Prof. Dr Khalil Andani | The Oral Text & the Ontology of The Quran | Mindtrap with Mufti #28

[music] Welcome back to Minecraft with Mufti people another awesome incredible

uh session awaiting us with our esteemed guest tonight. I'm going to bring up the profile picture. Oh, I'm uh very honored to be here.

Is is this a podcast or like a dating show cuz you sort of introduced me uh I am good. I'm good. Uh you know, just enjoying uh July 4th, right? Or no, July 3rd. July 4th is tomorrow.

But the holiday is today so. Nice. So. Those of you that are not familiar uh with Professor Khaleel uh Professor from Canada but currently teaching as a professor in the United States. His background and expertise is in Islamic theology, Islamic studies, history, the diverse kind of denominational kind of developments throughout Islam as well.

Professor, in your words, tell us a bit about your journey uh to this whole this this wealth of uh of knowledge. Sure. So, uh as you said, I'm from Canada uh you know, born and raised. And uh I would say uh when I was in high school and that's about 20 years ago now uh I became really interested in in uh learning more about Islam and religion but from a more historical academic point of view uh like many Muslims, you know, I was raised with uh you know, probably the the more sort

of common somewhat mythical notions of religion and faith and things like that. So, I was always curious to sort of see well, what's what's the story behind the story. Uh so, from from high school, I would be picking up you know, buying academic published books on the history of Islamic political thought and theology and things like this um metaphysics, mysticism and I would just read these things for fun.

And like a good uh South Asian boy at that time uh I went into accounting and finance. So, I'm actually a uh CPA uh by training. At least that was my first education. Um but I I always kept up this this reading interest. So, you could say I was like this sort of self-read amateur um you know, reader of uh academic Islamic studies.

Uh but I I fell so much in love with the subject uh and these sort of ideas that I was learning about that I made the decision about 12, 13 years ago to leave my financial career and uh go do a master's degree in Islamic studies, which I had I was dreaming of doing that and I finally just took the plunge and I left a well-paying job to do this.

And um I did that and I followed that up with the a PhD. Uh so, these this was all done at at Harvard. And 8 years, 9 years later um I have a PhD now. So, I finished at the end of last year and now I'm a assistant professor of religion. So, I basically I teach courses on religion, uh Islamic studies a little bit as well uh and interfaith Christian-Muslim interfaith studies uh at a uh college or liberal arts college in the US.

So, that's sort of like the quick story. Uh of course, there was a lot of work uh in between. Uh it's a big shift especially starting when you come from a math background like me, uh it's interesting to start learning classical Arabic and classical Persian. It's it's a different game uh in a sense. But yeah, that's that's my journey in a nutshell. Uh and and you shouldn't try it at home.

[laughter] You know, uh just just to double-check with some of our viewers that I I saw some comments about sound saying there's sound issues. I'm just doing a quick sound check. Uh guys, is the sound I did refresh the mic right now so when I saw that comment. So, let me just check the YouTube mi gente as well. You need to fix up the guest Mufti Saab.

You need to fix up your sound. I need to fix up my sound. [laughter] It's like fix yourself, god dammit. Mufti, what's wrong with you? That's the story of my life, people. It's the story of my life. Uh is it is there all right now? I've refreshed it. Uh what's going on? Mi gente, let's see. Mufti Saab is saying uh I'm incorrect. Okay, thanks.

Uh guys, chill chill chill now. Chill chill chill. Shanti shanti. Right. So, those of you that are familiar with this whole discussion of the nature of the Quran. Uh it's caused quite a bit of confusion amongst a lot of people. What is the essence um and is it something that is in my definition of it is something static?

Is it dynamic? Is there um you know, what are these ahruf? What is the where has is there confusion and when has that confusion arisen? We've had quite a few different perspectives. We've had Dr. Shehzad on the show with his uh perspective. I've given my aspect. Now, Professor, you've uh this has been an area um of expertise for you.

I mean, it's something the nature of the Quran. And you have a particular theory on this, don't you? So, do share that with us. Oh, yeah. I'd be happy to. So, um my So, just for everyone knows, my thesis, my dissertation uh which it was supposed to be available publicly but I don't know what happened to it. Harvard maybe forgot to put it online.

But my my thesis is a study of different Muslim theories of what the Quran is and how the Quran was revealed from God to the world over a 500-year period. So, from the time of Prophet Muhammad as far as we can estimate what what people thought at that time uh all the way to about 1200.

So, that's what I've studied um and I haven't just studied it in according to one tradition but I've studied this according to multiple uh Sunni and Shi'i uh genres and traditions. So, what I've noticed is contrary to what we are told in textbooks. So, you know, a typical textbook on on intro to Islam and and many academics to this day uh repeat almost like a mantra that for all Muslims of all times and all places, the Quran is the direct word of Allah, the word of God

in the form of a book. This is what we often hear. Uh sometimes they use this expression according to Islam, the Quran is the word of God made into a book. And this has just become the popular narrative for many for many people um non-Muslim and Muslim on sort of what the Muslim what the Muslim view of the Quran is.

And there's two claims being made in that narrative. Like the first claim is that the words of the Quran in Arabic are literally and directly the words of God. That's one claim. And the second claim in this narrative is that the Quran, the form that the word of God has is essentially that of a physical book, a a something written.

And um this narrative I found during my study is simply not true. Uh it's not true historically. So, the earliest versions of Muslim leaders and scholars what part specifically are you saying you found not to be true? So, when I say they're not true, I don't mean they're not true in a in a in a theological sense. That's up to each person whether they think it's not not true.

I find that it's not true in a universal sense from a historical perspective in that it is not the case that Muslims all thought about the Quran this way at one point in time. And it's not the case that all Muslims have thought about the Quran this way since the very beginning. And and And what is just to narrow that for people who don't What is the thing that you're saying they didn't think of it like? Just to be very precise.

So, so if I were to summarize it, what I looked at in my work, again, this is over five centuries and I can't I I'm not going to say I read every Muslim text written in in those centuries about the issue, but I like any scholar, I looked at a sample of texts and authors from different uh traditions or what you could call truth projects. So, what I found is that if you focus on a particular genre of Muslim writing or thinking, um it may have a whole a very different idea of what the Quran is and how it is revealed from another genre.

And and to summarize very quickly, um in one perspective, we could call the Quranic perspective. In other words, if we try to read the Quran uh more or less literally on its own terms without using Hadith or Tafsir, so we just focus on the Quran and we try to understand the meaning of the Quran's claims about itself, as it would have been understood in the 7th century, which of course we're estimating, but we make an attempt.

What we will find is that there's a distinct Quranic view of what revelation is, Mhm. where the Quran and we can go into the details, but I'll just summarize it. In my estimation, the Quran presents itself not as a book, not as a closed physical composite document, but as a historical series of oral revelations.

Okay. the the term Quran here applies not to simply like the collection, but each instance of revelation that was delivered at a particular time. Each instance is Quran in that sense. And that these individual or you could say these serial Qurans, these recitations, they claim to be the manifestation of a transcendent or heavenly divine writing.

You know short. That's the Quranic idea of revelation, what I believe it to be. Do you I mean, how much of a distinction do you see between the oral Quran and the written Quran? I mean, to many people who are listening, they will think, "Sure, the Quran was revealed verbally, like as in the prophet spoke it." Um what difference does it make if it's written down on a book?

Like I mean, how how does the how is there a phenomenological or an ontological uh difference? So, the first difference is a phenomenological difference, which means there's a difference in how the Quran behaves as a oral piecemeal revelation and as it behaves as a book that's been put together and that people are now reading. Big difference.

Um one big difference is when we can tell from the Quran itself, even though it's in book form, you can almost deconstruct and work backwards to find out what it would have been like in the oral form. So, the first difference is the oral revelatory Quran, that is during the 20 years of the Prophet Muhammad's mission, uh it doesn't behave like a book.

In other words, what's happening is that the prophet is reciting oral Quranic guidance suited to the time and situation that he finds himself in and that the community is in. And it it what would take what tends to happen is that the delivery of these recitations is quite ad hoc. And we know this because often the Quran is commenting or answering questions or answering objections that are put against the prophet in real time.

So, the Quran is offering what you would call real-time guidance, real-time commentary, real-time apologetics right in the very moment. And then what we find is that when the ground situation changes, a new set of recitations come often with guidance that is very different from the prior guidance. You know, so so the Quran itself is an evolving phenomenon as it's being revealed.

Uh and it doesn't have this sort of fixity in terms of what's been commanded at one time versus another time. But now think about this. This was This happened over 20 years, right? And it happened in particular situations. So, different Qurans address different situations at that time. If you then recorded all of this, wrote it down in many separate materials, and then 20 years after the fact, you put the written material together, but you jumble it up a little bit, and you don't know the ground situation, this thing you've created, this um this

text you've created is a new phenomenon. Because when I pick up the Mushaf, as they call it, I don't have the same experience of the Quran when I'm encountering the Mushaf than I would have had had I been encountering the Quran live. The best analogy in my view to talk about this is that the oral the oral revelatory Quran is sort of like the experience of driving in your car with Google Maps guiding you.

Mhm. And you know, Google Maps reroutes you, it like changes if there's a traffic jam. It's like totally updated guidance and it just continuous. Whereas um if I if I didn't have Google Maps and I didn't have my data plan, I would have to print out like a map from on my printer. And and this printed map is static and it doesn't evolve. And every time I drive, I might be in the wrong direction and I have to keep interpreting my fixed map You're You're kind of saying it's almost like a 2D to 3D kind of uh a difference that you that while the Quran the revelatory process

is taking place, those who are uh in that atmosphere where wahy or revelation is being received, to them it's a three-dimensional experience, a phenomenon. To us, it's something that's being told that oh well, this was said. Is this Are we along the same kind of Is this what we Is this what's being said? What you're saying? Yeah, I think I think more or less. I think 3D to 2D is a good It's a good analogy.

Basically, there's a downsizing that happens cuz you're losing the context, but you're also losing the charisma of the original moment. Now, I would admit that the way the Quran is used ritually among Muslim communities, notice how it's recited in prayer. It's not read in prayer, for example. I think that is somewhat reliving the the original revelation partially, but that seems to be an attempt to sort of experience it as it happened.

But generally speaking, the Mushaf, the written form of the Quran, we have to see it as a secondary product. It's not the original revelatory product. It's a change. It's been It's been changed, not necessarily in content, but it's been altered in its form to constitute a a new a a novel a novel occurrence. And and that's just something we have to you see, it would be just just to to grasp this from the viewers or from people's perspective, anything beyond its lifetime, so beyond

the prophet's lifetime, the Quran could only be just told anyway. It couldn't be kind of lived beyond the prophet's lifetime. So, is this not an inevitable and for the for the most part an utter inevitability? It It could be. I mean, it really depends. I don't I personally don't think the compilation of the Quran and the different surahs and verses into a single Mushaf where everything is more or less scrambled to some degree.

I don't think that was that had to happen. I think it's a purely contingent historical moment that led to that. I mean, the fact that like let's say the phenomenological experience. Like we are here now and something happens and a verse is revealed and the prophet he teaches, he says, "Look, you know, ya ayyuhannas, oh people, do do this, do this." That could only happen during the prophet's lifetime. I mean, once the prophet isn't there, there isn't going to be any more wahy.

And so, that phenomenological experience, if it was so core, I mean, I'm not saying it it unquestionably is of paramount importance. But what I'm trying to say is if that was at the forefront of what the Quran is meant to be, then it only had a very short time span because it couldn't because that could only be when the prophet was there.

It I you know, it's a very good question. It's a very good question. Now, the answer to that question really depends on one's persuasion because one may argue that for a certain for certain Shiite Muslims, the phenomenon of Revelation did not come to an end. In the sense that some portion of the divine inspiration that manifested as the Quran, some portion of that some mode of that continues through the Shiite Imamate.

I would also argue that for many Sufis, some portion of divine inspiration continues through the Sufi Aulia, the friends of God. I mean, it's no coincidence that Jalaluddin Rumi himself in the in his writings, Masnavi and others, has has talked about different kinds of Wahi that even there's a subsidiary form of Wahi that the saints get.

I think it was Jami who refers to the Masnavi itself as the Quran in Persian and he refers to the Masnavi as like Rumi's Kitab, although he says Rumi's not a prophet. So, I think depending on which Islamic tradition one is part of, an argument could be made that some kind of charismatic revelatory process has continued. I would even argue academically speaking that to some at some level what we see in Fiqh, when the jurist is trying to come to a hit upon a legal ruling, to

the extent that the jurist reaches the correct ruling, what has happened in some way is that some something in the mind of God, a Hukum in the mind of God has become unveiled to the Faqih when he reaches the correct legal opinion. So, in that sense, I'm not saying it's charismatic, but there seems to be some sort of that sense I I I would personally agree as well and I would say that the Quran is it's part of its dynamic nature that it will always continue to mean maybe different things to different people over time.

Now, people may take certain inspirations from certain verses which people before them maybe didn't see that verse for that particular inspiration. I think that for that angle, I think for the most part most Muslims would be, you know, very comfortable with. This this oral tradition of the Quran, how is that different how is that different from the actual scripture?

And just before we get into that, are you differentiating between Kitab? Because Allah says and on many occasions it's mentioned to Alkitab. What what are your thoughts on Alkitab? It's a very good question. In my view, the meaning of Kitab, the consistent sort of overarching meaning of the term Kitab throughout the Quran is not really book, but divine writing or divine prescription.

That's, you know, and that includes so like any type of writing by God, whether it's the record of God's knowledge, right? Or God commanding laws and decrees, all of that comes under Kitab. I do personally, I think that's a very good translation by the way. I do like that whether I personally see the distinction that you're seeing or not with the oral or the written revelation, but I definitely agree that Kitab in the Quran cannot mean book because the Quran was not a book as it was being revealed.

And as Allah says in the Quran about that or that you have this has been prescribed for you to fast. It has been prescribed for you to and also [clears throat] a very interesting verse that speaking about prior scriptures that Allah says that we sent down that you make it into paper.

Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And and and that was that was criticized, right? The the the Jews I think some Jewish scribes in the Quran are criticized for putting the Kitab that was sent down onto parchments. They're criticized for doing that. Similarly, when the Meccans, I think this is in Sura 6, when the Meccans demand a Kitab on on paper, the Quran rejects that demand.

It says, "No, this is simply not going to happen. You wouldn't have believed in it anyway." So, whatever the Quran is or was during the revelatory moment, it was not a written Kitab, right? A physical Kitab. The other thing is that the way the Quran uses the word Kitab when it comes to Revelation is quite interesting because in some cases, yes, the Quran itself is called a Kitab in Arabic.

So, I agree, but there's many cases where the term It is a Kitab we sent down as an example. Right. Right. But often it's compared to the Torah for example and it says like this this is a Kitab in Arabic referring to the Quran. But there are many cases there many verses often occurring at the beginning of of middle Meccan Suras where the the Quran refers to the Kitab like Alkitab Al-Mubin for example or just Alkitab as something distinct from Quran and Arabian.

In fact, we find formulations where it clearly says this is like in the Sura Yusuf for example, also in Sura 43 you have this where it is said it is saying that there is something called Alkitab Al-Mubin and God has sent down Alkitab Al-Mubin as in the form of an Arabic Quran in in the indefinite an an Arabic Quran.

And there are other instances where we learn this this phrase or this term Alkitab Al-Mubin or or without the definite articles, many other verses tell us that God's ultimate record book, right? The Kitab that contains all of God's knowledge, that is named Kitab Mubin several times in the Quran.

So, there seems to be a distinction between the Kitab Mubin which seems to contain God's knowledge of everything and then the form in which it was revealed which is an Arabic recitation. So, there's an ontological distinction and what I find what easily happens is that Muslims of later periods conflated these very very quickly and you see it all over the Tafsir tradition.

Because you see the I mean, on this point we do find the early reasonably early as in I'm not saying in the companions, but in the generations after this discussion emerging that is the Quran the Quran in Arabic that Quran in Arabic and that we revealed it Quran in Arabic in the kind of indefinite sense.

Now, is this manifestation a mirror image or is it identical to the actual Quran or is it a worldly manifestation of God's communication? This debate begins quite early in Islam and and this is the problem they're tackling, isn't it?

Yeah, so you'll find that the whole the these issues are framed differently depending on which tradition you consult. What happened in the uh Tafsir tradition which seems to reflect some early process where after the Mushaf was compiled the term Kitab Allah Kitab Allah became associated with the Mushaf.

It seems that at some early point the Mushaf was being treated as a symbol of Kitab Allah, but not identical to it, but as a symbol. Almost as if the presence of Kitab Allah was invoked by the Mushaf. Interesting that even the famous the Hadith in Bukhari where the prophet is in his final moments and they're disputing and he says, you know, like bring me a something to write on.

And Omar's response is that the book of Allah that the book of Allah is sufficient for us, but there was no book at that stage. Correct. Correct. So, so we have to ask sort of firstly like where does this Hadith date to, right? Is it is it historical or does it date to, you know, a first century or something? That's one question.

Now, whether regardless of how you answer that question, I can tell you that the term Kitab Allah in the Quran itself is never equated with the Quran. It's always used in this more generic sense of God's decree, God's prescription. So, for example, we we read in the Quran that, you know, there are 12 months, you know, according to the Kitab Allah or blood relations are are closer to to I forgot the phrasing like but blood relations are closer in the Kitab Allah.

We read the Kitab Allah is associated like with one God created the heavens and the earth. Also um be with the in the judgment of God? Yes, in the judgment of God is also again the decree of God, the judgment of God. But my point is that in the Quran itself the concept the term Kitab Allah has a much wider connotation than the Quran and Arabian, right? They're they're not simply identical.

Now whether the Hadith dates to Omar himself or later the Hadith is I mean I hesitate to say but there's an innovative interpretation going on in that Hadith. The claim that the Quran the Arabic recitations constitute the Kitab Allah exclusively that in my eyes is a it is an interpretation it is not a given because according to the Quran itself whatever the prophet taught the community verbally I mean apart from what he recited but what the prophet

actually taught that is also Kitab. Like that is also called Kitab. There's several verses where it says about the messenger he's been sent to teach them Kitab Allah will Hikmah, right? You've you've seen those? Right? So teaching the Kitab in other words reciting the Quran or reciting the ayat. Right. So that's distinct.

So so teaching the Kitab by the prophet is distinct from the prophet reciting the ayat of God. So it seems to me that that the term Kitab even in the Quran it embraces more than the the recitations. Anything that the prophet would have taught as divine guidance merits the the name and the function of Kitab. But then to later after the prophet is dead to now say okay only the Quran only the Mushaf is Kitab Allah that is downsizing the very notion of Kitab.

Not to mention the distinction ontologically in the Quran between the transcendent Kitab Mubeen and the earthly Arabic Quran. That distinction is important. What happens in the Tafsir tradition is the transcendent Kitab Allah is almost anthropomorphized into a material text where the Arabic Quran is already written there in Arabic.

That's what you find in the Tafsir tradition. So the Mufassirun believe that the whole Quran the same content that we have it today right in Arabic Surahs verses the Mufassirun the exegesis they believe that that exists [snorts] in the heavenly book in Arabic in already in Arabic. Mahfuz the kind of the Imam Mubeen or Kitab Mubeen that is with Allah.

Right. So so that ontological difference is gone because all they've what they've done is they've projected the earthly Mushaf into heaven and it now revelation is simply a matter of transporting this text down. Are you saying the downsizing is a qualitative downsizing as well? Definitely is is that's what we're It is it is in the way that the way that they think about the the guarded tablet or the heavenly Kitab Mubeen they've downsized the concept because again in my reading and I could be wrong I mean this is an academic debate that one can have but in my reading which I think has

support the Quranic heavenly Kitab Mubeen is not simply a bunch of master transcripts. Right? It's it's something far beyond that it's equated with with the very ilm of God himself. So it seems like it's we're talking about something transcendent and and it's the the the revelatory process makes that partially manifest in a form in which in this case it's the Arabic Quran.

Presumably it could have very early scholars like people like Abu Bakr al-Baqillani and other people stating that the Quran and Arabi Quran and Arabi and that we have the Arabic Quran is a Hikaya or Ibara it is a kind of it is an expression of the meaning the the kind of revelatory meaning which is with God.

That it's not Yes. actually it's not that God because God Arabic is a language which is finite so God is not captured within the finite God is infinite so they were drawing this distinction when they was this this was the crux of the problem. Yeah so so you've you've mentioned Baqillani and and that that takes us to a different tradition where the whole issue was framed differently.

So in the Tafsir tradition imagine how they're engaging the Quran they're they're dealing with the Quran as a physical book the Mufassirun. Like the way they do exegesis they start from the beginning they go all the way to the end. So they're they're dealing with the Mushaf in one way or another. But in the Kalam tradition which is often called the theological tradition they were speculating about the Quran as an oral phenomenon.

And therefore while the Quran itself may talk about a transcendent Kitab for various reasons these Mutakallimun the theologians they talk about a transcendent Kalam Allah. It's the same idea though right? It the idea is that there is a transcendent reality that is in God or with God or associated with God an attribute of God.

This transcendent reality is beyond Arabic so they call it the Kalam Allah and at least in the Ash'ari tradition and the Maturidi tradition the Kalam Allah is not in Arabic it it's not sound letters. Yeah they distinguish between the and this is for the most part for our viewers this is mainly the predominantly the Sunni tradition.

They distinguish between Kalam Nafsi which they say is Allah's kind of meaning what he's revelation at its core if you like some kind of almost like a frequency they don't use that word but like that and you've got Kalam on Lafzi which is the the human expression of the Quran.

And that's almost where that frequency is being picked up. I mean I know Farabi obviously speaks more much more about this kind of like frequency but it is a very similar analogy with the rest of the Sunnis they don't use this kind of wording but it's a similar kind of thing. Yeah so what you have in in the Sunni Kalam tradition at least in the the Ash'ari and and Maturidi schools is this notion that God has an eternal unchanging attribute called Kalam Kalam Allah and that attribute contains content so it

contains command prohibition and information. And as an aside if you think about what the Fiqh project is all about the Fiqh project is really trying to access some of that knowledge you know through through deductive practices. But anyway that's what the Kalam Allah contains however that knowledge that content had to become accessible to humans right to human hearers.

So through the revelatory process and and most Ash'aris will either say you know through some process God had to create sounds and letters to represent or to express the Kalam Allah. So in the case of Islam God created the sounds and letters that make up the Quran. He either created it in Gabriel or maybe he created it in the heavenly tablet there's disagreement over how it was done.

But some say some say within the prophet himself. Like so the prophet is is kind of seeing these words appear to him and he's expressing them and yeah. Yeah it could be created I mean it could be created any level we don't speculate but the point is that that the prophet in the Ash'ari and the Maturidi view the prophet did not experience the Kalam Allah in its pure form in at least when it comes to revelation the Quranic revelation he experienced it through the recitation the Qira'a.

And that that refers to the sounds and letters in Arabic. It's it used to be called Rasm then it was called Hikayat then it was called Ibarat then it was called Qira'a and then also it's been called Dalala. So there's so much the Ash'aris kept changing terms but the basic idea is that for Ash'aris and Maturidis very clear the Arabic Quran the verses the the Surahs the sounds and letters that is not eternal that is created.

So nobody should come and say to a traditional Sunni of these schools oh you believe God speaks Arabic because that is not what Ash'ari and Maturidi Sunnis believe at least they're not supposed to believe. But I would ask you this why is it so widespread today? this is the fascinating point because you know when when I read Ash'ari books or sometimes the discussion of Ash'aira the Sunnis mainstream Sunnis on this very point so you could see commentaries like I know we discussed previously Bajuri's commentary on Jawharat al-Tawhid and where he's mentioning that look what is

revelation that it could be something being created in the mind of Gabriel or in the mind of the prophet or but then he gives different opinions but then he will say and other scholars before him will say that oh by the way don't discuss this in front of the alarm. How that up they would say this is well I you call they say don't say and in that little the three say constant unless you're just teaching it specifically.

I feel this played a huge role in the public ending up believing something totally different and their own scholars believe something different. [laughter] I don't know if you feel this. So that this this distinction between the elite and the common people is so pervasive across almost every Muslim discipline.

So the Hadith you know the Hadith folk said the same thing. They would make the same distinction where the elite and then there are the common people. Everybody did this and what tends tends at least from the 11th century you not feel it's partially done as a I mean there's the elitism angle but I feel this is partially done because of an infantilization of the common people saying that they they just won't get it.

You know like don't tell them they're too thick. Like there's a I feel that is the elitism but but this is not a Sorry I thought when you said elitism you're right. I thought you meant it about it is a classism but I I thought you meant just about being a class like a kind of an aristocracy. Okay yes of course Or it's an intellectual elitism but again it's not it's not unique to the the theologians like everybody the master of every discipline thought he was the elite and everyone outside the discipline is not the elite.

So they all did this but what seems to have happened is again in the pre-modern context in the 11th century there reports that that most of the masses believed in the Quran and the Kalam Allah in the way the the Hanbalis do. For example like those are the reports we get. So so the Hanbali position like which is a simplification but the the Hanbali position the simplified version the popular version of it is that Allah speaks eternal Arabic you know so so the very Quran in Arabic the sounds and letters are eternal.

So that's the popular position. And the the popular [clears throat] position in the actual texts some of them went to the extent to say even the Mus'haf like they would say it's all uncreated and you're thinking Yeah. Well sorry what are you saying? That that I mean for people that's the even saying the actual printed book isn't made and you're thinking well of course it's made it was [laughter] [gasps] I I think that the the the the most precise formula I've seen was like it is uncreated everywhere.

So when it's written it's uncreated. I don't know if they would say the paper is but but it leads to the same problem I mean you're right they wouldn't say the paper but they would say the even the Quran there in the Mus'haf yeah exactly. Wherever the Quran is it's uncreated. The the thing with that is that So what I found helpful and I I do this in my thesis is that when you're sorting out all these claims because you know the Ash'aris would still say that the Kalam Allah is heard written and memorized and then they would add but it does not indwell in the

paper it does not indwell in the heart and you know it does not indwell in the mouth. So they're trying to have it both ways is and what's happening here is that in reality the the Maturidis and the Ash'aris they're making what I would call a ontological difference between the Kalam Allah and the Arabic Quran. They're making an ontological difference.

But they they are saying that in some mysterious way the Kalam Allah is present present but not incarnate through the Arabic So the Arabic Quran has this mysterious power or function that it can put a person in touch with the Kalam Allah. It's almost the Arabic Quran becomes for Ash'aris and Maturidis like an access point almost like a tunnel that leads you to experience the Kalam Allah.

That's what they would say. But ontologically they're distinct whereas the Hanbalis would say a more sort of sophisticated Hanbali would say well we never said that you know what Allah spoke has order or any material quality. We never said that. That's what they'll say. Abu Ya'la will say this right? He'll be like no it doesn't resemble human speech and he'll give the example he'll say well when Allah spoke the Quran or when he speaks the Quran it doesn't have any sequence.

The Hanbalis will say this. So they'll they'll start with the idea that Allah directly spoke the Quran but then they'll add all these negations. Well it has no sequence there was no organ you know there's no like sound particles or whatever But I mean the Hanabila the Hanbalis who are the modern day Salafis the the kind of inherent ironic problem you find with them is they point one is do not do Kalam.

Then the which means do not have any it's wrong to ask any discussion on theology or to ask any detailed questions on theology and point two is then they try to still answer some of the questions. So it's it's it's like a contradiction because they're trying to keep as removed from theology as possible while still being as involved in theology as possible.

Yeah. I mean that's my experience of them. No it's true and I think what you end up with over history is you have different groups of Hanbalis with their own approaches. So there is a more Kalamish Hanbalism and then there is an anti-Kalam Hanbalism and there's different species of them and and then we could say it's probably true for for many groups but but the overall issue that that is plaguing everybody including the the current controversy is this.

What is the relationship between God's actual speech and the Arabic Quran? And then what is the nature of the Arabic Quran? It is is the revelatory form oral or is the revelatory form written? Those are those are your questions. Because the whole question is it preserved? Like to say oh is the Quran preserved? Well well what do we mean by the Quran? And then what utility does preservation have because if whatever the Quran is if it's only if it's main job if the main function is to put a person in touch with the Kalam Allah then frankly a little alteration

here or there may not even affect it may not affect that at all. And if Because I felt that in the traditional I mean in the traditional narrative politics and not just by politics sectarian politics has played a huge role in ending up sometimes with just ambiguous kind of teachings and you know kind of creeds in the sense that like if we take this issue the Ash'aira who represent the dominant Sunni kind of strand of Muslims

they seem to be saying one thing in a book in their books but then they also will say things like you know like like you're saying oh no but this is and yes we are it's like they want to draw in essence it's like one Sunni Ash'ari scholar said to me in essence it's just what the Mu'tazila said but it's just rebranded and they don't want to kind of get attached with that name. So they want to make sure they've kind of rebranded it differently but it's not in essence saying anything different.

I mean I don't know what your thoughts on that are. I think it's certainly true that the Ash'aris and the Maturidis have have borrowed a lot of Mu'tazili thinking. I I don't think anybody can deny that. They've borrowed the methodology they've borrowed a whole bunch of concepts from the Mu'tazili. So You know you say borrow but could it not be that they are simultaneously kind of coming up with similar because similar eras similar kind of ideas like people have similar ideas in in the same era.

It's true you're right on that sense but it is also true that historically speaking the Mu'tazili as a more sort of scholastic group precede the Ash'aris by at least a century or century and a half. Right? And we do know whether the myth is true or not but like Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari himself was trained in in Mu'tazili theology.

I mean he was he was the nephew of Jubba'i isn't it? Abu Ali al-Jubba'i I believe I believe so but I'm not I don't know the family relation per se but he was trained by by them. And so that never that didn't really leave us thinking. As to the the question of is the Ash'ari view the same as the Mu'tazili view? Now the Hanbalis the Hanbalis would say that it is.

The Hanbalis would polemicize against that. But, I think one key difference is this. For the Mu'tazilites, God's speech is sounds and letters. That's what Kalam Allah is for Mu'tazilites. The Kalam is sounds and letters. For Ash'aris, Kalam, whether human or divine, is not sounds and letters. It's the meaning being expressed through sounds and letters.

Yeah. Now, that is an important integral difference there. It is cuz that sort of change that set that frames the whole debate. Uh it's not that Mu'tazilites say the Kalam Allah is created and the Ash'aris say it's uncreated. That's That's the secondary debate. The primary debate is what's the nature of Kalam? What's the nature of speech? And on this, even grammarians would have a different answer. Because what's funny is you get some grammarians.

I I think Ibn al-Qinnish from amongst them or Abu Ali al-Farsi. And they've gone to the extent say, "Well, because the Quran is divine, therefore Arabic is eternal and has always been a divine and it was the language which God always spoke with the angels." Because they've they've kind of worked backwards in because they've began with a concept of saying, "Well, the Quran is divine. The Quran's always being, you know, the you know, the speech of God." So, therefore, uh it's in Arabic.

So, Arabic must have equally existed. So, yeah. I mean, they've gone to that extreme even though we know, well, Arabic what probably at most two, you know, even if you stretch it three, but two and a half centuries before the prophet it really develops the Arabic language. Mhm. There's even uh reports for I mean, I don't think they go back to Ibn Abbas, but Ibn Abbas allegedly said that every that Angel Gabriel uh uh was given the message of every prophet in Arabic and then Gabriel translated it to the local language.

I mean, there's even reports like that. This is of course in in Suyuti's uh Itqan book and it's repeated. I think Zarkashi has it, too. So, there is this sort of And the interesting thing on that is Baqillani and the others, they say as that the revelation wahy is like a meaning I'm using the word frequency, but it's like a meaning if it was given to Musa, it ended up becoming Hebrew in the Quran.

If it was given to the prophet, it ended up becoming Arabic in the Quran. If it So, it's like the output source kind of determines the language. Yeah. Yes. The audience. Yeah, so So, the the Ash'ari position and the Maturidis agree is that before or as it reaches Gabriel, it becomes it takes the form of a language depending on where Gabriel's going with it.

But, keeping in mind certain ahadith and Sunnah that the prophet is saying revelation comes to me like a ringing sound. And there is no mention of Jibril, you know, it's just direct like it comes to me and then I express it. I mean, I find myself in line with those people who who say that it is expressed to the prophet like he kind of sees it and expresses it. It's within him that it kind of as opposed to it's in the mind of Gabriel who Although they're all kind of views like the Right.

Well, in my estimation, again, this is from a scholarly perspective, so people can take it for what it is. But, in my view, the concept of wahy in the Quran uh is not that of a linguistic verbal communication. In my view, wahy, according to the Quran, including prophetic wahy, is a non-verbal divine inspiration.

That comes not things like this. Right. It's given to the bees. It's given to the heavens, for example. It's It's It's It's much more than I mean, it's simply not like somebody reciting Arabic or Hebrew to you. And That is amazing. That's a very I have to say a very amazing point actually to highlight that. I I mean, one one one could argue that like the the the cuz cuz you know, in according to the Quran, I mean, the Quran doesn't call it the It doesn't say laws of nature, but it says all these natural processes are are signs, are ayat.

Uh implying that like natural processes, the regularity of night and day and and all this stuff, that these are a form of revelation. And And the implication is that they happen because God is granting wahy, you know, to the whole natural world, so it behaves in this orderly way. The bee just being the cited example. So, in that sense, like wahy definitely for these non-human recipients, it's not verbal.

But, then there's a type of wahy that you hear associated with the prophets in the Quran. It says all the messengers were given wahy, but it has examples of Noah and Moses being given wahy. And the wahy they're given is not really presented as like a verbatim thing to recite. It's presented as inner guidance telling them sort of what to do in a particular situation. So, it's like to Noah, like, "Build the ark." Like, "We inspired Noah, you know, build the ark under our wahy." Yeah.

So, it's like wahy has this sense of being guided in the Quran even for the prophets. So, in my view then, the wahy that's given to Muhammad, according to the Quranic picture, was a non-verbal spiritual inspiration. And that's why the Quran associates this entity called the ruh, like Ruh al-Amin, with Muhammad and with the heart of Muhammad.

Like, it says the ruh Differentiating the the Ruh al-Amin from Jibril. Well, I think Jibril is the ruh? The kind of In In the Quranic view, the ruh is mostly called ruh and it's named Jibril one or two times. But, I I distinguish in the sense that in the post-Quranic period, Gabriel became interpreted by many as a material spatial creature who flies up and down between heaven and earth.

So, that idea of Gabriel is not the Quranic ruh. Is it more a kind of like a consciousness that you're entering? I think you could call it like a superconsciousness. I mean, in modern terms, I I would call it like a spiritual power, a spiritual intermediary. But, we read all over the Quran that God sends like it's in verse Surah 42 verse 51 and 52.

It's very clear there that God communicates to humans through wahy and that for Muhammad specifically, the wahy came in the form of ruh. That's what it says in in those two verses. And not only Muhammad, but there are verses that say God will send guidance or inspiration to any human being through the ruh. And the ruh is never called it it's never called an angel.

It's always mentioned as something separate from the angels. So, whatever it is, we're not dealing with a literal winged creature who's transmitting verbal messages. Rather, it looks to me that the Quranic wahy and the Quranic ruh is non-verbal inspiration. And in this view anyway, um the the prophet Muhammad was responsible for verbalizing or translating wahy into Arabic.

Yeah. Uh which of course is the consequence I have to say that does resonate cuz I've generally kind of translated ruh to mean consciousness. What's also interesting on that note is uh the description the Sunni description that is popular of when revelation began. And the prophet alayhi wasallam comes back and then he tells Khadijah and she takes him to her uncle uh who is this Christian uh it's assumed like a Christian learned scribe.

Like, he's somebody very intelligent like a scholar or or a wise person. But, when he when he hears the encounter, he says, "Oh, that sounds like the namus." He uses this word, this kind of entity, this kind of experiential thing that you've encountered which is what Moses encountered and these prophets before you. But, he doesn't use the word Jibril.

It's interesting. I'm just saying that that's an interesting kind of point. So, that's that's a very interesting point. But, like I wonder how how I I guess I haven't checked, but how namus became glossed as as Gabriel because it doesn't mean that. It means law. Right? It's this like older term uh for for like divinely revealed law or divine prescription in a sense.

So, so Yeah. Yeah. I mean, whatever about Yeah. I I saw it I mean, it was all that is how they translate it as well, but I saw it more as a kind of like about the experience. Like, this kind of this spiritual kind of awakening or this in that sense a a divinely prescribed So, making that connection with with law.

Yeah. I think I think it namus describes the content of what happened. It doesn't describe the entity that, you know, spoke to Muhammad allegedly. I mean, that whole story that whole story which I've pointed out elsewhere to to some of the people who follow me. That whole story of Muhammad in the cave and being not knowing what's going on and being shocked and I mean, that's that is from from Zuhri.

Right? This Umayyad era storyteller of sorts. And I don't know I wouldn't put as much I don't put a lot of historical stock into that account. I think it reflects a certain theology of the Quran. Even Ibn Ishaq's version which is similar. The Ibn Ishaq's version in that story, he has Gabriel bring the the verse written down on something and Muhammad actually reads it physically like it's a physical text that he reads whereas In some In some ways that would at least fit that story better.

Like in the you know, like because the normal interpretation with that story is everybody's kind of stuck because they're saying, "Well, the prophet's response is I'm not one that reads." Person seem to like if a person's saying read and I'm saying, "Well, I'm not one that reads." It doesn't seem to kind of correlate. So, there seems to be a bit of they have to struggle to explain what what that actually means.

So, not that I go with this understanding that it was written or so on. This I would take it with a pinch of salt as well this whole description. But, I'm just saying at least that story fits that story better of saying it was on like it was actually written down. You see, I see it maybe there's a variant version where where he says he doesn't say I'm not There's one where he says, "What do I recite?" Okay.

Instead. There's different textual versions of the same story. So, one says like I'm not a reader. I'm not a reciter. Another one says, "Recite." He's like, "Well, what do I recite?" Mhm. You know? So, so there's there's different versions and again like we can't date it whatever it is. We can't date it That one makes a lot more sense with the with the general understanding. What do I recite? Mhm. You know? There's a There's a reading of this by by Israeli scholar Yuval Rubin who notes that um there's an argument to be made that does not mean does not mean recite or read in the name of Allah.

It simply means recite the name of your Lord. That that the prophet is being ordered So, if you discount the Hadith for a second and the meaning of this would be the prophet is being told here just like in other Meccan surahs, recite the name of your Lord. And that that the prophet is engaged in this what you could say by today's standards a very Sufi type of practice of of and and that this this whole surah at least that part of the surah is just reiterating a practice that the prophet Muhammad was was engaging in in the

cave. That he was doing this this spiritual meditation in the cave and then because the bar in here, it's been argued that it's it's what they call a either bar. So, like the bar is there you you you vocalize the the bar, but in meaning it doesn't take any meaning. It's silent in the But, even if it even if it did take meaning with that, it would still fit in the sense that you know, this how you're trying to connect do it with or in the name of God.

That's an interesting I've well, I've never really thought of it like that, but that's a very fascinating kind of take. I feel that this whole thing of seeing the Quran with this kind of dynamism like let's say it is a a meaning it is and Allah is the say it is it is not a kind of Arabic This then gives much more kind of it really fleshes out the argument that the Quran when it does manifest can have a dynamic nature to it.

Like let's say when people did synonymize certain words, they substituted certain words that were very similar, but this wasn't really something it was not I mean it it isn't then all of a sudden such a difficult thing to comprehend. Do you feel this or Well, yeah, I think what has happened and I don't know whether it's just a modern phenomenon or whether there's classical roots for this, but like many many views about the Quran and this is not just Muslims, but like academics as well.

People take a very fixed and rigid view of what the Quran is and the whole dynamism is lost. Right? So, it I don't see anything inconsistent with the idea that the recitation cuz remember the recitation the Quran as recitation is the revelatory product. It's just like the end of the whole process.

The recitation according to again most theological schools, it's not identical with the the divine speech or the transcendent kitab. It's just a gateway to it. So, theologically speaking there's no problem with seven roof. There's no problem with the idea that the prophet Muhammad allowed variable or what they call multi-form recitations of the same surah.

There's no problem if the prophet said, "Okay, you can substitute certain divine names for other divine names and it's still Quran." I think it's quite likely that that this did happen. The roof Hadith is quite early and I have a hard like I don't know for what purpose in the time of Malik ibn Anas they would just forge a Hadith that undermines the fixed view of the Quran.

To me it doesn't make sense. So, I think there's some historical truth behind that roof tradition and it points to the fact that the prophet probably did allow this oral variability. And I would I agree with with Yaseen Dutton's argument that there's no actual original Quran. Okay. people are looking for the Well, there's no original Quran in the sense that there's no original text cuz the prophet didn't write it down.

And there's not even a single original recitational form. Rather, the prophet seems to have authorized a multiplicity of oral recitational formats for even the same surah and I don't even think it's a dialect issue cuz if the seven if you look at the seven Hadith if they're both like Qurayshi people who are reciting differently, it's not like someone came from another region in Arabia and had a different recitation.

So, I think it's quite likely that at the very early period the prophet either he recited it in slightly different ways. He substituted some words for others in the same surah and then people heard this. So, now you have variability or the prophet recited it in one way and then when people were reciting it differently, he authorized it and said, "Yeah, that's fine." Either way, what you're dealing with is you have multiple oral Yeah, because I would feel that the You see, so this view what Yaseen Dutton and I'm trying to arrange to kind of connect with him and I'd love to get

him on as well. But, what he I I feel I believe he calls it the multi-form. It's what I call the the dynamism or the dynamic nature of the Quran. You see, many traditional scholars like Ibn Abd al-Barr and these people discuss in Hadith and in other books that look the view of people like Imam Malik and Imam Shafi'i and they say others as well was that the Sahaba the companions were synonymizing words in the Quran.

They were kind of substituting. They don't use the word synonym. They say substituting them with other words. And maybe sometimes with certain like so they may have missed out a or replaced the wow with a fa or things like this. Now, the question here the debate the crux of the debate here is this substitution this dynamism was this a rukhsa?

Was this something or was it the azima? Was this something which they were allowed to do as a dispensation to make life easy for them? As many of the scholars did say so many I think Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi and others Ibn Abd al-Barr I feel they said that look, this was a kind of rukhsa for them. So, they were allowed to do it. Once they died out the rukhsa had gone.

I say that you see where I would and it's difficult to ascertain what which view Imam Malik how he felt with it because obviously you know, the the dialogue wasn't that you know, delineated then. I would say that this dynamism was inherent. It was the actual nature of the Quran. It wasn't a rukhsa. It wasn't azima. It was the default position. The only difference is the Quran as it I kind of described given an analogy just as an approximation of like kind of in chemical isotopes and said that when you get some that have certain you know, they've got more

kind of different kind of compound structure to them, some will inevitably always be more stable than others. And and usually one or two will predominate by one mean or another whether it's just easier or politics or whatever. But, as it does stabilize, that becomes the version. Um So, eventually it did become the qira'at al-amma, and it became generally Hafs and Asim.

So, that is the kind of stable version that has predominated. But, the Quran in and of itself had that agility, that dynamism to and it because it was more it was always a a reflection or a statement of a description of the divine meaning. But, yeah. I mean, this this has been um um my kind of uh way of looking at it.

You know, I'd like to ask you on this that this the Quran being the speech of God, Professor. This ties in There's an inherent There's like an a very core link here immediately with God, the speech of God linking to the essence of God. Um and then this became a huge debate in and of itself that well, you know, between the Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and uh the kind of Mu'tazila that what is the essence of God?

And you know, is the kalam with and later on the Ash'ari. And this has been a huge area of research and interest for you as well. Can you enlighten us uh a bit on this, the essence of God? Well, um what you have among different Muslim thinkers uh in the early period is Well, first, the Quran names God with all these names.

Right? Uh the knowing, the living, the powerful. Um it implies I mean, the Quran refers to this term kalam, right? Kalam Allah. Uh and more so kalimat Allah. So, there's speak God has speech, God has words. So, this of course people would ask, "Well, what's the nature of these divine names and acts?" Right?

[snorts] Like, how are they associated with God? Because on one hand uh the Quran is adamant that God is one, right? God is not just one entity, but he is ahad, like he's uniquely one. Yeah. So, now when you have multiple names and multiple acts, but one God, you have to sort of reconcile the unity and the multiplicity.

That's that's the theological problem. And And some would argue Some can argue that that this became seen as a theological problem because of early Muslim theological discussions with Christians, for example. Because Christians would justify the Trinity uh through the same sort of arguments, right? The Trinity is unity and three-ness together. So, you could have many responses to the question, "What is the nature of the the names of Allah, the names of God?" One response uh would be that um the names of God are simply verbal descriptions

of God himself. So, the Mu'tazili view would be that God is one essence, one self, and the different names that we give to God, the merciful, the compassionate, the wise, the knowing, these all describe the same one essence of God. That in a nutshell is the is the early Mu'tazili view. Now, they'll they'll change it a little bit, but but the gist of it is that for the Mu'tazilis, God is one singular thing.

Yeah. And there's no multiplicity associated with this singular monad, if you will. You know, this debate, right? You explain it to people today, they feel that look, to say God is ar-Rahman, God is ar-Rahim, God is al-Aziz, God is this. I mean, why is that so complicated to assume that a a signifier must have a multiplicity of signifies?

Like, why like to say God is al-Aziz, al-Qawi, al-Alim? I Nobody would really think that, you know, that that means there's 99 different people or different entities. So, what are what are these really intelligent people arguing about? Well, the the the the thing is that um it goes also goes to sort of like how truthful are the scriptural statements about God? Because if the Quran says God is uh Rahman and God is uh Alim, right?

So, he he's compassionate and he's knowing. Um if they refer to the same meaning, then something is not right here. That would be the argument. Because rahma in our understanding, ilm and rahma are not the same thing. Right? Ilm refers to knowledge. So, so at the human level, these attributes are not the same thing. These powers are not the same thing. So, the question is um do does the meaning at the human level, like that distinction, does that hold at the divine level?

Now, the Mu'tazilis would say no, but the Hanbalis would go the opposite end, and they would say absolutely it does. And the Hanbalis would say, I mean, according to the treatises attributed to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like God gets happy and God gets angry just like we do. Yeah. But, I feel all of the attributes are literalized in a sense for for the early debate, this part, I mean, before getting into the emotions of God, but this thing of God being all wise,

all knowledgeable, all knowing, all I mean, I know they are distinct from like, let's say, God being all knowing from God being all compassionate. Are two separate understandings. We get that. But, Right. But, why would why would that why would the person feel that that necessitates two separate beings?

No, no, they're not saying it necessitates two separate beings, right? That that's not the necessary interpretation. But, at the very least, these are two separate meanings. Like, the statement God is knowing has a different meaning than the statement uh God is compassionate. Yeah. So, one would inquire, "Well, okay, why like what do the So, you have two meanings now." In other words, it seems to be saying that there it may not be separate persons, but the there must be some sort of meaning multiplicity within God.

And And to some that was a problem. To some it was not a problem. So, the Ash'ari answer was that God's essence, God's that is one. And then attached to God's essence, alongside his essence, are multiple sifat, meaning which are we call attribute, but those are meanings. It's like these multiple, you know, meanings are attached to God's essence.

So, now you can The point is that the Ash'aris can say everything that they can affirm that all the Quranic statements about God's names are true without saying, "Well, God's God's rahma is the same as God's power." Cuz the Mu'tazilis would say that, right? They would say God's knowledge is the same [snorts] as God's whatever, wisdom. But, I thought they You see, it's not that So, if imagine we cleared the level the plane, all of them believed that, for example, God was merciful, God knew, generally speaking, that he knows, you know, he has knowledge, he has like, without

using these words, these understandings, they all had them. They It's not that some of them felt uh you know, God has no knowledge. But, at this I felt that part of this debate uh stems from the understanding that things like, if you say he There's certain things if you like like you used anger.

If you say God is somebody that gets angry, uh it's an emotion that kind of appears and then disappears. Uh so, it's a temperament. So, this is a problem. The other thing is if you're saying he's doing something like an action, like he is creating or he is providing, sustaining. Yeah. But, what about when there was no creation? How could have he been sustaining then?

Um so, it kind of led to the understanding that well, God seems to have adopted certain actions, if I can say actions. Like, he started doing these things once he created creation. So, this act could not have preceded creation. It couldn't have preceded when there was nothing because God couldn't have been kind of feeding when there was nobody to feed. Uh so, I I felt these kind of problems then led the Ash'aris to say, "Well, you know what?

We'll kind of make them an attache." [laughter] Kind of like, you know, la hiya huwa la ghayruhu. You know, it's not They're not him and not other than him. So, what you what you've stated that the objection you've stated, the idea that So, the Mu'tazilis, generally speaking, the Mu'tazilis would say that all of these divine names really describe God's acts. [snorts] Not his nature.

The Mu'tazilis at most would allow for God's um life, knowledge, and power to be his nature, but everything else they would say it's God's acts. And for Mu'tazilis, um God's acts are always temporal. They can't be eternal. That was their view. So, so what you state is a Mu'tazili problem, and the Hanbalis launched the polemic against them on this point. So, what the Ash'aris do and the Maturidis do this is they come in between.

Yeah. And they to really only say that really that cuz they too really in essence they just affirm seven points, isn't Seven, right? Seven points. Actually, yeah. Yeah, seven essential attributes. Essential attributes, but what they eternal. And they say that really it's just life and knowledge and and power and and and willing, sorry.

And then it's like they say these are rational. Like we can understand these. Yeah, they make sense. And even the rest like sight and and hearing, they themselves struggle to rationalize them because you could just say, well, you know, God doesn't need sight. He could be kind of seeing without sight. He doesn't need really um you know, he doesn't need this kind of like not this, but a a sight faculty, yeah.

Yes. Yeah, well, what I would ask is like if if knowledge is already part of your attributes. Exactly. Exactly. Sight and knowledge are just input input faculties for knowledge, so why do you it cuz even the Ash'aris themselves that they when they try to justify Kalam and they try to justify Sama and they try to justify Basar, they either just choose not to rationalize them or they end up doing a horrible job.

[laughter] I mean, another issue that's lying at the core of this is that uh if you take a Hanbali view and Ash'ari view, even a Maturidi view, what you end up with is a God who has parts to be God. And the problem with that issue, which which uh both um the philosophers, the Avicennan philosophers pointed this out and the Isma'ilis attacked them for this, is that if you have a God who has parts, then that then God is actually a created being.

Yeah. Because God is the product of parts and the coming together of those parts. So God just becomes an effect and the real cause is all is the parts themselves. So that issue was also there. How do you get away from the idea that God has parts? Cuz if you have separate attributes, just like distinct Sifat, you have essence plus attributes equals God. And and that that was an issue.

And uh I mean, I whether whether you say that parts necessitates being created, uh I mean, I mean, that's a discussion, but I would say definitely the fact that just stating God has like because the Hanabila and the modern day Salafis, although they don't use this word, but they clearly believe God had body parts.

Um they still today believe God has uh body parts like he has hands and he has eyes and he has uh you know, one leg and and these kind of things, but and they then they'll just put the caveat, but it's not like our leg, uh but it's not like our two right hands and it's not like our fingers. But this it is in essence a it is just a reflection of the human being projecting, you know, it's like we're just projecting man onto God.

And that too, I dare I say, you know, uh it is projecting a deformed human being onto God because if that being was human, we would mock it because we would like if you saw I don't mean we as a civilized society, but unfortunately, human beings would see that as a like if you saw a human if you saw a being with like obviously one leg and just two right hands on as opposed to one right and one left and just and each hand not having only like to having just two fingers, you would see that as like, what the hell is that?

Like, you know, you wouldn't be seen as something and but yet that's how they describe God in almost their Aqidah books. Uh the Obviously, they'll put the caveat, oh, but it's not like us humans. Uh but it's a bit late then because, you know, like in the psychological experiment that you can't say something and expect people not to visualize it. Like you can't say arm, uh there's an arm, guys, you know, there's a hand or there's a foot and then say don't picture a foot.

Obviously, that's how the mind uh operates. But yeah, so I I find uh the Hanbali almost a paradox within within Kalam, the whole and their description of God in this day and age, the 21st century, um I'm not surprised people don't struggle with it.

Yeah, I think I think it this idea of struggling with very human anthropomorphic ideas of God, I don't even think it's it's it's a exclusively Hanbali or Muslim problem. I think uh Christians all over especially in the West, um I I I recall some survey that was done among Americans asking people to describe God and and God turned out to be a a white person, you know.

Yeah. Uh so I think this this anthropo the the problem of I mean, I would actually feel that a huge part of the anthropomorphized textual uh face of of of this debate. I don't mean just the ideas, the human, but the textual side to it has perhaps been inherited from the Judeo-Christian side. Like, you know, the the famous uh Genesis verse that God created man in his own image.

This is then presented as a Hadith, even though Imam Malik rejected it, but people say in Allah, you know, khalaqa Adam ala suratihi or in al-Rahman khalaqa Adam ala suratihi. So Yeah. Mhm. No, it it's true and and that that that idea of created in the image of God, I mean, although the the exact formulation is is not there, um I think humans we we cannot help but like cast everything in our own image.

And I think this is where like the Sufi, the Avicennan, and the Isma'ili contributions to this issue of God are are quite noteworthy because these groups in their own way um totally avoided this problem. Right? Where you have like Islamic negative theology, which is very anti-anthropomorphic. Uh none of these groups um actually believe God has distinct attributes.

They also go beyond the Mu'tazilis. They'll say that actually, no, the divine names, they don't really describe God at all. They're best They're best analogical. Mhm. You know, they're analogical at best. Um At at at at worst, they even don't they don't describe God at all. They actually describe God's God's creation. Yeah. Um so for the Sufis approximation. Yeah. Yeah, cuz like what you you never have the Ash'aris say that God's names are analogical or metaphorical.

That's not there. But you do have Avicenna-type philosophers, Sufis, and Isma'ilis, they will say that the names are metaphorical or analogical. The the Sufis and the Isma'ilis would say, for example, that every divine name refers not to God's debate. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Well, I was just going to say that that the the Isma'ilis and the Sufis, they would say that um the given divine name like Rahman or Rahim or Alim, they don't refer to they don't actually describe God's essence.

At best, they describe a relationship between God and creatures. That that actually makes a huge amount of sense. Well, you have multiple relationships and none of this imposes multiplicity on God. God remains God, but creatures relate to God in different ways. So a certain creature seems to partake in certain attributes more than others. And whatever power is a creature has, ultimately those powers come from God.

So in God, there's no multiplicity. There's only this self-existent infinite necessary being, but in creatures, that one power of God, the one being of God in creatures, that manifests as multiple powers. Yeah. And this is really our journey up to God like intellectually. It's not God's journey down to us. So we are Yeah, I I just about the debate, I was going to say I think there was some debate, although I feel it may have been historically killed off.

Uh in the discussion where they say Hal asma Allah tawqifiyyah, are the names of God divine? Or can we just call him anything? So they have this debate where they say, can we say anything that's nice like God is goodness, for example? Can we say that? Uh because God hasn't called himself Khair al-Khair, for example. He's called himself Khair al-Raziqin and Khair al- this, but he hasn't just said.

Or can we just call God Jawad, for example, because the most generous, but Jawad isn't a name given in in the texts about Allah. So this debate, I feel kind of touched up on that um are the names inherently divine or are they just means? I was I was going to say, Professor, I'd like to quite a few people had put up some questions.

I'd like to take a few questions, just engage some of our uh our beloved viewers. Uh first of all, just a uh a PI a shout out, you're doing it with the super chats. I did see Abdullah Samir was on saying, "My two favorite Muslim scholars." [laughter] Much love. Much love, Abdullah Samir. Uh somebody had said, "Oh my God, Mufti, you've got uh ex-Muslims or you've got atheists uh supporting you with super chats." [laughter] That's the love, you see?

You see, you need to spread the message of love. It does not matter whether they believe or don't believe. The prophet was not just a paragon of mercy and compassion just to Muslims. It was the al-alameen for everybody. You know, you need to smile with a person who's Muslim or non-Muslim. You can't discriminate against people. So, right. Right. So, people, if you've got any questions, feel free to put them through.

I'll um I'll start reading them out. From what I've heard, animal Oh, right. That's to do with evolution. All right. We've had such a an awesome discussion on this. So, let's if there's if there's anything around this or something specific because we've got to wrap it up as well pretty soon. So, if there are Let me just read the Facebook as well.

When the Ash'aris view Kalam as you said it's part of the divine knowledge and a meaning not physical Kalam. I like Hanbalis view, hence they don't have God as being made of created attributes or composites. We're differentiating between a concept and possible logical correlations. I I don't I'm not sure where the question was. [laughter] There was a whole comment in that, but I don't know where the question was.

So, we totally that's absolutely agree with that. All right. Imam Qazi, you're doing it. You're doing it. Much love. Right. Let's see. There's a bit of a poor connection with professor as well. Um I take it he's Professor, have we lost you? [laughter] Professor seems to have frozen.

Professor. Right. So, I see professor is frozen. Shall we disconnect and call him again? We're calling professor again, people. We seem to have lost him. Well, well.

All right. Professor, you're back. Yeah, I heard you were I heard you're taking questions, so I ran away. [snorts and laughter] Right. So, right. Let me just No problem. Look at that. It just completely It's It's your It's all your knowledge, professor. You've completely Let me just bring this up here. You've You've kind of transported yourself right over all of the screen.

Let me There you go. That's much better and I'll fix it up. People, your comments professor is back. They were like, "Where's professor gone?" Somebody said you look like Ed Miliband. Somebody had mentioned you look like Ross from Friends. Yeah, I've got that. Have you heard that before, professor? [laughter] Right. So, people, any any interesting dis- Some argue our approach is liberal modern, but we simply point out that the Quran calls itself the Mizan and Furqan.

So, professor, if people are arguing this is just a modern way of looking things and people historically didn't really look at things like this. I mean, would you feel that's an accurate claim to make? I'm not clear what is being called liberal or modern. Like what we said about the Quran is being called liberal or modern or like the Because we're quoting in essence traditional people, are we not? We're not We're not saying, "Well, today we're saying this." We're saying that well, people have been saying this and that to, you know, for the most part Sunni scholars or or these scholars or Ash'aris and Um Right.

Here's another question from PI. Did love not being a fundamental Did love not being a fundamental attribute of God play a role in historical discussions between Islam and Christianity? That's an interesting question. Love isn't actually help, even though it's mentioned as an act Allah saying in Allah youhib, you know, he loves this youhibu shakireen, youhibul those people who are taqwa or do good, but it's not an attribute of God.

Uh Take it away, professor. What's going on here? I think it depends which which Muslim tradition truth tradition or truth discourse we're talking about. I would argue that in the Sufi tradition and the tradition of Ibn Arabi and Rumi and others, when they refer to God as Rahman, the meaning of Rahman is is love.

Loving compassion. I think there's a strong argument to be made because many of these Sufi mystics, they said God's very essence is Rahma. So, God's very substance is Rahma, which includes love. Rahma is not It doesn't just refer I mean, the translation compassion is good, but it's not very full. So, I think at least in some traditions, the esoteric mystical traditions, there certainly is an emphasis on God's love.

I would agree that in the Kalam tradition, you don't really hear about it. And that's why the Sufis criticize them with the Kalamun for being dry and sort of you know, lacking in emotion and lacking in devotion. Now, as for its role in Christian-Muslim relations, it's hard to really say. I haven't really researched that. I don't know. I know today it's a Christian polemical talking point that the God of Islam is not a loving God, but again, it depends which theological school you follow.

I don't I disagree with such sort of generalized statements about the God of so-and-so because there is more than one Islam. There are many Islams. And many people see it personally. Professor, why would you question Why would the Quran be on a tablet if it is if it wasn't originally a book or a text? So, so there's only With regard to the tablet, there's only one verse of the Quran that refers to a tablet.

Um And and and the whole thing states like it is a glorious Quran. Like it refers to Quran in the indefinite. It's not When it says When it says Quran is in a guarded tablet, it's not even referring to the Quran. It says it is a Quran, a recitation, uh you know, in in a protected tablet. And that's all it says.

It's kind of like It's kind of like information, sacred kind of information. Right. I I mean, if you look at every time the Quran talks about a heavenly archetype, you do not get the sense that this is written in an Arabic text. It's simply not there. The Arabization of the revelation, the Quran is very clear. This is the result of a process called tafsil.

From fasala. Fussilat ayatu as Allah says the Quran. Right. So, that happens for the audience. It doesn't happen in heaven. There's no Arabs in heaven. So, hence some of the narrations Hence some of the narrations says al-Quran was revealed najmatan wahida. It was one revelation. It was the kind of the the the It was spread out, distributed over the 22 years and occurred as a phenomenon.

Tying in question there, Abbas Aga asks, "What does professor say about if about the Quran having a beginning? Has it always existed?" Okay. So, for for the like one view on this is the Quran as Arabic, the Arabic text, according to the many mufassirun and some theologians, God created the Arabic Quran before the world, but he created it in the tablet.

According to So, in in either case, like the Arabic Quran in this view, it's preexistent, but it's still created the Arabic text. When people say the Kalam Allah, the speech of God is eternal, at least for Ash'aris and and Maturidis, the eternal speech of God is not the same thing as the Arabic Quran. The eternal speech of God has no language. It's pure meaning. That is eternal.

That's an eternal attribute of God. This These two claims, the preexistent Quran in the tablet, is not the same as the eternal speech of God. These are two completely different concepts. They do Sometimes they coexist and sometimes they don't coexist. So, Mu'tazilis believe that the Quran is was in a tablet. They believe that, but they believe that it's always been created.

Right. So, the Mu'tazilis, if you say it was in a tablet, they'll say, "Yeah, it's in a tablet." Totally. I mean, many Mu'tazilis believe this. Some don't. But they still think that if it's in a tablet, it's created. The tablet is a material tablet. So, of course it has to be created. So, people confuse this and it it it sort of morphs into this weird idea of the Quran was eternal in an eternal tablet. And actually by most Muslim theological standards, you can't have eternal tablets.

Like it doesn't make any sense cuz a tablet is a bodily thing. All right. So, a quick question here and we'll start to wrap up. Somebody says The Quran says Allah loves not the disbeliever. Mhm. Right. Uh Is I know that can go into a huge topic right there. I don't know if there's any quick words on that. So, so, so, look, a very literalistic reading is you could take all the groups that Allah does not love and you could literally say, "Okay, Allah is very preferential in his loving." You could say that if you wanted.

But given the fact that like the Quran talks about Allah as Ar-Rahman multiple times and that the mercy the compassion Rahma like embraces all things. Love is is part of that. I think a more holistic interpretation of that is that the Quran is using this expression Allah does not love so and so to really mean that when you do those activities you block you you impede the love of Allah from coming to you.

As a as a kind of expression to say don't do those things. Right. Yeah, it's just a So that's a lot of the Ash'ari and the Sunnis have explained it as that. Professor, right? I know you're really pressed for time. If people want to reach out to you if they want to connect with you, uh what are all your platforms? Where are you to be found? Apart from rocking the academic arena. [laughter] Well, you could And doing for and making follow-ups for friends.

The series. You could you could um link and maybe when you put put this up I have a YouTube channel so you can link to my YouTube channel. Uh Right. And um And uh yeah, you can do all that. And uh I have uh a my website which is in my own name and I have an Academia profile like if you go on the if you Google me you'll find it. So um I think uh yeah, you can I mean people can email me.

My email's on my website. Cool. Uh so So you're very available to kind of uh uh to be found. You're not you're not hidden. Allah Allah. Professor, it has been an absolute pleasure having you on today. Seriously. to be with you on this uh very I'm really glad. I do look forward to inshallah repeating uh some of these, picking your brains, getting some insights from you. Uh it's been amazing.

Right, ladies and gentlemen, I know we've taken up so much time of the professor. Well, I know you've got to get to things as uh as well. So that folks right there is the legend, the man himself, Professor Dr. Khalil Andani. Shukran once again. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi taala wabarakatuh. People, I'm putting up my slide with all my uh social media sites, YouTube, uh Facebook, Instagram.

Do follow on YouTube. Do click the notifications bell and do follow Professor Khalil Andani's page as well. I will include a link on my on this very YouTube video in the description. Take care of yourselves, folks. Assalamualaikum. Stay blessed. Much love. Over and out.