Talk:Quranic createdness

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment posted at Wikiproject Islam[edit]

My comment on this page is just that I find the section on "The significance of hadith" full of sentences that are so cumbersome as to have their meaning obfuscated. This means that the section leaves the reader wondering whether hadith are considered valid or not in supporting one view or the other of the Qur'an. Maybe just some punctuation is missing. I found these two especially difficult to follow:
"Where the Qur’an is understood as the word of God, and the words and example of the Prophet transmitted through hadith also attain to divine significance, if the Qur’an cannot be taken to assert its own createdness, for the doctrine of createdness to be true the traditions would have to support it. Indeed, to admit the insufficiency of the hadith corpus to adjudicate what with the institution of the mihna becomes such a visible dispute would necessarily marginalize the authority of traditions."
I mean no disrespect to the section author, but could someone have a look at this?Minissa (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to centralize the discussion here where it is more relevant. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

Hey all, this statement doesnt make sense:

"The Muʿtazilites and the Jahmites negated all attributes of God, thus believed that God could not speak, hence the Quran was not the literal word of God, but instead a complete metaphor of his will."

Is this trying to say that the quran is completely metaphorical by their standards, meaning the contents within it are metaphorical, or is that it being the word of god is metaphorical, meaning the contents within it are still literal, I think this needs clarification.

I think the source you cited would agree with the latter definition I said: "Most early Muslim references state that the first person to begin questioning the nature of God’s Attributes was a certain enigmatic Jaʿd b. Dirham (d.cir. 110/728). If these early sources are to be trusted, we learn that Jaʿd claimed, inter alia, that God could not ‘love’ Abraham nor did He ‘speak’ to Moses. Based on his denial of God’s ability to speak, he argued that the Qurʾān must actually be God’s speech in a metaphorical manner, and not actually God’s speech" HudroBox (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]