Wahabi said: “If one were to call the arabic language created as it is the action and implementation of the ilm of Allah,
Comment: I do not know anyone who says this. No sect says that Aļļaah’s knowledge has actions. Very strange, it seems he is making up non-existing opponents in order to appear victorious. What is even stranger is the claim that the Arabic language is not created.
Wahabi said: then one must as well say that Allah’s act of creating Adam is as well created, and this is essentially absurd.”
Comments: How did he get to this conclusion. He is saying: “If the Arabic language is created then the act of creating Adam is also created.” This is pure nonsense, and I do not know quite how to respond. This is a serious case of jumping to conclusions.
Wahabi said: and “God created Adam.
Wahabi said: the product of the creation is haadith and therefore Adam is created.
Comment: It is a very strange to call “product of creation”, but it points out something important. This is the typical anthtopomorphist line of thinking. They are trying to understand the reality of Aļļaah’s attributes in light of what they see in creation. Therefore, according to them, Aļļaah’s creating is a production process. In the belief of Muslims, however, Aļļaah’s creating is an eternal act that is not in time and does not have a how. He is the creator of all work, processes, production and products. He brought everything emergent into existence. This is what we mean when we say that Aļļaah created everything.
Wahabi said: However, it is not only Adam that is haadith, it was also the action of creating him by God.
Comment: This is not correct. If you say it is haadith, i.e., it has a beginning, then it is brought into existence, and this means it is created.
Wahabi said: That action happened by God’s will who could have decided to create or not create. So, you will have to believe that not only Adam was created, but God’s action of creating Adam was also created and that is simply nonsense.
Comment: But this is what you are saying when you are saying that Aļļaah’s act of creating is emergent. You are saying that both came into existence after non-existence. This means that they were both brought into existence, and to bring into existence is to create.
Wahabi said: If you want to believe that Adam was created in eternity, then again you get an eternal Adam, and worse, the oxymoron pre eternal Iblis.”
Comment: Aļļaah willed eternally for Adam to exist at a certain time, and by His eternal and unchanging power this existence happened. What we call “act of creating” refers to this. It does not mean that the act is an event that takes place when Adam comes into existence. It is an act without a how, unlike our acts.
This must be true, because if Aļļaah’s creating was an event, then it would have come into existence after non-existence. This means it would have been brought into existence, i.e. created. If you say this then you need to say that this bringing into existence was either an event or not. If an event, then this event would also need another event to come into existence and so on. The result of this claim then is that for a created event to occur, you need an infinity of events in the past to first be completed, and this is impossible. The only solution is to say that there must be a bringing into existence that is not an event, not haadith.
Ahmad asked: How would one respond to these contentions? I’m starting to get the feel that people are using different definitions altogether when describing the same thing.
Comment: I hope you see that there is a huge diference. The Wahabis are only changing the words that they use to refer to the same thing. This does not solve the problem, as I have just pointed out. When we say that Adam is created, we mean that he was brought into existence. Then we say that the bringing into existence was not an event, not emergent, not haadith. Why? Because if it was, then it would have to be brought into existence, as it did not exist previously.
What the Wahabis do is to call one bringing into existence “creating” and the other one “bringing about,” or “willing,” or the like. They say, however, that these are all emergent, all events, so this is only a game with words, and it leads to saying that each and every creation needs infinitely many events to precede it to come into being. This is both silly and mathematically impossible. It is impossible because infinity cannot be completed, and if it cannot complete, then the proposed created event cannot exist. Since there are existing created things, however, we know that there must be a bringing into existence that is not emergent, not an event, not having a beginning, not haadith, not having come into existence after non-existence.
All of this above discussion would have been avoided by simply admitting that Aļļaah is eternal and does not change, and that He is not like His creation and cannot be imagined. His actions and attributes are neither created nor emergent, and He cannot be imagined.
The trick they use is to say that not everything emergent is created. “Rather,” they say, “it is brought about.” This is how they try to escape when told, “if you say it is emergent, then you are saying it is created.” This does not change anything in terms of meanings, however, and it is also a lie, because the definition of “create” is to bring into existence, as explained at this link. Not only that, but the Salaf was against saying that Aļļaah’s Speech is created, because it would mean that it is emergent! We have clarified that at this link, among other places.
It is they who make things complicated, and insist on trying to understand Aļļaah in human terms, and this is what made them fall into their snakepit of kufr and bidˆah. It is they who base their belief system on atheist principles, such as the idea that emergent things are not necessarily created.