By Ali Shukri Amin. I first wrote this as comments on r/AcademicQuran, in the thread “What does it means on the Quran being created or uncreated and why is it such a big deal on Islamic discourse?”, copied here as written.
First comment
The createdness of the Quran is a debate that seemingly stems entirely from within the Islamic intellectual tradition but as some scholars (Uthman Khan specific but Yasir Qadhi to a lesser extent) have argued, the philosophical discussions of late antiquity Christians especially in Syria seem to have bearing on the origination & development of the debate.
Mu’tazilism was the first formal Islamic theological school, as the Oxford Handbook to Islamic theology indicates. The question becomes, then: what was Mutazilism formed as a response to?
The uncreatedness of the Logos is a key doctrine in some Christian denominations,
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
It should be noted that Jahm bin Safwan & Ja’d bin Dirham were essentially contemporaneous with Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the father of Christian apophatic theology.
In the first few centuries of Christian-Muslim discourses, Muslims had no formal responses to the philosophical critiques of Christians. Jahm was the first to attempt a philosophical reformation of Islamic creed, but no work survives him. From what we know, from his detractors, he did not limit himself to the constraints of the Quran.
Mu’tazilism conceived of Allah as not having literal Attributes and His Names being metaphorical (the Asma wa Sifat controversy). This seems to be in direct response to the assertion that God can be partite (the view Christians are accused of). Furthermore, if the Quran can be the uncreated Word of God, why can’t the Logos?
If the physical mus’haf is either uncreated or contains something uncreated, then why can Jesus not be the physical manifestation of the Logos?
Later on, these debates became less of an interfaith defense system and more of a uniquely Islamic controversy. Kalam itself became less and less interested with defending Islam from Christians and Jews, and more with defending it from rationalists, philosophers, and doubters.
Within the Islamic tradition, the createdness of the Quran has huge theological & legal ramifications. If the Qur’an is created, can’t it’s laws be rendered out of date? This was exactly an argument levied by the Abbasid caliphs for changing some of the Shar’i rules. If the Quran is created, why is it mankind cannot create something like it? Is it possible that man has the aptitude but God directly intervenes when we attempt?
If the Quran is created, do the Ayat come from Allah or are they just inspired to Muhammad?
What exactly is uncreated? Is the recitation of human beings uncreated? Are physical masahif uncreated? Are the combinations of letters and words in that specific order uncreated? Or is the meaning uncreated?
If the Quran is uncreated are the Ahruf uncreated? What about the Qira’at? What actually constitutes the Quran that comes from Allah?
The practical consequence of these questions was severe enough to launch the Mihna (inquisition) spanning the entire Islamic empire. It can be argued that Sunnism took on its unique identity in response to Mutazilism. Centuries of scholarship, until this day, have been dedicated to this issue. It is without exaggeration to say hundreds of people died because of the khalq al-Quran controversy, thousands boycotted, imprisoned, or exiled, and millions of people have debated it over the centuries.
The createdness of the Quran is a bulwark issue that Sunnis have used for centuries to determine whether or not someone is even eligible to be a Muslim. Across all Sunni theological schools, anyone who holds that the Quran is created is a disbeliever, and most hold that being unsure also constitutes disbelief. This is despite Mutazili theological treatises still being taught in Shi’i seminaries till this day.
Posted October 11, 2026. Read it on Reddit.
Follow-up comment
The influence of the “Greek” philosophers, i.e. the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition, on Kalam has long been derided by Atharis/Hanbalites. I don’t think the Atharis understood exactly how much of it was actually Christian philosophy/theology as opposed to Greek philosophy directly, and a lot of that is because of the Ashari incorporation of Greek formal logic and the Falasifa going back to Plato, Aristotle, etc.
At a certain point, the historical connection between Kalām responding to the combination of Christianity & Greek philosophy was forgotten and became Kalām responding to agnostic/atheistic rationalism inspired by philosophy.
Posted October 12, 2026. Read it on Reddit.
Find me on Reddit, YouTube and Linktree; more of my work is on my portfolio, alishukriamin.com.