An Overview of the Intra Islamic Debate
An Overview of the Intra-Islamic Debate on whether an
Infinite Series of Events in the Past is Possible
by
Bassam Zawadi
This particular question has led to a point of contention between the Islamic Atharī theological
school of thought1 and the Mutakallimūn2 for approximately seven hundred years. Until now,
discussions on the matter remain heated, with it being claimed that the former say ‘yes’, and the
latter maintain ‘no’ to be the correct view. In reality, however, this isn’t truly the case. The mere
fact that leading Atharī theologian Ibn Taymīyyah (d. 1328) was known to have adopted the “yes”
position, debating the matter extensively with the Mutakallimūn, does not necessitate the
agreement of all Atharīs.
There are Atharīs who answer “no” to this question as well. For instance, the prominent Atharī
scholar Muḥammad Nāṣir ad-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1999) stated that the notion of an infinite series of
events in the past is something deemed to be “incomprehensible”, and that it is not religiously
permissible to adopt the opinion of Ibn Taymīyyah (Shādī No’mān, vol. 7, p. 923).
Furthermore, the renowned Atharī theologian Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī (d. 1995) said that
according to Ahlus-Sunnah,3 an infinite regression of events in the past is impossible (Kāmila alKuwayrih, 2001, p. 183). Likewise, the famous Egyptian Atharī theologian Muḥammad Khalīl
Harrās (d. 1975) was of the view that this stance adopted by Ibn Taymīyyah was not very
intellectually assuring (Ibid., p. 181). There are numerous examples of other Atharī scholars and
academics that take similar stances.4 One particular Atharī academic even went as far as stating
that the Mutakallimūn would be rewarded for their Ijtihād5 on this matter, for it was their intention
to negate something being eternal alongside God (Laṭf Allāh Khowjah, 2007, pp. 255-256).
Therefore, it is not accurate to reduce the dispute to a simplistic “Atharī vs. Mutakallimūn”
contention. Rather, Atharīs themselves are not unified on this subject.6 Some Atharī scholars even
1
An Islamic theological school of thought, which lopsidedly places emphasis on the authority of scripture and
tradition, though it still shuns fideism.
2
Muslim scholars of scholastic theology.
Those who adhere to correct Islamic orthodoxy. In this context, al-Jāmī is referring to this own Atharī theological
school
3
4
In one of my private conversations with Dr. Sulṭan al-‘Umayrī, who is an assistant professor teaching Islamic
theology at Umm al-Qurá university in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, he informed me that several Atharī academic peers of
his adopt the position that an infinite series of events in the past is impossible. He gave the example of Dr. ‘Abdul
Azīz al-Ḥumaydī, who is an academic peer of his who teaches theology at the same department.
5
Independent reasoning and ruling of a Muslim scholar
One may also argue that the Mutakallimūn themselves are not unified on this matter either; see Ibn Taymīyyah (1991,
Vol. 1, p. 321)
6
argue that the matter is that of the unseen realm, and thus we should not delve into it, since it only
causes confusion, bringing no benefit to the questioner. As a result, they discourage the adoption
of any stance on the matter (‘Abdullah b. Jibrīn, vol. 11, p. 26).
It must also be pointed out, however, that Atharīs who agree with the conclusion of the
Mutakallimūn have not necessarily adopted the same methodology.
With that said, let us explore some of the key scriptural arguments from the Qur’ān and ḥadīth
literature used by both sides of the debate. We will also take a look at some of the statements of
the classical Muslim scholars cited by each side, as well as the theological arguments adopted in
favor for each position.
The Arguments of the “Yes Camp”:
The “yes camp”7 present the following Qur’ānic verse:
Whosoever is in the heavens and on earth begs of Him (its needs from Him). Every
day He has a matter to bring forth. [55:29]
They argue that this verse demonstrates the fact that God is always active, and that if God is always
active in performing new actions, then by definition He has been doing so from pre-eternity. This,
by default, implies an infinite regression of events in the past.
However, the “no camp” rebut, arguing that this verse is not speaking about God’s state from preeternity, but is only speaking of God’s state of relations with the creation. They argue that the verse
itself seems to make that point clear, since it is describing how those in the heavens and the earth
call out to God. As a result, God each day is answering prayers (Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī, 2001, vol. 22,
pp. 212-214). Hence, they argue that there is no indication that said activity has been occurring
since pre-eternity.
Another verse the “yes camp” put forth is the following:
Say, "If the sea were ink for [writing] the words of my Lord, the sea would be
exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought the
like of it as a supplement." [18:109]
They assert that this verse demonstrates God’s literal communication since pre-eternity. Thus,
there was never a point in which God was not speaking (Abul-Hassan al-Ash’arī, p. 22). In
response, the “no camp” maintains that this verse has further room for interpretation. The verse,
they argue, could be speaking about both the past and future (Al-‘Izz b. ‘Abdus-Salām, 1996, vol.
2, p. 265). Hence, it could be referring to a potential infinite, rather than an actual infinite series
of metaphysical events of God speaking into the past. Another opinion is that this verse is not
referring to infinity of any sorts. Rather, it is just expressing that God’s creatures are unable to
fathom the extent of God’s ability and very being (Abi al-Hassan al-Māwardī, Vol. 3, p. 349). In light
of this possible exegesis, it is not required to understand this verse in the manner the “yes camp”
demands.
Another verse presented by the “yes camp” is the following:
7
Those who answer “yes” to the question of whether an infinite series of events in the past is possible.
He does (fa’ālun) what He intends (or wills) [85:16].
Based on this verse, they argue that the nominative participle fa’ālun entails God’s constant doing,
and that He never stops doing (Ibrāhīm al-Breikān, 2004, p. 211). However, the “no camp” counter
by noting that not a single major Qur’ānic exegetical commentator has ever alluded to the
possibility of this being the linguistic implication of fa’ālun.8 In fact, some commentaries say that
fa’ālun here is simply a hyperbole used for implying many actions and not necessarily a constant
or non-stop cycle of them (Burhān ud-Dīn al-Biqā’ī, 1992, vol. 21, p. 363). All commentaries have
agreed on the main overriding message of this verse, namely that God is always able to do what
He wills.
The last verse we will be looking at from the “yes camp” is the following:
Then is He who creates like one who does not create? So will you not be reminded?
[16:17]
Based on this verse, it is argued that the act of creating is one of the attributes signifying the
perfection of God. In light of this, there could not be a time in which God is not creating (Ibn
Taymīyyah. 2005, vol. 18, p. 130).
The opposition in turn argues that this proof is not strong; the verse is only stating that you cannot
compare the Creator to the idols that cannot create. In other words, God is asking "Is He, then,
Who creates like he who does not create?" The “no camp” argue that it is not plausible to infer
from this verse that God is always creating, or has always been creating.
Verses such as 67:22 and others use similar language, yet the “no camp” do not understand them
to necessarily imply continuous and non-stop action. They understand them to mean that these are
actions that are performed by certain persons. They argue that the continuity of the action, or even
the frequency of the action, is something that needs to be clarified. They argue that the same can
be said regarding the aforementioned verse in question; it could be referring to the One who has
the ability to create, in comparison to the one who does not (Abi ‘Abdullah al-Qurṭubī, 2006, vol.
12, p. 308).
Let us now take a look at some of the Qur’ānic arguments presented by the “no camp”.
The Arguments of the “No Camp”:
They “no camp” cite the following verse:
That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has
encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number.
[72:28]
Their argument here is that the creation has been enumerated with a fixed number. However, if
there truly were an actual infinite number of events regressing in the past, they argue that this
would entail that the number of creation is in fact innumerable (‘Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī, p. 138).
Atharī scholar Kāmila al-Kuwayrih attempted to respond to this by noting that there is a difference
between claiming that there are no boundaries and stating that there are no limits to something.
8
One may also consult classical Arabic dictionaries and would be hard pressed to find this meaning either.
She gives the following example: between the numbers 0 and 1, there could be an infinite number
of fractions, yet the numbers 0 and 1 still serve as boundaries. Similarly, she argues that in the case
of creation, there are boundaries. Those boundaries are the creation point of coming into existence
and its eventual point of perish (Kāmila Al-Kuwayrih, 2001, p. 101).
However, the “no camp” calls into question the coherence of this response. The argument at hand
does not pertain to the limits of each creation. Rather, it is whether the genus of creation itself has
limits. If the claim is that the genus of creation extends infinitely back into the past, then this would
entail an actual infinite number of creations into the past according to the “no camp”. This would
entail that there is no limit of regression of events in the past, and thus the “no camp” would argue
that Kāmila has failed to demonstrate where the boundary lies for the genus of creation itself.
Another Qur’ānic evidence offered by the “no camp” is the following verse:
Say, [O Muhammad], "Travel through the land and observe how He began
creation. Then God will produce the final creation. Indeed God, over all things, is
competent." [29:20]
Based on this, they would argue that creation has a beginning, and that there is no infinite series
of creations in the past. However, the “yes camp” would argue that there is a clear nuanced
distinction to be made between the assertion that “an infinite series of events in the past did not
happen” and the claim that “an infinite series of events in the past is impossible.” The discussion
at hand is pertaining to the latter rather than the former.
Secondly, the “yes camp” rebut, maintaining that this passage is not referring to creation in its
entirety, but is rather restricted in its scope and could be referring to mankind only,9 or perhaps the
houses and relics that human beings see,10 or even the heavens and earth of our universe.11
Similarly, with the following verse:
Did We fail in the first creation? But they are in confusion over a new creation
[50:15].
9
For instance; see the citation of ar-Rabī’ b. Anas in (Ibn 'Aṭīyah, 2002, p. 1751).
10
See Muḥammad al-Ḥussain al-Baghawī, 2002, p. 993
11
See the citation of Qatādah in (Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī, 2001. vol. 18, p. 377)
The “yes camp” would argue that in this particular context, it is referring to the first creation of
human beings (i.e. Adam).12 The same is said for 21:104, where it could be understood to be
emphasizing the fact that humanity was created naked.13
The “no camp” also appeal to the following ḥadīth, which is narrated in the following different
versions: 1) “There was God and nothing else before Him”14 and 2) “First of all, there was nothing
but God.”15
The debate surrounding this ḥadīth is lengthy and falls outside the scope of this research.16 Instead,
we may suffice with the following summary:
1) The “yes camp” holds that version 1 is the more authentic transmitted wording;
while the “no camp” argues that there is no need to discard the other versions,
which have authentic chains of transmission. Rather, they could be reconciled.17
2) The “yes camp” argues that this ḥadīth is referring to the first creation of our
known world,18 not the genus of creation.19
3) The “yes camp” further argues that even if this ḥadīth is referring to the first
creation in general, it still does not necessitate the impossibility of an infinite
regression of events in the past.
After having offered a summary exposition of the scriptural case of both camps, we now proceed
to the relevant statements of the classical scholars.
The Statements of Classical Scholars:
Both parties maintain their consistency and agreement with classical scholars, whose precedence
grants them validation. The “no camp” presents statements from classical scholars affirming that
creation in general (and not just our known universe) had a starting point. These include, but are
12
See Ibn 'Aṭīyah (2002, p. 1751)
13
See Muḥammad al-Ḥussain al-Baghawī (2002, p. 856)
14
See Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 97, ḥadīth no. 46. Available from: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/97/46
See Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 59, ḥadīth 2. Available from: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/2 Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī
reports a similar narration which says “and there was nothing with Him”
15
For a defense of the “yes camp”, refer to Kāmila’s treatment of this ḥadīth in her Qidam al-‘Ālam. One may also
read the English translated treatment of this ḥadīth by Ibn Taymīyyah; see Jon Hoover (2004).
16
17
See Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (2001, vol. 13, p. 421)
18
See Laṭf Allāh Khowjah (2007, p. 246)
Ibn Taymīyyah was not the only, nor the first one to come up with this interpretation. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (2005,
vol. 7, p. 487) even mentions this as a possible explanation of the ḥadīth as well.
19
not limited to, Muḥammad b. Abī Shaybah (d. 849),20 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 855),21 ‘Uthmān b.
Sa’īd ad-Dārimī (d. 894),22 Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī (d. 923),23 Muḥammad b. Ḥussain al-Ajurrī (d.
970),24 ‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah (d. 997),25 and Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064).26 They would
also cite classical scholars who affirmed that God having attributes does not necessarily signify
that He exerts them.27
In response, the “yes camp” claims that these statements do not demonstrate that there was a
consensus amongst classical scholars,28 nor does it imply that an infinite regression of events in
the past is impossible. They only demonstrate that these scholars simply did not believe that there
is an infinite regression, and that it could very well be due to God’s choice.
Nevertheless, the “no camp” maintains that one could infer that these scholars believed that an
infinite regress of events into the past is impossible. They appeal to the famous creation of the
Qur’ān controversy that was sparked by the Mu’tazilites. One of the arguments the traditionalists
used against the Mu’tazilites at the time was that they argued that the ḥadīth of the Prophet of Islam
says that the first of creation was the Pen.29 And since the Qur’ān says that God says, “Be” prior
to creating,30 this conclusively proves that the Speech of God is uncreated.31 This argument could
have only worked if Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and others who followed him in using this argument truly
did not believe in an infinite regress of events into the past.
20
Muḥammad Ibn Abī Shaybah (1997, p. 284)
21
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (2002, p. 155)
22
‘Uthmān b. Sa’īd ad-Dārimī (1999, p. 14)
23
Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī (1967, vol. 1, p.30)
24
Muḥammad b. Ḥussain al-Ajurrī (1997, vol. 1, p. 490)
25
‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah (1994, vol. 1, p. 214)
Ibn Ḥazm (1997, p. 264). See Ibn Taymīyyah’s response (Ibid. pp. 303-304) to Ibn Ḥazm in his Naqd Marātib alIjmā’.
26
27
Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad at-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 933) famously said that God was the Creator even before He Created just as
He is the Resurrector before He Resurrects; see Aḥmad b. Muḥammad at-Ṭaḥāwī (1994, pp. 131-136). Also see Abul
Qāsim Ismā’īl al-Aṣbahānī (1999, vol. 1, p. 300) where something similar to at-Ṭaḥāwī’s point is argued.
Ibnul Qayyim narrates a conversation that ‘Abdulazīz al-Kinānī (d. 854) had with a Jahmite. ‘Abdulaziz eventually
concluded the discussion by saying that God is able to create from eternity if He so pleased; see Ibnul Qayyim alJawzīyah, 1978, p. 155). Ibnul Qayyim later on reports how some scholars from “Ahlus-Sunnah and Ḥadīth” argued
that there is nothing irrational about affirming its possibility (Ibid., page 156). This demonstrates that there is no
consensus regarding the finitude of the genus of creation amongst the early classical scholars according to the “yes
camp”.
28
29
See Sunan Abi Dāwūd, Book 42, Ḥadīth 105. Available from https://sunnah.com/abudawud/42/105
30
Qur’ān, Chapter 16, Verse 40
Al-Ajurrī (vol. 1, p. 510) cites Muḥammad b. Ḥussain who said that this is one of the strongest arguments that
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal used against the Mu’tazilites. Similarly, Abī al-Qāsim Hibbat Allāh al-Lalaka’ī (2003, vol. 1, p.
218) uses the same argument.
31
However, the question still stands: does this serve as proof that Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and others
believed that an infinite regress of events in the past is impossible? The “yes camp” maintains a
simple “no”.
Secondly, the “yes camp” argue that some of these very same scholars, as well as others, have
affirmed that God has been, and is, “always speaking” (lam yazal Mutakalliman).32 This in turn
indicates that God is continuously speaking, and hence we have a metaphysical regression of
events in the past, whereby God is continuously speaking. However, the “no camp” would in turn
argue that what the scholars truly meant by their statement is that God has always had the attribute
of Speech, and not that He is necessarily speaking at all times.33 In other words, God may will
Himself not to speak.34 Hence, thorough research requires holistic reading and careful examination
of all the writings of each particular scholar. This is necessary in order to accurately conclude that
particular scholars’ stance on the matter.35
An additional response that is made to the “yes camp” is that there appears to be some sort of
assumption on their part regarding how God speaks. There appears to be an assumption that God
speaks in “sequence”, with words temporally and sequentially following one after the other, similar
to the way human beings speak. But this appears to violate the principle that one is not supposed
to delve into the modality of God’s attributes. Perhaps God speaks in an instantaneous manner,
whereby all words are spoken simultaneously at one instance in a changeless mode of expression.36
Just as God is always “knowing” in a constant and unchanging manner prior to the actual events,
God is similarly always “speaking” in a constant and unchanging manner. If so, then this need not
result in a series of utterances with metaphysical temporal gaps between them. As a result, there
would not be a metaphysical infinite regression of events. In light of this, the “yes camp” would
also need to demonstrate how and why their understanding of how God speaks is correct, since the
implications very much depend on it.
The “yes camp” also provide statements from scholars who argue that “action is a sign of life.” In
turn, they insinuate that those scholars believed that God must have always, from eternity past,
32
See Abul-Ḥassan al-Ash’arī (1992, vol. 1, p. 121)
Ibn Taymīyyah (2005, vol. 6, pp. 93-94) cites Abu Bakr ‘Abdul ‘Azīz as saying that there are two opinions amongst
his peers. One is that God must always be speaking, and the other opinion is that He does not necessarily have to, and
that it is in accordance with His Will. ‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah (1994, vol. 1, pp. 213-214) signifies that
the intention behind the usage of this statement “always speaking” (lam yazal Mutakalliman) is to highlight that the
attribute of Speech is not created.
33
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (2002, p. 139) interlinked God’s speaking with His Will. Ibn Taymīyyah (2005, vol. 6, p. 105)
discusses whether God may be attributed with “silence”, and he concludes by saying “yes” and that this is established
in the Sunnah and by consensus of the scholars. However, Ibn Taymīyyah (1991, vol. 2, p. 89) also cites as-Sijizī (d.
1052) saying there is a dispute when it comes to attributing “silence” to God.
34
35
It is argued that these sayings of the scholars only explicitly make it clear that God had the Power of these attributes
and not that they are clear in stating that He has always been exerting them; see Laṭf Allāh Khowjah (2007, p. 269).
Ibn Khuzayma )d. 924) says that God does not speak like human beings. His Speech is “constant” without any
breaks in between; see Abu Bakr Muḥammad b. Khuzayma (1988, vol. 1, p. 349).
36
been “acting.”37 This would entail an infinite regression of “acts” in the past. The “no camp” rebut,
arguing that these statements are not binding without a scholarly consensus. In any case, they
would call into question the interpretation of these statements.38
The “no camp” ask: “Why is action a sign of life; based on what analogy is such an assertion being
made?” If it is an analogy to the creation, then the “no camp” argues that one may be idle, yet still
be alive due to having a soul, such as a person in a coma. Thirdly, the “no camp” argues that there
is no reason to restrict the scope of “action” to actions such as creating, speaking, etc., for selfawareness, constant cognition, unchanging and non-sequential mode of speaking, etc. could all be
considered “active” states, as opposed to being idle. Another question they would ask is whether
the argument is rooted in definitive scriptural texts, or is open to Ijtihād. Furthermore, the “no
camp” stresses that one could argue that God is both Self-Fulfilling and Perfect in His Essence,
and thus does not need to “act” and exert His attributes in order to demonstrate His perfection.
Returning to the question at hand, could God have exerted His attributes from pre-eternity? The
“no camp” maintains a clear “yes”, yet the implications of this answer remain unclear. Does it
mean that there is then an infinite series of events, temporally sequential to one another? Not
necessarily according to the “no camp”. For example, one may say that God has had the ability to
Resurrect since eternity, since He is “The Resurrector”. Resurrection entails bringing someone
dead back to life, and death itself entails that instance of life at any given point. Therefore, there
is a “alive-dead-back to life” sequence present. This sequence necessarily entails a temporal gap
prior to the act of resurrecting. In light of this, one cannot assert that this was occurring since
eternity. If it were the case, then we do not, and cannot have an “infinite” regression of
resurrections in the past, given that necessary temporal gap. Nevertheless, the “no camp” still
affirm that God has the ability to resurrect from eternity. The same is said for the attribute of
“forgiving”, which requires the “life-commit sin-repent” sequence.
Thus, the “no camp” adopt the position that God was able to exert His attributes from eternity, yet
they do not affirm an infinite regression of actions in the past, since God’s actions are new and
emergent, unlike His eternal attributes. They also do not claim to fully understand the modality of
His actions, and hence do not state that an infinite regression, which presumes temporal gaps
between them sequentially, is a necessary outcome of all of God’s actions.
Theological Arguments Raised by the “Yes Camp”:
The most commonly used theological argument by the “yes camp” in order to bolster their position
is that to deny the possibility that God has been creating from eternity is to essentially imply that
there was a point in time in which God was not able to create. They argue that such a notion is
blasphemous, since God’s attributes are eternal, and thus there should be no reason to presume
that God was unable to create at any given stage. A second argument that provide is that the stance
of the “no camp” entails the attribution of imperfection to God, with that imperfection being
“idleness”.
37
38
See Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Bukhārī (1999, p. 85) and ‘Uthmān b. Sa’īd ad-Dārimī (1999, p. 164).
It is argued that these sayings of the classical scholars are not explicit in stating that God has always been exerting
His attributes; see Laṭf Allāh Khowjah (2007, p. 270).
Once again, the “no camp” attempts to refute this, claiming that this argument makes some serious
fallacious presumptions surrounding its stance. The “no camp” argues that this objection presumes
that God was enduring through time before creating.39 It presumes that God “waited and waited
and waited” (āl al-Shaykh, 2011, vol. 1, p. 110) before being able to later on take action and create.
However, the “no camp” argues that it does not believe that God was temporal prior to creating.
According to this view, there would never have “been a time” that God was not able to create.
There would never have “been a time” that God was idle.40
In the view of the “no camp”, there is no “earlier” and “later” than, since these are temporal
relations that would not apply to God if He were in a state of timelessness. To imagine a time
before time is only a misleading fantasy of our limited imaginations. In light of this, one cannot
charge the “no camp” with the belief that there is a time when God cannot create. Similarly, being
idle presumes doing nothing for a certain amount of time. Once again, this is not representative of
the stance of the “no camp”.
The “yes camp” would make another argument, namely that there must have been some sort of
tipping point or determinant of sorts, whereby according to the “no camp”, God initiated creation
at a certain junction (Ibn Taymīyyah, 1985, vol. 1, p. 65; 1991, vol. 8, p. 107). However, the “yes
camp” argues that this tipping point must have always existed in eternity, and that there is no
reason to believe why God would have created later than He was able to. In other words, why did
God wait until approximately 14 billion years ago to create, and not sooner? The “yes camp”
argues that there is no logical reason and further allege that it is more reasonable to assume that
God has been creating since eternity.
The “no camp” once again points out the problematic nature of using terms such as “point”, “later”,
and “sooner”. They argue that God’s decision to create was timeless and pre-eternal; it was not
preceded by any time period of indecision. God could not have created any “sooner”, since there
was no time prior to the creation.
Theological Arguments Raised by the “No Camp”:
One particular objection is that the “no camp” believes that the notion that God has created from
eternity implies the possibility that something other than God could be eternal. It implies that at
every given point of God’s existence (i.e. eternity), the manifestation of His attributes (i.e. in this
case the genus of creation) is present.41 The sheer fact that there was never a point where God was
without creation existing simultaneously alongside Him entails that it is at the very
Ibn Taymīyyah (1991, vol. 8, p. 107) argued that with all times being equal, there is no reason why God would
choose a particular time over another to create. Ibn Taymīyyah (2005, vol. 18, p. 129) says that he does not take the
position that there was a “time” in which God had no power. Also, see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (2002, p. 140).
39
Furthermore, the “no camp” would argue that God is not bound to exert His attributes. If we take the example of
God being All-Forgiving, the “no camp” would argue that God does not have to be forgiving at every single instant.
For God to be forgiving an infinite number of times, there would have to be an infinite number of sinners requiring
forgiveness.
40
41
Athari scholar Safar al-Ḥawālī (vol. 1, p. 261) commenting on the words of Ibn Abī al-‘Izz (d. 1390) said that there
is no point in which we could say that God existed without the genus of creation existing alongside Him. Also, see: āl
al-Shaykh (2011, vol. 1, p. 109).
least possible that one of His creatures could be eternal too. This is highly objectionable, since
God, by the necessity of His nature, could be the only One that is eternal.
The “yes camp”, however, argues back by maintaining that this implication is invalid; their stance
is that everything other than God has been created, and is hence not eternal. The process of
creation itself is the only eternal thing.
In response, however, the “no camp” hold that one must either answer “yes” or “no” to the
following question: “was there ever a point in which God existed without creation alongside Him?”
If the answer is no, then the notion of infinite regression is negated. If the answer is yes, then the
notion that something other than God creatures being eternal is, by necessity, at the very least
possible.
Another theological objection that the “no camp” has is that to say that God must be creating from
eternity or displaying His Mercy from eternity makes Him dependent upon His creation. However,
the “yes camp” would argue back noting that the statement can be phrased in a different manner.
The wording “God needs creation, hence He creates” is inherently flawed, and instead, one should
phrase it by saying “God’s Perfection by necessity demands that He creates, hence this is why
there is creation at all times”. The “no camp” would rebut once agian, arguing that this is only a
clever linguistic tactic, which does not address the substantial behind point behind the argument
itself.42
Conclusion
The debate on this deeply philosophical and theological subject will not be settled anytime soon.
Nevertheless, the main purpose of this paper was to bring to light, and refute, the following two
misconceptions surrounding this debate:
1) All Atharīs believe that an infinite series of events in the past either happened or is possible
2) There are no scriptural and theological arguments in favor of the “no camp” position.
For example, instead of saying, “Human beings need food”, one could rephrase this and say: “Human beings by
their nature eat, and as a result they consume food.” Similarly, to say that God by His nature must forgive, create, and
so on, does not change the fact that God depends upon the existence of sinners and creatures in order to exert these
attributes.
42
Bibliography
āl al-Shaykh, S. 2011. Sharḥ al-‘Aqīdah at-Ṭaḥāwīyah. Al-Manṣūrah: Dār Elmawada
‘Abdullah
b.
Jibrīn,
Sharh
http://islamport.com/l/aqd/610/145.htm
al-‘Aqīdah
at-Ṭahāwīyah.
Available
from:
Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī, Al-Farq Bayn al-Furaq, al-Khisht, M. ed., Cairo, Maktabat Ibn Sīna
Abi ‘Abdullah al-Qurṭubī. 2006. Al-Jāmi’ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, at-Turkī, A. ed., Beirut, 1st edition,
Ar-Risāla Publications
Abi al-Hassan al-Māwardī, an-Nukat wal-‘Uyūn, ed. as-Sayyid b. ‘Abdur Rahīm ed., Beirut, Dār
al-Kutub al-‘Ilmīyah
Abu Bakr Muḥammad b. Khuzayma. 1988. at-Tawhīd wa Ithbāt Ṣifāt ar-Rabb ‘Azza wa-jall, alShahwān, A. ed. Riyadh, 1st edition, Maktabat ar-Rushd
Abul-Hassan al-Ash’arī, 1st edition. al-Ibānah ‘an Usūl ad-Diyānah, Beirut, Dār ibn Zaydūn
Publishing
Abul-Ḥassan al-Ash’arī. 1992. Risāla ila Ahl ath-Thagr, al-Junaidī, A. ed. Madinah
Abul Qāsim Ismā’īl al-Aṣbahānī. 1999. al-Ḥujjah fi Bayān al-Maḥajjah, al-Madkhalī, M. ed.,
Riyadh
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. 2002. ar-Radd ‘ala al-Jahmīyyah wal-Zanādiqa, Shāhīn, Riyadh, 1st edition, S.
Dār ath-Thabāt Publishers
Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad at-Ṭaḥāwī. 1994. Sharḥ al-‘Aqīdah at-Ṭaḥāwīyah, Al-Albāni ed., M.,
8th edition, Maktab al-Islāmī
Al-‘Izz b. ‘Abdus-Salām. 1996. Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān, al-Wuhaibi, A. ed., Beirut, Dār ibn Ḥazm
Burhān ud-Dīn al-Biqā’ī. 1992. Naẓm ad-Durar fī tanāsub al-āyāt wal-Suwar, Cairo, Dār al-Kitāb
al-Islāmī
Ibn 'Aṭīyah. 2002. Al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz fi tafsīr al-Kitāb al-'Azīz, Dār ibn Ḥazm
Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī. 2001. Fatḥul Bārī, Shaibah, A. ed., Riyadh
Ibn Ḥazm. 1997. Marātib al-Ijmā’, Isīr, A.H. ed., Beirut, 1st edition, Dār Ibn Ḥazm
Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī. 1967. Tārīkh at-Ṭabarī, Ibrahim, M. ed., 2nd edition, Dār al-Ma’ārif
––––––––––––––––. 2001. Jāmi’ al-Bayān ‘an Ta’wīl al-Qur’ān, at-Turkī, A. ed., Cairo, Hijr
Publishing
Ibnul Qayyim al-Jawzīyah. 1978. ash-Shifā’ al-‘Alīl, al-Ḥalabī, M. ed., Beirut, Dār al-Fikr
Ibn Taymīyyah. 1985. as-Ṣafaḍīyah, Sālim, M. ed.
–––––––––––––. 1991. Dar’ Ta’āruḍ al-‘Aql wal-Naql, Sālim, M. ed. 2nd Edition
–––––––––––––. 2005. Majmu’ al-Fātawá, al-Bāz A. & al-Jazār, A. ed., 3rd edition, Dār al-Wafāa’
Publishing
Ibrāhīm al-Breikān. 2004. al-Qawā’id al-Kullīyah lil-Asmaa’ was-Sifāt ‘ind as-Salaf, Riyadh,
1st edition, Dār Ibnul Qayyim
Jon Hoover. 2004. Perpetual creativity in the perfection of God: Ibn Taymiyya's Ḥadīth
commentary on God's creation of this world. Journal of Islamic Studies, 15(3)
Kāmila Al-Kuwayrih. 2001. Qidam al-‘Ālam wa-Tasalsul al-Ḥawādith, Amman, Dār Osamah
Book Publishing
Laṭf Allāh Khowjah. 2007. Naqd ibn Taymīyyah li-Ārā’ al-Falāsifa wal-Mutakallimīn fi Qidam
al-‘ālam, Majallat Jāmi’at Umm al-Qurá li-‘ulūm al-Sharī’ah wal-lughatil-‘Arabiyah, 19(43)
Muḥammad al-Ḥussain al-Baghawī. 2002. Ma'ālim at-Tanzīl, Dār Ibn Ḥazm
Muḥammad Ibn Abī Shaybah. 1997. Kitāb al-‘Arsh, at-Tamīmī, M. ed., Riyadh, 1st edition, alRushd Publications
Muḥammad b. Ḥussain al-Ajurrī. 1997. Kitāb al-Sharī’ah, ad-Dumaijī, A. ed., Riyadh, 1st edition,
Dār al-Waṭan
Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Bukhārī, Khalq Af’āl al-‘Ibād, ‘Umayra, A. ed. Riyadh, 2nd edition, Dār
‘Okāẓ
Shādī No’mān [no date], Mawsu’at al-Albānī fī al-‘Aqīdah, [Online]. Available from:
http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-36190/page-3355.
‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah. 1994. al-Ibānah ‘an Sharī’at al-Firqa an-Nājīyah, al-Wābil,
Y. ed., Riyadh, 1st edition, Dār ar-Rāyah
Uthmān b. Sa’īd ad-Dārimī. 1999. ar-Radd ‘ala al-Marrīsī, as-Samārī, Riyadh, 1st edition,
Maktabat Aḍwā’ as-Salaf
Infinite Series of Events in the Past is Possible
by
Bassam Zawadi
This particular question has led to a point of contention between the Islamic Atharī theological
school of thought1 and the Mutakallimūn2 for approximately seven hundred years. Until now,
discussions on the matter remain heated, with it being claimed that the former say ‘yes’, and the
latter maintain ‘no’ to be the correct view. In reality, however, this isn’t truly the case. The mere
fact that leading Atharī theologian Ibn Taymīyyah (d. 1328) was known to have adopted the “yes”
position, debating the matter extensively with the Mutakallimūn, does not necessitate the
agreement of all Atharīs.
There are Atharīs who answer “no” to this question as well. For instance, the prominent Atharī
scholar Muḥammad Nāṣir ad-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1999) stated that the notion of an infinite series of
events in the past is something deemed to be “incomprehensible”, and that it is not religiously
permissible to adopt the opinion of Ibn Taymīyyah (Shādī No’mān, vol. 7, p. 923).
Furthermore, the renowned Atharī theologian Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī (d. 1995) said that
according to Ahlus-Sunnah,3 an infinite regression of events in the past is impossible (Kāmila alKuwayrih, 2001, p. 183). Likewise, the famous Egyptian Atharī theologian Muḥammad Khalīl
Harrās (d. 1975) was of the view that this stance adopted by Ibn Taymīyyah was not very
intellectually assuring (Ibid., p. 181). There are numerous examples of other Atharī scholars and
academics that take similar stances.4 One particular Atharī academic even went as far as stating
that the Mutakallimūn would be rewarded for their Ijtihād5 on this matter, for it was their intention
to negate something being eternal alongside God (Laṭf Allāh Khowjah, 2007, pp. 255-256).
Therefore, it is not accurate to reduce the dispute to a simplistic “Atharī vs. Mutakallimūn”
contention. Rather, Atharīs themselves are not unified on this subject.6 Some Atharī scholars even
1
An Islamic theological school of thought, which lopsidedly places emphasis on the authority of scripture and
tradition, though it still shuns fideism.
2
Muslim scholars of scholastic theology.
Those who adhere to correct Islamic orthodoxy. In this context, al-Jāmī is referring to this own Atharī theological
school
3
4
In one of my private conversations with Dr. Sulṭan al-‘Umayrī, who is an assistant professor teaching Islamic
theology at Umm al-Qurá university in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, he informed me that several Atharī academic peers of
his adopt the position that an infinite series of events in the past is impossible. He gave the example of Dr. ‘Abdul
Azīz al-Ḥumaydī, who is an academic peer of his who teaches theology at the same department.
5
Independent reasoning and ruling of a Muslim scholar
One may also argue that the Mutakallimūn themselves are not unified on this matter either; see Ibn Taymīyyah (1991,
Vol. 1, p. 321)
6
argue that the matter is that of the unseen realm, and thus we should not delve into it, since it only
causes confusion, bringing no benefit to the questioner. As a result, they discourage the adoption
of any stance on the matter (‘Abdullah b. Jibrīn, vol. 11, p. 26).
It must also be pointed out, however, that Atharīs who agree with the conclusion of the
Mutakallimūn have not necessarily adopted the same methodology.
With that said, let us explore some of the key scriptural arguments from the Qur’ān and ḥadīth
literature used by both sides of the debate. We will also take a look at some of the statements of
the classical Muslim scholars cited by each side, as well as the theological arguments adopted in
favor for each position.
The Arguments of the “Yes Camp”:
The “yes camp”7 present the following Qur’ānic verse:
Whosoever is in the heavens and on earth begs of Him (its needs from Him). Every
day He has a matter to bring forth. [55:29]
They argue that this verse demonstrates the fact that God is always active, and that if God is always
active in performing new actions, then by definition He has been doing so from pre-eternity. This,
by default, implies an infinite regression of events in the past.
However, the “no camp” rebut, arguing that this verse is not speaking about God’s state from preeternity, but is only speaking of God’s state of relations with the creation. They argue that the verse
itself seems to make that point clear, since it is describing how those in the heavens and the earth
call out to God. As a result, God each day is answering prayers (Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī, 2001, vol. 22,
pp. 212-214). Hence, they argue that there is no indication that said activity has been occurring
since pre-eternity.
Another verse the “yes camp” put forth is the following:
Say, "If the sea were ink for [writing] the words of my Lord, the sea would be
exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought the
like of it as a supplement." [18:109]
They assert that this verse demonstrates God’s literal communication since pre-eternity. Thus,
there was never a point in which God was not speaking (Abul-Hassan al-Ash’arī, p. 22). In
response, the “no camp” maintains that this verse has further room for interpretation. The verse,
they argue, could be speaking about both the past and future (Al-‘Izz b. ‘Abdus-Salām, 1996, vol.
2, p. 265). Hence, it could be referring to a potential infinite, rather than an actual infinite series
of metaphysical events of God speaking into the past. Another opinion is that this verse is not
referring to infinity of any sorts. Rather, it is just expressing that God’s creatures are unable to
fathom the extent of God’s ability and very being (Abi al-Hassan al-Māwardī, Vol. 3, p. 349). In light
of this possible exegesis, it is not required to understand this verse in the manner the “yes camp”
demands.
Another verse presented by the “yes camp” is the following:
7
Those who answer “yes” to the question of whether an infinite series of events in the past is possible.
He does (fa’ālun) what He intends (or wills) [85:16].
Based on this verse, they argue that the nominative participle fa’ālun entails God’s constant doing,
and that He never stops doing (Ibrāhīm al-Breikān, 2004, p. 211). However, the “no camp” counter
by noting that not a single major Qur’ānic exegetical commentator has ever alluded to the
possibility of this being the linguistic implication of fa’ālun.8 In fact, some commentaries say that
fa’ālun here is simply a hyperbole used for implying many actions and not necessarily a constant
or non-stop cycle of them (Burhān ud-Dīn al-Biqā’ī, 1992, vol. 21, p. 363). All commentaries have
agreed on the main overriding message of this verse, namely that God is always able to do what
He wills.
The last verse we will be looking at from the “yes camp” is the following:
Then is He who creates like one who does not create? So will you not be reminded?
[16:17]
Based on this verse, it is argued that the act of creating is one of the attributes signifying the
perfection of God. In light of this, there could not be a time in which God is not creating (Ibn
Taymīyyah. 2005, vol. 18, p. 130).
The opposition in turn argues that this proof is not strong; the verse is only stating that you cannot
compare the Creator to the idols that cannot create. In other words, God is asking "Is He, then,
Who creates like he who does not create?" The “no camp” argue that it is not plausible to infer
from this verse that God is always creating, or has always been creating.
Verses such as 67:22 and others use similar language, yet the “no camp” do not understand them
to necessarily imply continuous and non-stop action. They understand them to mean that these are
actions that are performed by certain persons. They argue that the continuity of the action, or even
the frequency of the action, is something that needs to be clarified. They argue that the same can
be said regarding the aforementioned verse in question; it could be referring to the One who has
the ability to create, in comparison to the one who does not (Abi ‘Abdullah al-Qurṭubī, 2006, vol.
12, p. 308).
Let us now take a look at some of the Qur’ānic arguments presented by the “no camp”.
The Arguments of the “No Camp”:
They “no camp” cite the following verse:
That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has
encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number.
[72:28]
Their argument here is that the creation has been enumerated with a fixed number. However, if
there truly were an actual infinite number of events regressing in the past, they argue that this
would entail that the number of creation is in fact innumerable (‘Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī, p. 138).
Atharī scholar Kāmila al-Kuwayrih attempted to respond to this by noting that there is a difference
between claiming that there are no boundaries and stating that there are no limits to something.
8
One may also consult classical Arabic dictionaries and would be hard pressed to find this meaning either.
She gives the following example: between the numbers 0 and 1, there could be an infinite number
of fractions, yet the numbers 0 and 1 still serve as boundaries. Similarly, she argues that in the case
of creation, there are boundaries. Those boundaries are the creation point of coming into existence
and its eventual point of perish (Kāmila Al-Kuwayrih, 2001, p. 101).
However, the “no camp” calls into question the coherence of this response. The argument at hand
does not pertain to the limits of each creation. Rather, it is whether the genus of creation itself has
limits. If the claim is that the genus of creation extends infinitely back into the past, then this would
entail an actual infinite number of creations into the past according to the “no camp”. This would
entail that there is no limit of regression of events in the past, and thus the “no camp” would argue
that Kāmila has failed to demonstrate where the boundary lies for the genus of creation itself.
Another Qur’ānic evidence offered by the “no camp” is the following verse:
Say, [O Muhammad], "Travel through the land and observe how He began
creation. Then God will produce the final creation. Indeed God, over all things, is
competent." [29:20]
Based on this, they would argue that creation has a beginning, and that there is no infinite series
of creations in the past. However, the “yes camp” would argue that there is a clear nuanced
distinction to be made between the assertion that “an infinite series of events in the past did not
happen” and the claim that “an infinite series of events in the past is impossible.” The discussion
at hand is pertaining to the latter rather than the former.
Secondly, the “yes camp” rebut, maintaining that this passage is not referring to creation in its
entirety, but is rather restricted in its scope and could be referring to mankind only,9 or perhaps the
houses and relics that human beings see,10 or even the heavens and earth of our universe.11
Similarly, with the following verse:
Did We fail in the first creation? But they are in confusion over a new creation
[50:15].
9
For instance; see the citation of ar-Rabī’ b. Anas in (Ibn 'Aṭīyah, 2002, p. 1751).
10
See Muḥammad al-Ḥussain al-Baghawī, 2002, p. 993
11
See the citation of Qatādah in (Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī, 2001. vol. 18, p. 377)
The “yes camp” would argue that in this particular context, it is referring to the first creation of
human beings (i.e. Adam).12 The same is said for 21:104, where it could be understood to be
emphasizing the fact that humanity was created naked.13
The “no camp” also appeal to the following ḥadīth, which is narrated in the following different
versions: 1) “There was God and nothing else before Him”14 and 2) “First of all, there was nothing
but God.”15
The debate surrounding this ḥadīth is lengthy and falls outside the scope of this research.16 Instead,
we may suffice with the following summary:
1) The “yes camp” holds that version 1 is the more authentic transmitted wording;
while the “no camp” argues that there is no need to discard the other versions,
which have authentic chains of transmission. Rather, they could be reconciled.17
2) The “yes camp” argues that this ḥadīth is referring to the first creation of our
known world,18 not the genus of creation.19
3) The “yes camp” further argues that even if this ḥadīth is referring to the first
creation in general, it still does not necessitate the impossibility of an infinite
regression of events in the past.
After having offered a summary exposition of the scriptural case of both camps, we now proceed
to the relevant statements of the classical scholars.
The Statements of Classical Scholars:
Both parties maintain their consistency and agreement with classical scholars, whose precedence
grants them validation. The “no camp” presents statements from classical scholars affirming that
creation in general (and not just our known universe) had a starting point. These include, but are
12
See Ibn 'Aṭīyah (2002, p. 1751)
13
See Muḥammad al-Ḥussain al-Baghawī (2002, p. 856)
14
See Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 97, ḥadīth no. 46. Available from: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/97/46
See Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 59, ḥadīth 2. Available from: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/2 Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī
reports a similar narration which says “and there was nothing with Him”
15
For a defense of the “yes camp”, refer to Kāmila’s treatment of this ḥadīth in her Qidam al-‘Ālam. One may also
read the English translated treatment of this ḥadīth by Ibn Taymīyyah; see Jon Hoover (2004).
16
17
See Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (2001, vol. 13, p. 421)
18
See Laṭf Allāh Khowjah (2007, p. 246)
Ibn Taymīyyah was not the only, nor the first one to come up with this interpretation. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (2005,
vol. 7, p. 487) even mentions this as a possible explanation of the ḥadīth as well.
19
not limited to, Muḥammad b. Abī Shaybah (d. 849),20 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 855),21 ‘Uthmān b.
Sa’īd ad-Dārimī (d. 894),22 Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī (d. 923),23 Muḥammad b. Ḥussain al-Ajurrī (d.
970),24 ‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah (d. 997),25 and Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064).26 They would
also cite classical scholars who affirmed that God having attributes does not necessarily signify
that He exerts them.27
In response, the “yes camp” claims that these statements do not demonstrate that there was a
consensus amongst classical scholars,28 nor does it imply that an infinite regression of events in
the past is impossible. They only demonstrate that these scholars simply did not believe that there
is an infinite regression, and that it could very well be due to God’s choice.
Nevertheless, the “no camp” maintains that one could infer that these scholars believed that an
infinite regress of events into the past is impossible. They appeal to the famous creation of the
Qur’ān controversy that was sparked by the Mu’tazilites. One of the arguments the traditionalists
used against the Mu’tazilites at the time was that they argued that the ḥadīth of the Prophet of Islam
says that the first of creation was the Pen.29 And since the Qur’ān says that God says, “Be” prior
to creating,30 this conclusively proves that the Speech of God is uncreated.31 This argument could
have only worked if Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and others who followed him in using this argument truly
did not believe in an infinite regress of events into the past.
20
Muḥammad Ibn Abī Shaybah (1997, p. 284)
21
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (2002, p. 155)
22
‘Uthmān b. Sa’īd ad-Dārimī (1999, p. 14)
23
Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī (1967, vol. 1, p.30)
24
Muḥammad b. Ḥussain al-Ajurrī (1997, vol. 1, p. 490)
25
‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah (1994, vol. 1, p. 214)
Ibn Ḥazm (1997, p. 264). See Ibn Taymīyyah’s response (Ibid. pp. 303-304) to Ibn Ḥazm in his Naqd Marātib alIjmā’.
26
27
Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad at-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 933) famously said that God was the Creator even before He Created just as
He is the Resurrector before He Resurrects; see Aḥmad b. Muḥammad at-Ṭaḥāwī (1994, pp. 131-136). Also see Abul
Qāsim Ismā’īl al-Aṣbahānī (1999, vol. 1, p. 300) where something similar to at-Ṭaḥāwī’s point is argued.
Ibnul Qayyim narrates a conversation that ‘Abdulazīz al-Kinānī (d. 854) had with a Jahmite. ‘Abdulaziz eventually
concluded the discussion by saying that God is able to create from eternity if He so pleased; see Ibnul Qayyim alJawzīyah, 1978, p. 155). Ibnul Qayyim later on reports how some scholars from “Ahlus-Sunnah and Ḥadīth” argued
that there is nothing irrational about affirming its possibility (Ibid., page 156). This demonstrates that there is no
consensus regarding the finitude of the genus of creation amongst the early classical scholars according to the “yes
camp”.
28
29
See Sunan Abi Dāwūd, Book 42, Ḥadīth 105. Available from https://sunnah.com/abudawud/42/105
30
Qur’ān, Chapter 16, Verse 40
Al-Ajurrī (vol. 1, p. 510) cites Muḥammad b. Ḥussain who said that this is one of the strongest arguments that
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal used against the Mu’tazilites. Similarly, Abī al-Qāsim Hibbat Allāh al-Lalaka’ī (2003, vol. 1, p.
218) uses the same argument.
31
However, the question still stands: does this serve as proof that Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and others
believed that an infinite regress of events in the past is impossible? The “yes camp” maintains a
simple “no”.
Secondly, the “yes camp” argue that some of these very same scholars, as well as others, have
affirmed that God has been, and is, “always speaking” (lam yazal Mutakalliman).32 This in turn
indicates that God is continuously speaking, and hence we have a metaphysical regression of
events in the past, whereby God is continuously speaking. However, the “no camp” would in turn
argue that what the scholars truly meant by their statement is that God has always had the attribute
of Speech, and not that He is necessarily speaking at all times.33 In other words, God may will
Himself not to speak.34 Hence, thorough research requires holistic reading and careful examination
of all the writings of each particular scholar. This is necessary in order to accurately conclude that
particular scholars’ stance on the matter.35
An additional response that is made to the “yes camp” is that there appears to be some sort of
assumption on their part regarding how God speaks. There appears to be an assumption that God
speaks in “sequence”, with words temporally and sequentially following one after the other, similar
to the way human beings speak. But this appears to violate the principle that one is not supposed
to delve into the modality of God’s attributes. Perhaps God speaks in an instantaneous manner,
whereby all words are spoken simultaneously at one instance in a changeless mode of expression.36
Just as God is always “knowing” in a constant and unchanging manner prior to the actual events,
God is similarly always “speaking” in a constant and unchanging manner. If so, then this need not
result in a series of utterances with metaphysical temporal gaps between them. As a result, there
would not be a metaphysical infinite regression of events. In light of this, the “yes camp” would
also need to demonstrate how and why their understanding of how God speaks is correct, since the
implications very much depend on it.
The “yes camp” also provide statements from scholars who argue that “action is a sign of life.” In
turn, they insinuate that those scholars believed that God must have always, from eternity past,
32
See Abul-Ḥassan al-Ash’arī (1992, vol. 1, p. 121)
Ibn Taymīyyah (2005, vol. 6, pp. 93-94) cites Abu Bakr ‘Abdul ‘Azīz as saying that there are two opinions amongst
his peers. One is that God must always be speaking, and the other opinion is that He does not necessarily have to, and
that it is in accordance with His Will. ‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah (1994, vol. 1, pp. 213-214) signifies that
the intention behind the usage of this statement “always speaking” (lam yazal Mutakalliman) is to highlight that the
attribute of Speech is not created.
33
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (2002, p. 139) interlinked God’s speaking with His Will. Ibn Taymīyyah (2005, vol. 6, p. 105)
discusses whether God may be attributed with “silence”, and he concludes by saying “yes” and that this is established
in the Sunnah and by consensus of the scholars. However, Ibn Taymīyyah (1991, vol. 2, p. 89) also cites as-Sijizī (d.
1052) saying there is a dispute when it comes to attributing “silence” to God.
34
35
It is argued that these sayings of the scholars only explicitly make it clear that God had the Power of these attributes
and not that they are clear in stating that He has always been exerting them; see Laṭf Allāh Khowjah (2007, p. 269).
Ibn Khuzayma )d. 924) says that God does not speak like human beings. His Speech is “constant” without any
breaks in between; see Abu Bakr Muḥammad b. Khuzayma (1988, vol. 1, p. 349).
36
been “acting.”37 This would entail an infinite regression of “acts” in the past. The “no camp” rebut,
arguing that these statements are not binding without a scholarly consensus. In any case, they
would call into question the interpretation of these statements.38
The “no camp” ask: “Why is action a sign of life; based on what analogy is such an assertion being
made?” If it is an analogy to the creation, then the “no camp” argues that one may be idle, yet still
be alive due to having a soul, such as a person in a coma. Thirdly, the “no camp” argues that there
is no reason to restrict the scope of “action” to actions such as creating, speaking, etc., for selfawareness, constant cognition, unchanging and non-sequential mode of speaking, etc. could all be
considered “active” states, as opposed to being idle. Another question they would ask is whether
the argument is rooted in definitive scriptural texts, or is open to Ijtihād. Furthermore, the “no
camp” stresses that one could argue that God is both Self-Fulfilling and Perfect in His Essence,
and thus does not need to “act” and exert His attributes in order to demonstrate His perfection.
Returning to the question at hand, could God have exerted His attributes from pre-eternity? The
“no camp” maintains a clear “yes”, yet the implications of this answer remain unclear. Does it
mean that there is then an infinite series of events, temporally sequential to one another? Not
necessarily according to the “no camp”. For example, one may say that God has had the ability to
Resurrect since eternity, since He is “The Resurrector”. Resurrection entails bringing someone
dead back to life, and death itself entails that instance of life at any given point. Therefore, there
is a “alive-dead-back to life” sequence present. This sequence necessarily entails a temporal gap
prior to the act of resurrecting. In light of this, one cannot assert that this was occurring since
eternity. If it were the case, then we do not, and cannot have an “infinite” regression of
resurrections in the past, given that necessary temporal gap. Nevertheless, the “no camp” still
affirm that God has the ability to resurrect from eternity. The same is said for the attribute of
“forgiving”, which requires the “life-commit sin-repent” sequence.
Thus, the “no camp” adopt the position that God was able to exert His attributes from eternity, yet
they do not affirm an infinite regression of actions in the past, since God’s actions are new and
emergent, unlike His eternal attributes. They also do not claim to fully understand the modality of
His actions, and hence do not state that an infinite regression, which presumes temporal gaps
between them sequentially, is a necessary outcome of all of God’s actions.
Theological Arguments Raised by the “Yes Camp”:
The most commonly used theological argument by the “yes camp” in order to bolster their position
is that to deny the possibility that God has been creating from eternity is to essentially imply that
there was a point in time in which God was not able to create. They argue that such a notion is
blasphemous, since God’s attributes are eternal, and thus there should be no reason to presume
that God was unable to create at any given stage. A second argument that provide is that the stance
of the “no camp” entails the attribution of imperfection to God, with that imperfection being
“idleness”.
37
38
See Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Bukhārī (1999, p. 85) and ‘Uthmān b. Sa’īd ad-Dārimī (1999, p. 164).
It is argued that these sayings of the classical scholars are not explicit in stating that God has always been exerting
His attributes; see Laṭf Allāh Khowjah (2007, p. 270).
Once again, the “no camp” attempts to refute this, claiming that this argument makes some serious
fallacious presumptions surrounding its stance. The “no camp” argues that this objection presumes
that God was enduring through time before creating.39 It presumes that God “waited and waited
and waited” (āl al-Shaykh, 2011, vol. 1, p. 110) before being able to later on take action and create.
However, the “no camp” argues that it does not believe that God was temporal prior to creating.
According to this view, there would never have “been a time” that God was not able to create.
There would never have “been a time” that God was idle.40
In the view of the “no camp”, there is no “earlier” and “later” than, since these are temporal
relations that would not apply to God if He were in a state of timelessness. To imagine a time
before time is only a misleading fantasy of our limited imaginations. In light of this, one cannot
charge the “no camp” with the belief that there is a time when God cannot create. Similarly, being
idle presumes doing nothing for a certain amount of time. Once again, this is not representative of
the stance of the “no camp”.
The “yes camp” would make another argument, namely that there must have been some sort of
tipping point or determinant of sorts, whereby according to the “no camp”, God initiated creation
at a certain junction (Ibn Taymīyyah, 1985, vol. 1, p. 65; 1991, vol. 8, p. 107). However, the “yes
camp” argues that this tipping point must have always existed in eternity, and that there is no
reason to believe why God would have created later than He was able to. In other words, why did
God wait until approximately 14 billion years ago to create, and not sooner? The “yes camp”
argues that there is no logical reason and further allege that it is more reasonable to assume that
God has been creating since eternity.
The “no camp” once again points out the problematic nature of using terms such as “point”, “later”,
and “sooner”. They argue that God’s decision to create was timeless and pre-eternal; it was not
preceded by any time period of indecision. God could not have created any “sooner”, since there
was no time prior to the creation.
Theological Arguments Raised by the “No Camp”:
One particular objection is that the “no camp” believes that the notion that God has created from
eternity implies the possibility that something other than God could be eternal. It implies that at
every given point of God’s existence (i.e. eternity), the manifestation of His attributes (i.e. in this
case the genus of creation) is present.41 The sheer fact that there was never a point where God was
without creation existing simultaneously alongside Him entails that it is at the very
Ibn Taymīyyah (1991, vol. 8, p. 107) argued that with all times being equal, there is no reason why God would
choose a particular time over another to create. Ibn Taymīyyah (2005, vol. 18, p. 129) says that he does not take the
position that there was a “time” in which God had no power. Also, see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (2002, p. 140).
39
Furthermore, the “no camp” would argue that God is not bound to exert His attributes. If we take the example of
God being All-Forgiving, the “no camp” would argue that God does not have to be forgiving at every single instant.
For God to be forgiving an infinite number of times, there would have to be an infinite number of sinners requiring
forgiveness.
40
41
Athari scholar Safar al-Ḥawālī (vol. 1, p. 261) commenting on the words of Ibn Abī al-‘Izz (d. 1390) said that there
is no point in which we could say that God existed without the genus of creation existing alongside Him. Also, see: āl
al-Shaykh (2011, vol. 1, p. 109).
least possible that one of His creatures could be eternal too. This is highly objectionable, since
God, by the necessity of His nature, could be the only One that is eternal.
The “yes camp”, however, argues back by maintaining that this implication is invalid; their stance
is that everything other than God has been created, and is hence not eternal. The process of
creation itself is the only eternal thing.
In response, however, the “no camp” hold that one must either answer “yes” or “no” to the
following question: “was there ever a point in which God existed without creation alongside Him?”
If the answer is no, then the notion of infinite regression is negated. If the answer is yes, then the
notion that something other than God creatures being eternal is, by necessity, at the very least
possible.
Another theological objection that the “no camp” has is that to say that God must be creating from
eternity or displaying His Mercy from eternity makes Him dependent upon His creation. However,
the “yes camp” would argue back noting that the statement can be phrased in a different manner.
The wording “God needs creation, hence He creates” is inherently flawed, and instead, one should
phrase it by saying “God’s Perfection by necessity demands that He creates, hence this is why
there is creation at all times”. The “no camp” would rebut once agian, arguing that this is only a
clever linguistic tactic, which does not address the substantial behind point behind the argument
itself.42
Conclusion
The debate on this deeply philosophical and theological subject will not be settled anytime soon.
Nevertheless, the main purpose of this paper was to bring to light, and refute, the following two
misconceptions surrounding this debate:
1) All Atharīs believe that an infinite series of events in the past either happened or is possible
2) There are no scriptural and theological arguments in favor of the “no camp” position.
For example, instead of saying, “Human beings need food”, one could rephrase this and say: “Human beings by
their nature eat, and as a result they consume food.” Similarly, to say that God by His nature must forgive, create, and
so on, does not change the fact that God depends upon the existence of sinners and creatures in order to exert these
attributes.
42
Bibliography
āl al-Shaykh, S. 2011. Sharḥ al-‘Aqīdah at-Ṭaḥāwīyah. Al-Manṣūrah: Dār Elmawada
‘Abdullah
b.
Jibrīn,
Sharh
http://islamport.com/l/aqd/610/145.htm
al-‘Aqīdah
at-Ṭahāwīyah.
Available
from:
Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī, Al-Farq Bayn al-Furaq, al-Khisht, M. ed., Cairo, Maktabat Ibn Sīna
Abi ‘Abdullah al-Qurṭubī. 2006. Al-Jāmi’ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, at-Turkī, A. ed., Beirut, 1st edition,
Ar-Risāla Publications
Abi al-Hassan al-Māwardī, an-Nukat wal-‘Uyūn, ed. as-Sayyid b. ‘Abdur Rahīm ed., Beirut, Dār
al-Kutub al-‘Ilmīyah
Abu Bakr Muḥammad b. Khuzayma. 1988. at-Tawhīd wa Ithbāt Ṣifāt ar-Rabb ‘Azza wa-jall, alShahwān, A. ed. Riyadh, 1st edition, Maktabat ar-Rushd
Abul-Hassan al-Ash’arī, 1st edition. al-Ibānah ‘an Usūl ad-Diyānah, Beirut, Dār ibn Zaydūn
Publishing
Abul-Ḥassan al-Ash’arī. 1992. Risāla ila Ahl ath-Thagr, al-Junaidī, A. ed. Madinah
Abul Qāsim Ismā’īl al-Aṣbahānī. 1999. al-Ḥujjah fi Bayān al-Maḥajjah, al-Madkhalī, M. ed.,
Riyadh
Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. 2002. ar-Radd ‘ala al-Jahmīyyah wal-Zanādiqa, Shāhīn, Riyadh, 1st edition, S.
Dār ath-Thabāt Publishers
Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad at-Ṭaḥāwī. 1994. Sharḥ al-‘Aqīdah at-Ṭaḥāwīyah, Al-Albāni ed., M.,
8th edition, Maktab al-Islāmī
Al-‘Izz b. ‘Abdus-Salām. 1996. Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān, al-Wuhaibi, A. ed., Beirut, Dār ibn Ḥazm
Burhān ud-Dīn al-Biqā’ī. 1992. Naẓm ad-Durar fī tanāsub al-āyāt wal-Suwar, Cairo, Dār al-Kitāb
al-Islāmī
Ibn 'Aṭīyah. 2002. Al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz fi tafsīr al-Kitāb al-'Azīz, Dār ibn Ḥazm
Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī. 2001. Fatḥul Bārī, Shaibah, A. ed., Riyadh
Ibn Ḥazm. 1997. Marātib al-Ijmā’, Isīr, A.H. ed., Beirut, 1st edition, Dār Ibn Ḥazm
Ibn Jarīr at-Ṭabarī. 1967. Tārīkh at-Ṭabarī, Ibrahim, M. ed., 2nd edition, Dār al-Ma’ārif
––––––––––––––––. 2001. Jāmi’ al-Bayān ‘an Ta’wīl al-Qur’ān, at-Turkī, A. ed., Cairo, Hijr
Publishing
Ibnul Qayyim al-Jawzīyah. 1978. ash-Shifā’ al-‘Alīl, al-Ḥalabī, M. ed., Beirut, Dār al-Fikr
Ibn Taymīyyah. 1985. as-Ṣafaḍīyah, Sālim, M. ed.
–––––––––––––. 1991. Dar’ Ta’āruḍ al-‘Aql wal-Naql, Sālim, M. ed. 2nd Edition
–––––––––––––. 2005. Majmu’ al-Fātawá, al-Bāz A. & al-Jazār, A. ed., 3rd edition, Dār al-Wafāa’
Publishing
Ibrāhīm al-Breikān. 2004. al-Qawā’id al-Kullīyah lil-Asmaa’ was-Sifāt ‘ind as-Salaf, Riyadh,
1st edition, Dār Ibnul Qayyim
Jon Hoover. 2004. Perpetual creativity in the perfection of God: Ibn Taymiyya's Ḥadīth
commentary on God's creation of this world. Journal of Islamic Studies, 15(3)
Kāmila Al-Kuwayrih. 2001. Qidam al-‘Ālam wa-Tasalsul al-Ḥawādith, Amman, Dār Osamah
Book Publishing
Laṭf Allāh Khowjah. 2007. Naqd ibn Taymīyyah li-Ārā’ al-Falāsifa wal-Mutakallimīn fi Qidam
al-‘ālam, Majallat Jāmi’at Umm al-Qurá li-‘ulūm al-Sharī’ah wal-lughatil-‘Arabiyah, 19(43)
Muḥammad al-Ḥussain al-Baghawī. 2002. Ma'ālim at-Tanzīl, Dār Ibn Ḥazm
Muḥammad Ibn Abī Shaybah. 1997. Kitāb al-‘Arsh, at-Tamīmī, M. ed., Riyadh, 1st edition, alRushd Publications
Muḥammad b. Ḥussain al-Ajurrī. 1997. Kitāb al-Sharī’ah, ad-Dumaijī, A. ed., Riyadh, 1st edition,
Dār al-Waṭan
Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Bukhārī, Khalq Af’āl al-‘Ibād, ‘Umayra, A. ed. Riyadh, 2nd edition, Dār
‘Okāẓ
Shādī No’mān [no date], Mawsu’at al-Albānī fī al-‘Aqīdah, [Online]. Available from:
http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-36190/page-3355.
‘Ubaydullah b. Muḥammad b. Baṭah. 1994. al-Ibānah ‘an Sharī’at al-Firqa an-Nājīyah, al-Wābil,
Y. ed., Riyadh, 1st edition, Dār ar-Rāyah
Uthmān b. Sa’īd ad-Dārimī. 1999. ar-Radd ‘ala al-Marrīsī, as-Samārī, Riyadh, 1st edition,
Maktabat Aḍwā’ as-Salaf