hoice for me, Since Th! Intention is Absolutel! ?ree on All Possibles.


45/83

G

G

(ncle and the >e'hew%

(ncle%6 >e'hew I thing it is be!ond human limits to stand against an em'ire

singlehandedl!. So ha=e merc! on us and acce't their belie=es.

Imam% ?or what crime, I am to acce't m! faith as a sin.(ncle% Thou ma! re=ert to th! original faith latter.

Imam%6HIf the scholar assents out of terror, and the ignorant out of

ignorance,when truth shall be re'laced b! falsehood, light b! darkens and

e=er!thing shall be to's!4tur=!93

(ncle% Mark it >e'hew, u' till now thou hast seen nothing, the! shall scourge

to and 'ain thee."n that da! e=en thou shalt co'ulate. 8o it before that da!.

Imam% 6 I ma! see the da! too.

I-> AL AIS.AM A>8 IS A8I&0%

anbal is in Prison waiting for the trial and 'robable 'unishment ne#t da!.

hen he heareth a =oice%

A man% Art thou Ahmad -in anbal9

anbal%6 I am .

The Man%6 Let me introduce b! self Ibn Al ais2am.

anbal%6 I do think that I a=e heard this noun before.

Th e Man%6 KesY Thou must ha=e. . I am a Robber , 'erha's the greatest of

all robbers of the time.

Imam Ahmad -in anbal%6 hat thou wantest 9. hat a robber hath to do

with me9

Ibn aisam%6 Are we not both two sla=es of one and same 8eit!, is bound

men9

$Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal%6 &ertainl! we are.


46/83

G

G

$Ibn aisam%6 &an a bad sla=e of 8eit! sa! some thing to a good one9

%anbal% Kes. -ut who is good is onl! known to 8eit!.

$Ibn aisam%6 HI do ha=e come to thee to ad=ise thee.

A good ad=ise from a great sinner and transgressor3.

Let me tell thee some thing )rst. I am whi''ed and scourged countless

number of times +ust to admit that I ha=e commited crimes. -ut I ne=er

confessed.

anbal%6 h! 9

Ibn aisam%6 ?or m! lo=e for falsehood and wrongness was so great. -ut Is

th! lo=e for truth and righteousness as great as m! lo=e for wrongness and

falsehood.

anbal%6 State in 0#'licit sentences, not in riddles.

Ibn aisam%6 As thou saist.

anbal% &ontinue and 'roceed.

Ibn aisam%6In m! entire life I ha=e done no good e#ce't one and that is I

solemnl! belie=e that 7uran is (ncreated 8i=ine Attribute.

Ibn aisam%6 I know it not whether 8eit! shall forgi=e me or not ,but if thou

'ra!est for me I ha=e a ho'e.

Imam anbal% I can onl! sa! HMa! 8eit! ?orgi=e th! sins and transgressions3.

Ibn aisam >eglecting Imam2s res'onse%4There is a test for thee and 8eit!

ath 'ut thee to an s'ecial test or 'erha's an e#ce'tional test.

If thou failest anbal then th! sin shall be the greatest sin in the histor! of

the world. ?or


47/83

G

G

It is the issue of entire righteousness and truth. I know not the future but it is

the most obligator! dut! to stand against the t!rant ,brute and un+ust for

the sake of righteousness, truth ,and realit!.

Ahmad -in anbal%6 @reat is th! argument. "nl! 8eit! *noweth the future.

I-> AISAM If I could do this for m! lo=e for falsit! ,thou canst do it of the

lo=e of truth.If all the Voggings and scourging are unable to make me confess

m! true sins,see that the! must not be able to make the acce't the hecrec!

and a'ostac!.

If I can stand against all the 'unishments awarded to me, Thou must stand

against all the 'unishments awared to thee.

I ha=e no ho'e for 8i=ine ?orgi=eness but b! belief in (ncreatedness "f ol!

7uran and if thou faileth thou shalt ha=e no ho'e at all. It is not the matter of

thee

Ibn aisam%6

@ratitude to thee " Ibn asam, for th! words are a blessing from 8eit!. The!

erased all the terror of Mu3taalite Punishment from b! heart and mind.

" 8eit!,e is Th! sinner but not an insurrector.

-oth men begin to cr! almost simultaneousl!. "ne for his occured acts in the

'ast and other for his 'ossible acts in the future.

anbal looking towards hea=ens Let not me fail the test. " 8eit! sa=e Ibn

aisam for his faith is truth if not his acts.

anbal%6 " 8eit! if Thou wantest to test me then @i=e me the strength and

'ower to satisf! the test.

anbal looking at Ibn aisam. -ut he hath gone as he hath ne=er been there.

" 8eit! ,Th! "mni'otence is so great that if the whole &osmos Sinneth thou

&anst forgi=e the entiretit! of &osmos. " $ 8eit! ?orgi=e Ibn Al aisam.


48/83

G

G

anbal Looking u' at hea=ens% " 8eit! , 8o not 'ut me to a 8i=ine Test. ?or I

am too weak to be Tested.

Ahmad -in anbal%6 I know not an! thing but "ne thing , 7uran is

(ncreated,

It is the issue of entire righteousness. I know not the future but it is the most

obligator! dut! to stant against the t!rant ,brute and un+ust for the sake of

righteousness, truth ,and realit!.

-oth men begin to cr! almost simultaneousl!.

?IRST 8AK "? TRIAL%6 The court of Mu3tasim is full! 're'aired for the trial of $Imam $Ah%mad -in

%anbal.

$Imam is brought in the court where a number of courtiers recei=e him.

$Imam % Is it a debate or a trial.

A &ourtier%6 It is a trial.

$Imam% A trial on what transgression.

An "ther &ourtier%6 Trial on the crime of belie=ing in a eretical 8ogma.

$Imam% hat is the herec! then if "rthodo#! is termed as herec!.

>o one answereth.

S'eaker%6 Silence in the &ourt. &ali'h is about to s'eak. There is a silence in

the court.

Mu3tasim%6 The "Fcial religion of the &ali'hate is that 7ur2a%n is &reaterd

and not 0ternal. "ne who doeth not belie=e in it is a heretic ins'ite of hisorthodo#!.

$Ah%mad -in %anbal is brought in the court for a trial. I do ha=e full

con)dence on the oFcial scholars and debaters to 'roduce suFcient 'roofs

and arguments to con=ince $Ah%mad -in %anbal

$Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal%6


49/83

G

G

I ha=e been interrogated and argued multitude of time , but u'till now a

single e=idence from 7ur2a%n or %adis is not 'roduced.

Mu3!asim% Let the trial begin.

A Mu3taali scholar reciteth the charge sheet against $Imam $Ah%mad -in%anbal.

H e is charged of the following transgressions%6

1% e belie=eth in the heretic dogma of (ncreatedness of 7ur2a%n.


50/83

U

U

7adi%6 er! @ood Sir.

%anbal% M! demand is that a 'roof ma! be 'ro=ided from the two most

authentic and authorati=e sourcrs .

Mu3tasam% Then e shall be scourged with out an! 'eace and sal=ation.7adi% hat if he did not.

S(??0RI>@S "? A>-AL I> T0 &"(RT "? M(3TASAM

In the court Mu3tasam was sa!ing to 7adi Abu 8a=ud.

Mutasam% anbal is a great scholar of traditions. If he acce'teth this belief

then it is dearer to me then an! other thing.

7adi Abu 8a=ud%6 I demand %anbal to 'roduce his 'roofs for the

(ncreati=it! "f 7ur2a%n.

Imam. The burden of 'roof is u'on those who want to make a trial and not

u'on the one who is a =ictim of the trial.

7adi% It is a n e=asi=e wa!.

$Imam%6 It is thou who wantest to con=ince other and not me to con=ince

thee. ?or trial is not for thee but for me.

Mu3tasim%6 8o some thing to con=ince him. These theological discussions

are too dr! to understand.

7adi%6 7ur2an is a &reation since it informed about the recent e=ents. hen

an e=ent used to occur, 7ura2n used to discuss

the e=ent.

This is self e=ident 'roof of creation of 7ur2a%n.

$Imam% Ma! I ask is 8i=ine *nowledge not u' to date with e=ents.

7adi% Kes It is.

Imam%6 Then what thou saist about 8i=ine *nowledge,Is it also a creation.

There is a silence in the &ourt.


51/83

1

1

S0&">8 8AK "? TRIAL%6

%anbal is 'roduced once again in the court.

Shu3aib asketh%6 hat is th! belief about 8eit! and and 7ur2an.

$Imam% This 5uestion is asked se=eral times since m! im'risonment and e=enbefore it.-oth of

them are uncreated.

hat is th! 'roof on the uncreatedness of 7ur2a%n. &nast thou 'ro=e it from

the Te#ts of 7ur2a%n

or from the te#ts of traditions of Pro'het.

%anbal%4 It is an Islamic ACI"M , a Religious >ecessit! that 8eit! and 8i=ine

Attributes

are all uncreated.Therefore

7ur2a%n is (ncreated 8i=ine Attribute of S'eech.

To ask for a 'roof of (ncreatedness of 7ur2a%n is +ust like to ask for a 'roof of

(ncreatedness of the =er! 0ssence "f the 8eit!, or 8i=ine "mniscience or

both.

These articles of faith do not re5uire an! 'roofs .

Mu3tasim is 5uite bored with such discussions.

7ad%I Abi 8a=ud%6 8ost thou belie=e in traditions of Pro'het9

$Imam% !es.

7ad%I Abu 8a=ud.%I f we 'resent some traditions of the ol! Pro'het then

Shalt thou co'ulate.

$Ima%m% Present them )rst.

7ad%I asketh -arghu%th to recite the traditions%

-arghuth%

The )rst tradition is from HAbdullah -in H(mar. e narrateth that ?asting and

7ur2an shall ad=ocate for humans. ?asting shall


52/83

<

<

sa! HLord Rabb/ I abstained him from his

desires and food in da! so acce't m!

remomendation in regard to his aFres and

7ur2a%n shall sa! I abstained him from slee' in

night so acce't m! recommendation in regard

to his aFres.

This tradition acce'ts 8eit! as Lord of 7ur2a%n. If 8eit! is Lord of 7ur2an then

7ur2a%n is is &reation.

The second tradition is%

$Ima%m % These traditions cannot be taken literall! ,the! must necessaril! be

inter'reted

according to the necessar! A#ioms of Isla%m. hen Mu3tailahs )nd the Te#t

of a Tradition

how so e=er canonical against them the! do not inter'ret it but den! it. -ut

when the! )nd the Te#t of

a tradition how so e=er non canonical which su''orteth them the! acce't it.

7ad%i%6 hat are their inter'retations9

Imam%6 I belie=e that the inter'retations of ambiguous te#ts of 7ur2a%n and

Traditions are onl!

*nown to 8eit!, not e=en to Pro'hets,Messengers,and A'ostles "f 8eit!,

0=en the Last Pro'het, so I cannot state an!

one of them.

Shu3aib%6 State them.

Imam kee'eth silence.

-arghuth% e is unable to res'onse.

$Imam% ow can I state what onl! 8eit! *noweth,and hat is onl! known to8eit!. hat is

"nl! known to 8eith is not e=en known to Pro'hets and Angels with out an!

e#ce'tion.


53/83

B

B

&anst thou state an! thing that is onl! known to 8eit! without an!

e#ce'tion9

7ad%I Abu 8a=ud is unable to res'onse and becometh furious.

Mu3taili scholars begin to re'eat their arguments in diEerent words. Imamres'onseth them

e#'licitl! and soberl!.

ith each argument It is clear to Imam that Mu3tailahs ha=e no new

argument, The! ha=e

'resented what the! 'ossessed. >ow the! were com'elled to re'eat !et in

diEerent

words and e#'ressions.In all surre+ointers and surrebuters Mu3tasim is 5uite bored.e is not of this

)eld.

If Mamu%n were ali=e he ma! ha=e witness the 'owerful rebuttals 'resented

b! $Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal.

-ut Mu3tasim is ins'ired b! the knowledge of $Imam $Ah%mad -in %anbal.

0=en Mu3tailahs2 are sur'rised to see who he refuteth them with out the aid

of theolog! and 'hiloso'h!

(sing logic sim'l!.

The trial is at its end for toda!.

Mu3tasim heareth the last words of $Imam%

I ha=e re'eated se=eral times that if thou belie=est 7ur2a%n is &reated then

thou canst not

accuse ahmiah. ahmites for their belief that 7ur2a%n and *nowledge "f8iet! both are

&reated.

Toda! Mu3taili scholars of -aghdad ha=e seen limits of their theological

s!stem.


54/83

G

G

The last ho'e of Traditionists traditionalists/ is batting on a 'itch su''orting

fast and s'in bowlers of Mu3tailahs,

!et solid in defence. Se=eral Mu3taili -owlers are changed in the second da!

of the cricket of 'olemics

each after comleting his o=ers, but none is able to take the wicket of %anbal.

The assembl! at night.

In night an assembl! was

Documents

HANBAL CONTRAMUNDUM