The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The Islamic ‘aqīdah (creed) is imān (positive belief) in Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers and the Day of Resurrection and in al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar, the favourable and unfavourable being from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. The meaning of imān is definitive confirmation [tasdeeq jazim] which conforms to the reality and results from evidence, because confirmation which has no evidence is not imān. There can be no definitive confirmation except on the basis of evidence. Thus if there is no evidence there can be no definitiveness [jazm]; it will be confirmation only of a report from amongst the reports, and will not be considered imān. Hence, confirmation on the basis of evidence is indispensable for something to be definitive, that is, for it to constitute imān. The presence of evidence is thus indispensable for everything all that seeks to be (a part of) imān, making the presence of evidence a foundational condition for imān, irrespective of it being sound or corrupt.

Evidence [dalīl] can be either rational [aqlī] or textual [naqlī: lit. transmitted]. What determines the nature of the evidence is the subject to be examined to confirm whether or not the Muslim should have imān in it. If the subject is sensorially perceivable by the senses, its evidence will definitely be rational and not textual. If it is not sensorially perceivable then its evidence will be textual. Since the textual evidence itself is established through the senses, i.e, that it is evidence, it too falls under sense-perception. Then the categorisation of evidence as a textual proof fit for imān is invariably dependent upon proving it as evidence through rational proof.

Upon examining the matters that the Islamic ‘aqīdah (creed) demands imān in, one finds that imān in Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, is achieved through rational proof, because its subject: the existence of a Creator for the tangible perceivable beings, is perceivable and accessible by the senses. As opposed to this, imān in the angels is achieved through textual proof because the existence of angels cannot be appreciated by the senses, neither the angels themselves nor anything that indicates their existence is sensorially perceivable. As for imān in the Books, they are examined: if what is meant is imān in the Qur’ān, then its evidence is rational because the Qur’ān is sensorially-perceivable as is its miraculousness [i’jāz], in all ages. If it is imān in the other Books such as the Taurāh, the Injīl and the Zabūr, then its evidence is textual because the fact that these Books are (revelation) from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is not perceiveable in all ages: it was only perceivable during the life of the Messengers to whom it was revealed, through the miracles they brought. These miracles terminated at the end of their time; i.e they are not (sensorially) perceivable after the time of those who accompanied them. Rather the report informing that they were from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and were revealed onto the Messengers was transmitted. So their evidence is textual and not rational because of the intellect’s inability to comprehend in all ages their miraculousness sensorially that they were the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ.

Imān in all of the Messengers is comparable to this: the evidence for the imān in the Messenger Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is rational because the fact that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and that it was conveyed to us by Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is accessible to the senses; thus one’s perception of the Qur’ān leads to the realisation that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. This is viable in all ages and for all generations. As for the Imān in all the other Prophets, its evidence is textual because the evidence of their prophethood are their miracles which are not perceivable to other than those who lived in their times. As for those who came after them until the present and until the establishment of the Hour, they cannot perceive those miracles and thus no sensorially-perceivable proof of their prophethood is available regarding them; thus the evidence of their prophethood is not rational but textual. The evidence of the prophethood of our Master Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, his miracle, is perceivable by and accessible to the senses: the Qur’ān; thus the evidence is rational. 14 The Islamic ‘Aqīdah As for the evidence for the Day of judgement, it is textual, because the Day of Resurrection is not sensorially perceivable. Nothing accessible to the senses indicates it; thus no rational proof is available for it, rather its proof is textual. As for al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar its evidence is rational because al-qadā’ is associated with two matters: first, that which is determined of the existing system and its evidence is rational since it is linked with the Creator, and the second matter being man’s action that originate from him or occur to him against his will. It is a thing accessible to the senses and is sensorially perceivable; thus its evidence is rational. Al-qadar is the attributes of things, activated by man, such as burning by fire and cutting of a knife. These attributes are accessible to the senses and are sensorially-perceivable. Thus the evidence of al-qadar is rational.

This has been regarding the type of evidence required for the Islamic ‘aqīdah (creed). As for the specific evidence for each element of the ‘aqīdah (creed), then the evidence for the existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is exhibited in everything. That sensorially-perceivable comprehensible things exist is a definite matter. That these things are dependent on things other than themselves is also a definite matter. Thus that they are created by a Creator is a definite matter since their being in need means that they are created: their neediness indicates to the existence of something before them; so they are not eternal [azalī]. It should not be said here that a thing is dependent on some other thing, not on a ‘non-thing’, therefore things are complementary to each other but in their totality they are independent; this should not be said because the subject of the evidence here is a specific thing such as a pen, a jug or a piece of paper etc; the evidence is intended to prove that this pen or jug or piece of paper is created by a Creator. It is clear that the thing as it is, is dependent on something other than itself, irrespective of that ‘other’ on which it depends. That this ‘other’ on which the thing depends is other than the thing is definite through sensorial observation. When a thing is dependent on some ‘other’, it is established as not eternal: thus it is created. Nor should it be said that a thing as it is, is matter and is dependent on matter, thus being dependent on itself and not on something other than itself, and thus (in reality) is independent. This should not be said because even if we concede that a thing is matter and depends on matter, this dependence by matter is dependence on something other than matter not dependence on matter itself. This is so because an entity of matter alone cannot complement the dependence of another entity of matter; rather something other than matter is needed for this dependence to be complemented, and thus matter is dependent on something else and not on itself. For example, water in order to transform into vapour needs heat. Even if we conceded that heat is matter and water is matter, the mere availability of heat is not adequate for water to transform; a specific amount of heat is needed for transformation to take place. So water is dependent on this specific amount of heat. The magnitude of this amount is imposed by other than the water and other than the heat, that is, by other than matter, and matter is compelled to behave according to it. Thus matter is dependent on that which determines the magnitude for it and so it is dependent on other than matter. Hence the dependence of matter on non-matter is a definite fact; thus matter is needy, being created by a Creator. Therefore all sensorially perceivable comprensible things are created by a Creator.

The Creator has to be eternal with no beginning, because if He were not eternal, He would be a creation not a Creator; thus being a Creator invariably requires being eternal. The Creator is necessarily eternal. Upon examining the things that might be considered as being the Creator, it is clear that the only beings which could possibly be the Creator are Matter, Nature or Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ.

As for matter being the Creator, then this is false because of what has been explained (above) that matter is dependent on the one who determines for it the proportions/magnitudes in order for the transformation of things to occur; hence it is not eternal and that which is not eternal cannot be a Creator. As for Nature being the Creator, then this too is false, because Nature is the collection of things and the system that regulates them such that every thing in the universe behaves in accordance with this system. The Islamic Personality Vol.1 15

This regulation does not come from the system alone, because without the things to be regulated there would be no system. Nor does it come from the things because the mere existence of things does not inevitably and spontaneously result in a system; nor does their existence cause them to be regulated without a regulator. Nor does it come from the sum of the things and the system, because regulation does not happen except in accordance with a specific situation that compels both the system and the things. This specific situation of the things and the system is what makes regulation possible. The specific situation is imposed on the things and the system and regulation can happen only in accordance with it. It does not come from the things or from the system or from the sum of the two; hence it comes from something other than them. Thus Nature, which cannot function except in accordance with a situation that is imposed on it, is dependent, and thus it is not eternal and that which is not eternal cannot be a Creator. We conclude then that the Creator is He who has a necessary attribute of being Eternal. He is Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ .

The existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ then is perceivable and comprehensible by way of the senses, because the dependence on the Eternal by the perceivable comprehensible things indicates the existence of the Creator. When man deeply reflects on the creatures of Allahالله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and examines closely the universe and attempts to comprehend time and place, he will see that he is a very minuscule particle in relation to these animated worlds. He will also see that these many worlds are all functioning in accordance with specific ways and established laws; from this he will fully realise the existence of this Creator and comprehend His Unity and His Grandeur and Capability shall be made plain to him. He will realise that all he witnesses of the contrast between day and night, of the change of the winds, the existence of the seas, rivers and celestial orbits, are nothing but rational proofs and expressive signs of the existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and of His Unity and Power. He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

And,

Thus it is the intellect which comprehends the existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and it is the means taken to arrive at imān. Hence Islam obligated the use of the intellect and deemed it the evidence [hakm] regarding imān in the existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. Thus the proof of the existence of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is rational.

As for those who advocate the timelessness [qadm] of the world and that it is eternal with no beginning, and those who claim that matter is eternal, having no beginning; they say that the 16 The Islamic ‘Aqīdah world is not dependent on other than itself but is self-sustained because all the things that exist in this world are (simply) different forms of matter; they are all matter. The dependence of some part of it upon another part is not (in reality) dependence. When something depends on itself this is not dependence but independence from other than itself. Thus matter is eternal, having no beginning, because it is self-sustained, that is, the world is eternal, self-sustained and independent of other than itself.

The answer to that is twofold: first, the things that exist in this world do not have the capability of creating or originating (anything) from nothing, whether individually or collectively; the ‘thing’ is incapable of creating or originating from nothing. If another thing complements it in one or more aspects, it will still be, together with the other thing or things, incapable of creating or originating. Its inability to create or originate from nothing is clearly perceivable. This means that it is not eternal, because an eternal (thing) must not be characterised with incapability; it must be characterised with ability to create and originate from nothing, that is, the effected things must depend on it in order for it to be deemed eternal. Consequently, the world is not eternal nor is it timeless because it is incapable of creating or originating. The inability of something to create from nothing is definite evidence that it is not eternal. Second, is what we have affirmed that a thing is dependent on a specific magnitude that it cannot surpass in the process of complementing the need of another. The explanation of this follows. If A is dependent on B and B is dependent on C and C is dependent on A and so forth, their dependence on one another is evidence that each one of them is not eternal; the complementing of one to the other or the satisfication of the need of another does not occur in an unregulated manner but in accordance with a specific proportion, that is, in accordance with a specific order. The fact that it cannot fulfill this complementation except in accordance with this order and that it is incapable of functioning against it indicates that the thing which complements does not complement solitarily but complements according to an order imposed on it and compelled to conform to it by other than itself. Thus the thing which complements and that which it complemented are both dependent on that which determined for them the specific order by which the complementation is to occur. Both of them are incapable of functioning against this order, nor can the satisfaction of the need occur except in accordance with this order. Hence, that which imposed the order on both of them is the one which they need. Thus things collectively, even though complementing each other, remain in need of other than themselves, that is, in need of that what compelled them to conform to the specific order. For example water in order for it to transform into ice, needs heat; so they say that water is matter, temperature is matter and ice is matter; thus in order for matter to transform into another form, it is in need of matter, that is, in need of itself and not other than itself; the reality is contrary to this. Indeed for water to transform into ice, it needs a heat of a specific temperature not simply heat. Heat is one thing and the property of water that it does not change except at a certain level of heat is another, being different from heat itself. That is, the magnitude (of required temperature) imposed on heat in order to effect and for water to be affected does not come from water; otherwise it would have chosen to be affected as it wanted. It does not come from temperature either; otherwise it would have chosen its effect as it wanted. That is, it does not come from matter itself; otherwise it would have chosen to effect and be affected as it wanted. It has to come from something other than matter. Hence, matter needs that which determines for it the specific magnitude that it needs in order to effect or be affected. That which determines the magnitude for it is one other than it. So matter is dependent on other than itself, thus it is not eternal because that which is eternal and timeless does not need anything other than itself: it is independent of others; all things depend on it. Therefore the lack of independence of matter is definite evidence that it is not eternal and it is thus created. The Islamic Personality Vol.1 17

One glance at the universe will make any human realise that the formation of things, whether they be of the type that occupy space or of the energy type, can only result from sensorially perceivable, comprehensible things and a specific order between these things in order for the formation to occur. There is no object in this world which was formed from nothing, nor is anything formed without being regulated by a specific magnitude [nasbah] and in conformity with it. That is, nothing in this world is formed out of nothing or without proportion, that is, without a specific order. Thus things that are formed and those that form in this world are not eternal or unending. As for the things which form then this is clear in that they are formed from sensorially perceivable comprehensible things and that in the process of being formed they were subject to a specific magnitide that was imposed on them. As for those things which are formed then this is clear in their inability to form from nothing and also in their submission against their will to a certain order that is imposed on them. This order does not come from them, otherwise they would be capable of departing from it and of not submitting to it; therefore it comes from other than them. Thus the inability of the sensorially perceivable comprehensible things in the world, that is, the inability of the world to form (create) from nothing and their submission to a specific order that comes from other than themselves is definite evidence that the world is not eternal or interminable but it is created by the Eternal and Timeless. As for those who say that creating is proportioning and conditioning and thus deny the existence of the Creator, (who creates) from nothing, then the meaning of this is that the sensorially perceivable, comprehensible things and the specific order that is imposed on them are the ones who create, because proportioning and conditioning cannot take place except in the presence of a tangible sensorially perceivable, comprehensible thing and a specific order that comes from someone other than this thing. This entails that creating comes from these two things: the sensorially perceivable, comprehensible things and the specific order, and thus they are the creators. This is what is entailed by the saying that creating is proportioning and conditioning; and it is definitely false. This is because the specific order does not come from the things or from itself, but it is imposed on the things by other than themselves, which is not sensorially perceivable. Thus it is clear that proportioning and conditioning is not creating, because it is not possible for formation to be completed/achieved solely by that: rather the existence of something which is not sensorially perceivable or tangible, which imposes a specific order for the sensorially perceivable, comprehensible things, is indispensable for creation to happen. From this it is apparent that proportioning and conditioning is not creation and that it is not possible for creation to take place with these only.

If the Creator did not create the sensorially perceivable, comprehensible (things) from nothing, he would not be the Creator, because he would be incapable of creating things on the basis of his will alone; he would rather be subject to requiring some thing with him with which he can form (things). He would thus be incapable and not eternal, because he is incapable of creating (things) by himself, rather is needy of external support: and the one who is incapable and who needs (something) is not eternal. In addition, as a matter-of-fact, the meaning of the ‘Creator’ is the one who creates (something) from nothing. The meaning of being a Creator is that things rely on him for their existence, and that He does not rely on anything. If he did not create things from nothing, or was incapable of creating when (other) things did not exist, he would be dependent on things in creating (things), then the things would not be solely dependent on him. This means that he is not the sole Creator and thus not a Creator (at all). So, a Creator must create things from nothing in order for him to be a Creator and has to be characterised with capability and will, independent of any thing; He should not depend on anything, and things should depend on him for their existence. Hence, for formation to be creation it must be formation from nothing, and for the one who forms to be a Creator, he must form from nothing.

18 The Islamic ‘Aqīdah As for the evidence of imān in the angels, it is textual; Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

And

And

And

Regarding the evidence of imān in the Books, the case of the Qur’ān is different from all other revealed Books. The evidence that the Qur’ān is (revealed) from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰand that it is the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ is a rational evidence. This is because the Qur’ān is a sensorially perceivable reality and the intellect can comprehend the fact that it is (revealed) from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. The Qur’ān is Arabic speech in its words and sentences. The Arabs did produce discourse. From it is poetry in its various types and from it is prose in its various types. Their discourse is preserved in books and had been memorised and transmitted from generation to generation. Thus the Qur’ān is either from their modes of expression, being uttered by an eloquent Arab, or it is from a different mode of expression, having being expressed by someone other than the Arabs. The Arabs are either capable of producing the like of it or are incapable of this despite the fact that it is an Arabic discourse. If the Arabs produced the like of it then they are capable of bringing the like of it and it would be the speech of humans like themselves. If they failed to produce the like of it despite the fact that it is an Arabic discourse and that they were the most well-versed in the Arab tongue and the most eloquent of the Arabs, it would not be the speech of humans. Upon examining the Qur’ān and the discourse of the Arabs, one finds the Qur’ān to be a unique mode of expression, unprecedented by anything the Arabs have said. They never produced anything that belonged to the category of the Qur’ān, neither before its revelation, nor after it, not even by way of imitation or parody of its style. This proves that it was not the Arabs who produced this discourse and thus it is the discourse of other than them. It has been established through concurrent transmission [tawātur] which bespeaks definiteness and certainty that the Arabs were incapable of producing the like of the Qur’ān although it challenged them to do so. The Qur’ān addressed them:

And

And

Despite this stark challenge they failed to produce the like of it. If it is proved that the Qur’ān was not produced by the Arabs and that the Arabs failed to produce the like of it, then the Qur’ān is proved to have come from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and that it is the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. This is because it is impossible for any one other than the Arabs to have produced it, because it is an Arabic discourse, and because it rendered the Arabs incapable (of matching it). It should not be said that it is the speech of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم since Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلمis one of the Arabs, and if the Arabs as a genius are proved incapable, then he صلى الله عليه وسلم himself is proved incapable because he is one of the Arabs. Moreover, everyone is subject to the mode of expression, with respect to words and sentences, prevailing in his age or by the discourse reported from those who came before him. When being creative in expression, he only uses words and expressions to convey novel meanings or in new figures of speech; it is not possible for him to express (the like of) what has not preceded him or he has never sensed. It is evident in the style of the Qur’ān that the expression in it with respect to the words and sentences was not known by the Arabs in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم nor before his time.

As a human being, it is impossible for him to have produced the like of something that he had not sensed, because this is a rational impossibility. It is impossible for the Qur’ānic mode of expression with respect to words and sentences to have been produced by Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم since he had not sensed it. Hence, the Qur’ān is the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ and Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم came with it from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. This was proved rationally when the Qur’ān was revealed and it is proved rationally now because it continues to render human beings incapable of bringing the like of it. This incapability is proved sensorially and is sensorially comprehensible for all mankind.

In conclusion, the only conceivable source of the Qur’ān is either the Arabs or Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم or Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, because the Qur’ān is wholly Arabic and thus could not have come from any other than these three. As for it being from the Arabs, than this is false because they were incapable of producing the like of it and they confessed their incapability in doing so. They have until this day continued to be incapable of producing the like of it; this proves that it did not come from the Arabs. Thus it is either from Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم or from Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ. As for it being from Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم than this is false because Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم himself is an Arab and whatever the height of his genius a person is, he can never surpass his age. Thus if the Arabs were incapable, then Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was incapable; he is one of them. Moreover, ahadīth with concurrent transmissions have been narrated from Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, for example his saying ,

If the speech of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is compared with the Qur’ān, no similarity whatsoever is seen between the two, proving that the Qur’ān is not the speech of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم; it is the speech of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ.

It is noteworthy that all poets, writers, philosophers and thinkers from the sons of man commence in a style that has some weakness; their style gradually improves until they reach the peak of their potential. Thus their style fluctuates in strength and weakness, apart from the occurrence of some frivolous thoughts and trite expressions in their texts. Yet we find that the style of the Qur’ān from the day of the revelation of the first ayah,

Until the day of the revelation of the last ayah,

was uniformly at its peak with respect to eloquence and rhetoric, sublimity of thoughts and the vigour of expressions. You will never find in it a single trite expression or one frivolous thought; it is one homogeneous piece, to the smallest detail; its entirety is, in respect of style, just like a single sentence. This is the proof that it is not the speech of human beings, whose speech is susceptible to divergence in expressions and meanings, but it is indeed the speech of the Lord of the Worlds الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ.

This is regarding the Qur’ān as one of the revealed Books in which Islam requires imān. The proof of the other revealed Books is textual, not rational; Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

And

And

And

And

With the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ a thing unfolds as it is; thus Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing will be before it is and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing was when it was and He الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ knows that a thing no longer is when it no longer is. So how does the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ change with the change in things? The knowledge that changes with the change of recent things is a recent knowledge and a recent thing does not lie in Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ because that with which the recent is associated is itself recent. Others amongst the Mutakallimin replied to this by saying: it is self-evident that our knowledge that Zayd will come to us is other than our knowledge that he has indeed come; this distinction is due to the renewal of the knowledge; but this is applicable to man because it is he whose knowledge is renewed because the source of his knowledge, sensation and comprehension, is renewed. But with Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ

And

As for the evidence for the imān in the Last Day - the Day of Resurrection – it is textual evidence and not rational evidence because the Day of Resurrection is not perceivable by the mind. Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

And

And

And

And

And the Messenger of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ said,

These are the matters that one must have imān in and they are five: imān in Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ , His Angels , His Books, His Messengers and the Last Day, and to have imān also in al-qadā' and al-qadar. None is deemed to have belief (imān) in Islam or to be a Muslim unless he has imān in all of these five matters and also in al-qadā’ and al-qadar. Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ says,

The Qur’ān and the hadīth mention these five matters explicitly, clearly naming each of them and the meaning of each. The explicit and definitive mention by name and with meaning of the referent of imān in any other matter is not found, as it is found for these matters. The texts which are definitive [qat'i] both in their transmission and in their indication are found with these five matters, and none else.

It is true that imān in al-qadar was mentioned in the hadīth of Jibrīl, in some narrations of it, where it says,

Moreover, what is intended here by ‘al-qadar’ is the knowledge of Allah الله سُبْحَانَهُۥ وَتَعَالَىٰ, not the controversial issue of al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar. The issue of imān in al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar by this name and with the referent that is a subject of controversy was never mentioned in a definitive text. Yet the referent of the term is part of the aqeedah (creed) and imān in it is obligatory. It was never known by this name and with this referent at the time of the Sahābah (Companions) رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ; no rigourously authenticated [sahīh] text mentions it by this name and with this referent. Rather it became famous only at the beginning of the era of the Tabi'īn. It became known and became a subject of discussion since that time. Those who introduced it and made it a subject of discussion are the Mutakallimūn [Muslim Scholastics]. It never existed before the emergence of ‘Ilm ul-Kalam [Islamic Scholasticism], and was never discussed under this name ‘al-qadā’ wa‘l-qadar’ and with the same referent except by the Mutakallimūn after the end of the first century Hijri.