In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The controversy between Islamic theologians and Islamic philosophers is presented in this work as consisting of two major parts. The present chapter covers the first part while the next chapter, which deals with the controversy between Ibn Rushd and Ghazål•, covers the second part. The problem singled out as central in the debate is the problem of the creation of the world, which is the problem of the relationship between God and the world. The general trend of the discussion will be toward revealing the creative tension in the positions of the parties involved in the debate and preparing the stage for the sort of resolution of the tension proposed by Ibn al->Arab• through his unique concept of the Limit (barzakh). Creation ex nihilo in the Qur’ån Richard Netton counts the capacity to create ex nihilo among the four basic characteristics ascribed to the Creator in the Qur’ån.1 According to the Qur’ånic “Creator Paradigm,” God is a being who (1) creates ex nihilo, (2) intervenes in historical events, (3) guides his people, and (4) can be known through his creation. Netton believes that despite the wide range of the exegesis of Scriptures, the majority of the interpreters of the Qur’ån agreed upon these characteristics.2 The commentators on the Qur’ån in general insist that creation ex nihilo is a Qur’ånic doctrine. To support this view, Bay∂åw• (d. 1286) cites Q 40:57, which asserts that creating the heavens and the earth is greater than creating man. This is so, according to Bay∂åw•, because God made man from a previously existing material, while the heavens and the earth he created out of nothing.3 CHAPTER 2 ♦ Creation ex nihilo, Creation in Time, and Eternal Creation: Ibn S•nå versus the Theologians This explanation seems to be inconsistent with other verses in the Qur’ån that depict the creation of the world from a preexistent matter. Wolfson mentions, for example, Q 41:11: “Then He applied Himself to the [creation of] heaven and it was smoke.” But he explains that according to Zamakhshar• (d. 1144), the preexistent smoke itself was created, for the smoke proceeded from the water under the throne of God and the throne of God is one of the things created before the heavens and the earth.4 Wolfson takes note of the passage in the Qur’ån that seems to imply that creation was ex nihilo, namely Q 52:35: “Where they created min ghayri shay’in?” The phrase min ghayri shay’in can be taken to mean “from nothing.” But, it can also be taken to mean “Were they created by nothing?” or “Were they created for no purpose?” Wolfson concludes by saying that the position of the Qur’ån on the nature of creation is vague.5 Several scholars have maintained the view that there is no decisive evidence in the Qur’ån in favor of creation ex nihilo. Oliver Leaman says that the language of the Qur’ån is not precise enough to come down clearly on one side or another with respect to the nature of creation, and that even texts which might seem to point in the direction of creation ex nihilo can easily be interpreted otherwise.6 Dominique Urvoy supports Roger Arnaldez’s statement that the idea of creation ex nihilo is not stated explicitly in the Qur’ån, and that it has to be projected on the Qur’ånic text in order for one to find it there.7 Similarly , David Burrell says that when scholars seek to remind us that the Scriptural texts should not be invoked in support of the notion of creation ex nihilo they are making a stand against reading later conceptual refinements into these texts.8 Ibn Rushd’s following words might be a suitable summary of the views of the above-mentioned scholars: It will be evident from the verses which give us information about the bringing into existence of the world that its form really is originated, but that being itself and time extend continuously at both extremes, i.e. without interruption. Thus the words of God the Exalted, “He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His throne was on the water,” taken in their apparent meaning imply that there was a being before this present being, namely the throne and the water, and a time before this time. . . . Thus the theologians too in their statements...

Share