mutazila 466

grammar and the qur
n), the question Mutazila

of the permissibility of adding diacritical
points (naqa
a) and vowels (shakala) to the A religious movement in early Islam, the
muaf was already being discussed by Mutazila became the dominant theologi-
scholars during the first half of the cal school in the third⁄ninth and fourth⁄
second⁄eighth century (see Ibn Wahb, tenth century (see theology and the
Jāmi, 26). qur
n). The movement was allegedly
founded by Wāil b. A ā
(d. 131⁄728-9)
Harald Motzki who was towards the end of his life joined
by Amr b. Ubayd (d. 143⁄760 or 144⁄761),
Bibliography a prominent disciple of al-
asan al-Barī
Primary: Abū Ubayd, Fa
āil, 152-6; Bukhārī, (d. 110⁄728). Most issues related to the
aī, 61:3; 66:2, 3; 65:9, 20; 93:37; Ibn Abī
Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Maāif, ed. A. Jeffery, Leiden
incubation phase of the movement as well
1937; Ibn
ajar, Fat al-bārī bi-shar aī al- as the original meaning of the term Muta-
Bukhārī, eds. A. b. A. Ibn Bāz and M.F. Abd al- zila — which has the sense of “those who
Bāqī, 16 vols., Beirut 1989; Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist; dissociate themselves, who keep themselves
Ibn Wahb, al-Jāmi. Die Koranwissenschaften, ed.
M. Muranyi, Wiesbaden 1992; Suyū ī, Itqān, i, apart” — remain enigmatic. Later sources
126-41; 154-60 (for further sources see Motzki, offer a number of different explanations,
Collection); Umar b. Shabba, Tarīkh al-Madīna sometimes blatantly tendentious. It was
al-munawwara, ed. F.M. Shaltūt, 4 vols., Jeddah
apparently Abū l-Hudhayl (d. ca. 227⁄841)
n.d., 991-1017.
Secondary: Burton, Collection; id., Muaf, in ei 2 , who first defined the five principles of the
vii, 668-9; P. Casanova, Muammad et la fin du Mutazila — the principle of God’s unity
monde, Paris 1911; P. Crone and M. Cook, Hagar- (tawīd, see god and his attributes),
ism. The making of the Islamic world, Cambridge
1977, esp. 3-9; Gh.Q.
amad, Rasm al-muaf, of God’s justice (adl, see justice and
Baghdad 1982; A. Jones, The Qur
ān — II, in injustice), of the promise and the threat
Beeston, chal , i, 235-9; A. Mingana, The trans- (al-wad wa-l-waīd, see reward and
mission of the urān, in Journal of the Manchester
punishment), of the intermediate state
Egyptian and Oriental Society 5 (1915-6), 25-47;
H. Motzki, The origins of Islamic jurisprudence. of the Muslim sinner (al-manzila bayn al-
Meccan fiqh before the classical schools, Leiden 2002; manzilatayn, see sin, major and minor)
id., The collection of the Qur
ān. A reconsidera- and the principle of enjoining what is
tion of western views in light of recent method-
ological developments, in Der Islam 78 (2001),
good and forbidding what is evil (al-amr
1-34; F. Schwally, Die Sammlung des Qorāns, bi-l-marūf wa-l-nahy an al-munkar, see good
in Nöldeke, gq , ii, 1-121; Wansbrough, qs ; A.T. and evil; virtues and vices, command-
Welch, al-ur
ān, in ei 2 , v, 404-9.
ing and forbidding) — as indispensable
to Mutazilī identity. Later authors differ-
entiate between two periods of Mutazil-
Mushrikūn see belief and unbelief; ism following the incubation phase. In the
polytheism and atheism early phase (ca. 200-35⁄815-50), when
Mutazilism was at the height of its politi-
Music see recitation of the qur
n; cal influence and public prestige, the repre-
reciters of the qur
n sentatives of the movement displayed great
diversity on the doctrinal level. In the sec-
Muslim see islam ond, scholastic phase Mutazilī thought
was systematized. Coherent theological
Mutawātir see textual criticism of frameworks were formulated by Abū
the qur
n l-Qāsim al-Kabī al-Balkhī (d. 319⁄913),
 467 mutazila

who was identified with Baghdād, and by was co-eternal with him. Among the
Abū Alī al-Jubbā
ī (d. 303⁄915), who was standard Mutazilī arguments was q 2:106,
identified with Bara; the latter was fol- which was also the qur
ānic basis for the
lowed by his son Abū Hāshim (d. 321⁄933), doctrine of abrogation (q.v.). The
the founder of the so-called Bahshamiyya centrality of this doctrine for the Mutazilīs
or Bahāshima. The last innovative school can be seen from the numerous titles of
within Mutazilism originated with Abū works on khalq al-Qurān listed by Ibn al-
l-
usayn al-Barī (d. 436⁄1044), who devel- Nadīm (fl. fourth⁄tenth cent.) in the section
oped independent theological views that of his Fihrist devoted to the Mutazila (Ibn
set him apart from the school of Abū al-Nadīm-Dodge, i, 388-9, 391, 393, 395,
Hāshim. Despite much criticism by the 396-7, 401, 412, 414-6, 418, 425, 429-30). It
Bahshamiyya and later heresiographers was basically this insistence of the Muta-
that he introduced philosophy (see zilīs — on the createdness of the Qur
ān,
philosophy and the qur
n) under the in the sense of its temporality, and their
cover of theology, Abū l-
usayn’s views accusation that the opponents, in fact, held
were successful to the extent that his to the eternity of the Qur
ān — which
school established itself side by side with provoked the traditionists to combine their
the Bahshamiyya. In some areas the denial of the createdness of the Qur
ān
Mutazila persisted until the Mongol inva- with the affirmation of its eternity or pre-
sion at the beginning of the seventh⁄ existence. This line of argumentation was
thirteenth century. Mutazilism was also first formulated by Amad b.
anbal
adopted by the Zaydiyya and the Twelver (d. 241⁄855). In the pre-mina period (see
Shīa (see shism and the qur
n) and inquisition), by contrast, the conflict over
determined their respective theological the nature of the Qur
ān was not con-
outlooks for centuries to come. cerned with the question of its temporality
versus its eternity. Rather, the discussion
The nature of the Qurān was whether God speaks in a literal sense,
Because of their uncompromising inter- i.e. whether the Qur
ān is the speech of
pretation of God’s unity (tawīd) as God, as the upholders of an anthropo-
expressed in q 27:26, q 112, etc., the morphic concept of God held (see
Mutazilīs were strictly opposed to the anthropomorphism), or whether God
admission of anything co-eternal with God does not speak in a literal sense but rather
(see eternity). This applied first and creates the sound of speech which can be
foremost to God’s essential attributes, heard, as was the view attributed to Jahm
which must be identical with him and not b. afwān (d. 128⁄745). Both positions
different eternal attributes or entitative implied the temporality of the Qur
ān.
determinants. This also applied in their Another discussion on the nature of the
view to the Qur
ān — the speech of Qur
ān in the pre-mina phase associated
God (kalām Allāh, see word of god; with Abū
anīfa (d. 150⁄767) and Imām
speech) — that cannot possibly be co- Jafar al- ādiq (d. 148⁄765) revolved
eternal with God but was necessarily around the issue of whether the Qur
ān, in
created in time (see createdness of the accordance with the commonly accepted
qur
n). Thus they accused those denying dogma that everything besides God is cre-
that the Qur
ān had been created of ated, is also created (see creation).
asserting its eternity and of destroying Whereas Imām al- ādiq reportedly
God’s unity by claiming that something rejected this conclusion, arguing that the
 mutazila 468

Qur
ān is neither creator nor created, but miraculous inimitability of the Qur
ān
rather the speech of God, Abū
anīfa arises from its intrinsic quality, others
apparently accepted the argument and denied this and argued that it is due to
held that the Qur
ān indeed is created. God’s preventing humankind from match-
Again, those who denied the createdness ing it. The latter position was known as the
of the Qur
ān in this second discussion doctrine of prevention (arfa). The view
refrained from combining their view with that God deprived the people of the power
the notion of the uncreatedness or even to match the Qur
ān is usually ascribed to
eternity of the Qur
ān. It was therefore Abū Isāq al-Naām (d. around 221⁄836),
only after the mina and as an immediate who was apparently the first to consider
result of the Mutazilī argumentation on the Qur
ān a miracle. Another early repre-
this issue that the conflict turned on the sentative of the arfa doctrine was al-Jāi
question of the createdness of the Qur
ān, (d. 255⁄869), who also composed a book on
in the sense of its temporality, versus its the choice and arrangement of words in
uncreatedness in the sense of its eternity. A the Qur
ān (Kitāb fī l-itijāj li-nam al-
further difference to the pre-mina period Qurān), as did Ibn al-Ikhshīd (d. 326⁄937;
was that, unlike the Jahmiyya, the Muta- Kitāb Nam al-Qurān, see form and struc-
zilīs did not deny that God really speaks, ture of the qur
n; literary struc-
and they affirmed that the Qur
ān is in- tures of the qur
n; language and
deed the speech of God. The difference style of the qur
n). Al-Jāi’ contem-
between human and divine speech is that porary Abbād b. Sulaymān (d. ca. 250⁄
God, because of his omnipotence (see 864) and the latter’s teacher Hishām al-
power and impotence), does not need Fuwa ī (d. ca. 218⁄832) are reported to
instruments when he produces speech. It have still denied that the Qur
ān is to be
was only Muammar (d. 215⁄830) among considered as a miracle proving Muam-
the Mutazilīs who deviated from this view. mad’s prophetic mission, although both
According to him, God does not actually subscribed to the doctrine of arfa (van Ess,
speak nor does he have actual speech. He tg , iv, 7, 41, 609). The arfa-doctrine was
also maintained that the Qur
ān is brought held by most of the representatives of the
forth (mudath) — not truly created — by school of Baghdād. The majority of the
the substratum in which it inheres. For the later Baran Mutazilīs rejected the doc-
Qur
ān is an accident and God does not trine of prevention, arguing that the ini-
create accidents. mitability of the Qur
ān was based on the
The majority of the Mutazilīs, like al- rhetorical uniqueness of the book (q.v.) and
most all theological schools, considered the the excellence of its style (see rhetoric of
Qur
ān as the principal miracle confirming the qur
n). Abd al-Jabbār (d. 415⁄1025),
Muammad’s prophethood (see prophets for example, who devotes an entire volume
and prophethood; miracle). The proof of his Mughnī to the issue of ijāz, explains
of its miraculous character was human the miraculous inimitability of the Qur
ān
inability to match the Qur
ān despite the with its intrinsic stylistic excellence and its
challenge to do so (e.g. q 10:38; 11:13; eloquence ( faāa) and argues against the
52:33-4; also q 2:23-4; 17:88; see inimit- doctrine of prevention. The earliest Muta-
ability). They differed among themselves, zilī treatises on the issue of the miraculous
however, on the question of why those who inimitability of the Qur
ān were composed
were challenged were unable to match it. as early as the second half of the second⁄
While some Mutazilīs maintained that the eighth century by two students of al-
 469 mutazila

Jubbā
ī: Muammad Umar al-Bāhilī of which are lost (Ibn al-Nadīm-Dodge, i,

(d. 300⁄913) wrote a treatise entitled Kitāb 80, 391, 411). The latter-mentioned work
Ijāz al-Qurān; and Muammad b. Zayd al- was consulted by the Mutazilī Ibn al-
Wāsi ī (d. 306⁄918) wrote Kitāb Ijāz al- Khallāl when he composed his Radd alā
Qurān fī namihi wa-talīfihi. Neither of l-jabriyya al-qadariyya fī mā taallaqū bihi min
these is preserved. The earliest extant inde- mutashābih al-Qurān al-karīm during the
pendent Mutazilī treatise on this issue car- fourth⁄tenth century (van Ess, tg , vi, 288,
rying the word ijāz in its title was written no. 3). Ibn al-Nadīm further reports that
by Alī b. Īsā al-Rummānī (d. 384⁄994; Abū l-Hudhayl composed a book on
al-Nukat fī ijāz al-Qurān, in Rummānī Mutashābih al-Qurān (Ibn al-Nadīm-Dodge,
et al., Rasāil). i, 80; cf. also van Ess, tg , iii, 265 f.; v,
367-9, no. 55), traces of which are appar-
Qurānic exegesis ently preserved in Abd al-Jabbār’s Muta-
Among the extant Mutazilī commentaries shābih al-Qurān, in al-Fal b. al-
asan
on the Qur
ān, al-Zamakhsharī’s (d. 538⁄ al-abarsī’s (d. 548⁄1153) Majma al-bayān fī
1144) al-Kashshāf an aqāiq al-tanzīl is the tafsīr al-Qurān and Muammad b. al-
most renowned. Its popularity was
usayn al-Sharīf al-Raī’s (d. 406⁄1015)
grounded in its mostly philological char- aqāiq al-tawīl. Abū l-Hudhayl apparently
acter; by contrast, it rarely provides theo- defined in this work the criteria that need
logical argumentation, although to be applied in Qur
ān exegesis. On the
al-Zamakhsharī was familiar with the last issue of how knowledge can be gained
two school traditions within Mutazilism, from the Qur
ān, he addressed the ques-
the followers of Abū Hāshim al-Jubbā
ī tion whether passages of the Qur
ān that
and those of Abū l-
usayn al-Barī. Most are formulated in a general manner may
of the earlier Mutazilī commentaries, be restricted to a particular group of peo-
which were apparently much more repre- ple. The issue was raised by the Murji
īs,
sentative of the Mutazilī tendency, are who denied that qur
ānic verses that speak
lost. In some cases, only titles of works are about the fate of the unbelievers (see
preserved; for other commentaries, sub- belief and unbelief) and the eternal
stantial portions are preserved in the writ- punishment in hell (see hell and hell-
ings of later authors. According to Ibn fire) in a general manner are to be applied
al-Nadīm, irār b. Amr (d. 180⁄796?) to Muslims also. As a Mutazilī, Abū
composed two exegetical works, a com- l-Hudhayl believed in eternal punishment
mentary (tafsīr) and an interpretation for grave sinners and therefore argued that
(tawīl) of the Qur
ān (Ibn al-Nadīm- general qur
ānic statements are to be
Dodge, i, 416-7). It is not clear whether understood in a general manner as long as
these two titles refer to two different works there is no indication to the contrary. Abū
or to one and the same, nor whether the(se) Alī al-Jubbā
ī later on adopted and further
work(s) constituted complete Qur
ān com- elaborated Abū l-Hudhayl’s view, whereas
mentaries or only dealt with selected pas- his son Abū Hāshim took the opposite
sages. Among the Mutazilīs of the early view. During the second quarter of the
third⁄ninth century, Ibn al-Nadīm reports third⁄ninth century, Qāsim b. Khalīl al-
that Bishr b. al-Mutamir (d. 210⁄825-6) Dimashqī (al-Dimishqī), who, according to
composed a Kitāb Tawīl mutashābih al- al-Kabī, was a student of Abū l-Hudhayl,
Qurān, and Jafar b.
arb (d. 236⁄850) wrote a commentary of which no traces
authored a Kitāb Mutashābih al-Qurān, both are preserved (Ibn al-Nadīm-Dodge, i, 393;
 mutazila 470

van Ess, tg , iv, 236-7). Extensive systematic (d. 310⁄923) Jāmi al-bayān an tawīl āy al-
commentaries on the Qur
ān were com- Qurān, although the possibility that the lat-
posed by Abū Bakr al-Aamm (d. 201⁄816), ter was familiar with the work cannot be
Abū Alī al-Jubbā
ī (d. 303⁄915), Abū excluded, nor is there any mention of his
l-Qāsim al-Kabī al-Balkhī (d. 319⁄931) commentary in Abd al-Jabbār’s Kitāb
and by Abū Muslim Muammad b. Bar Mutashābih al-Qurān or in Abū Jafar al-
al-Ifahānī (d. 322⁄934; cf. Ibn al-Nadīm- ūsī’s al-Tibyān. To judge from the pre-
Dodge, i, 76), whose Jāmi al-tawīl li- served fragments, al-Aamm endeavored to
mukam al-tanzīl (or Jāmi ilm al-Qurān) is develop a comprehensive qur
ānic theol-
reported to have consisted of 14 or 20 vol- ogy, dealt with the issue of abrogation, and
umes, or even more (Sezgin, gas , i, 42-3; formulated an original view on the distinc-
Kohlberg, Medieval Muslim, 203-4, no. 231). tion of clear (mukamāt) and ambiguous
Although, again, none of these tafsīr works (q.v.) verses (mutashābihāt), both of which
is preserved, ample quotations from them can be grasped rationally; the only differ-
survive in the extant works of later au- ence is that in the latter case deeper reflec-
thors, such as al-Tafsīr al-kabīr of Fakhr tion is called for. Quotations from the
al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606⁄1210), the Imāmī multi-volume commentary of al-Kabī are
exegetical works of Abū Jafar al-ūsī preserved in the Amālī of al-Sharīf al-
(d. 459⁄1067; al-Tibyān fī tafsīr al-Qurān) Murtaā (d. 436⁄1044) and possibly in the
and of al-abrisī (Majma al-bayān) and, Kitāb al-Tawīd of al-Māturīdī (d. 333⁄944).
most importantly, al-
ākim al-Jushamī’s In particular, later commentaries preserve
(d. 494⁄1101) al-Tahdhīb. Al-Aamm appar- ample quotations and paraphrases of Abū
ently dealt in his commentary on the Alī al-Jubbā
ī’s exegesis; this is especially
Qur
ān with historical and philological true of al-Tibyān of Abū Jafar al-ūsī and
issues as well as with doctrinal matters (van Majma al-bayān of Abū Alī al-abrisī
Ess, tg , ii, 403-7; v, 198-202 [texts nos. among the Imāmīs, of al-Tafsīr al-kabīr of
15-21]). The work was consulted by Abū Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and, most signifi-
Alī al-Jubbā
ī and fragments of it are pre- cantly, of al-Tahdhīb fī l-tafsīr of the
served in Abū Manūr al-Māturīdī’s Mutazilī, later Zaydī, scholar al-
ākim
(d. 333⁄944) Tawīlāt ahl al-sunna, in Amad al-Jushamī, which still awaits critical
b. Muammad al-Thalabī’s (d. 427⁄ editing. On the basis of this material,
1035-6) al-Kashf wa-l-bayān fī tafsīr al- Daniel Gimaret ( Jubbāī) and Rosalind
Qurān and particularly in al-Tahdhīb fī W. Gwynne (The “Tafsir”) have tried to
l-tafsīr of al-
ākim al-Jushamī (d. 484⁄ reconstruct Abū Alī’s commentary.
1091); the latter usually gives al-Aamm’s Against the exegeses of Abū Alī al-Jubbā
ī
view together with those of Abū Alī al- and Abū l-Qāsim al-Kabī, Abū l-
asan
Jubbā
ī and Abū Muslim al-Ifahānī. Al- al-Asharī (d. 324⁄935) wrote his Tafsīr al-
Aamm’s commentary is also often quoted Qurān wa-l-radd alā man khālafa l-bayān min
by Abū l-Futū al-Rāzī (first half sixth⁄ ahl al-ifk wa-l-buhtān wa-naqd mā arrafahu
twelfth century), by his contemporary al- l-Jubbāī wa-l-Balkhī fī talīfihimā (Sezgin,
abarsī and later on by Fakhr al-Dīn al- gas , i, 604 no. 10), of which only the
Rāzī, although it may be assumed that introduction (muqaddima) and fragments
those later authors received al-Aamm’s are preserved.
commentary through intermediary Of the apparently very large commen-
sources. No mention of al-Aamm’s Tafsīr tary, al-Jāmi fī ilm (or tafsīr) al-Qurān, of
is to be found, by contrast, in al-abarī’s Alī b. Īsā al-Rummānī (d. 384⁄994), a fol-
 471 mysterious letters

lower of the school of Ibn Ikhshīd, who Ibyārī, Cairo 1380⁄1961; vol. xvi, Ijāz al-Qurān,
himself had abridged the commentary of ed. A. al-Khūlī, Cairo 1380⁄1960; id., Mutashābih;
Gimaret, Jubbāī; Ibn al-Nadīm-Dodge; Rum-
al-abarī (Ibn al-Nadīm-Dodge, i, 76), mānī et al., Rasāil.
only a small portion is extant in manu- Secondary: M. Bernard, La méthode d’exégèse
script (Sezgin, gas , viii, 112-3). It was coranique de Abd al-Ǧabbār à travers son
highly regarded by later authors and has Mutašābih, in Mélanges de l’Univeristé St.-Joseph
50 (1989), 87-100; I.J. Boullata, The rhetorical
been used extensively by al-ūsī in his interpretation of the Qur
ān. Ijāz and related
Tibyān, the latter being, according to topics, in Rippin, Approaches, 139-57; J. Bouman,
Daniel Gimaret, “un plagiat pur et simple Le conflict autour du Coran et la solution d’al-Bāqillānī,
Amsterdam 1959; id., The doctrine of Abd al-
de celui de Alī b. Īsā ar-Rummānī”
Djabbār on the Qur
ān as the created word of
(Gimaret, Jubbāī, 23). A contemporary of Allāh, in Th.P. van Baaren (ed.), Verbum. Essays on
al-Rummānī, Abū Alī al-Fārisī (d. 377⁄ some aspects of the religious function of words, dedicated
987), composed a work entitled Kitāb al- to Hendrik Willem Obbink, Utrecht 1964, 67-86;
J. van Ess, Mutazilah, in er , x, 220-9; id., tg ;
Tatabbu li-kalām Abī Alī al-Jubbāī fī l-tafsīr, Goldziher, Richtungen, 99 f.; R. Ward Gwynne,
which is lost (Sezgin, gas , viii, 110). Also The “Tafsir” of Abu Ali al-Jubbai. First steps
lost is a work of Amad b. Muammad toward a reconstruction, with texts, translations, bio-
al-Khallāl al-Barī (alive in 377⁄987) enti-
graphical introduction and analytical essay, Ph.D. diss.,
U. Washington 1982; M.S. al-Juwaynī, Manhaj
tled Mutashābih al-Qurān, excerpts of which al-Zamakhsharī fī tafsīr al-Qurān, Cairo 1968;
are preserved in writings of Ibn āwūs E. Kohlberg, A medieval Muslim scholar at work. Ibn
(d. 664⁄1266) (Kohlberg, Medieval Muslim, āwūs and his library, Leiden 1992; W. Madelung,
Imāmism and Mutazilite theology, in T. Fahd
292-3, no. 457). Various exegetical works (ed.), Le Shīisme imamite, Paris 1970, 13-30; id.,
authored by representatives of the Bah- The origins of the controversy concerning the
shamiyya, notably of Abd al-Jabbār, are creation of the Koran, in J.M. Barral (ed.),
Orientalia hispanica sive studia F.M. Pareja, vol. i⁄1,
extant; to these belong his Tanzīh al-Qurān
Leiden 1974, 504-25; A.A. Makram, Tafsīr al-
an al-ma
āin, which was published twice Kashshāf li-l-Zamakhsharī, in al-Fikr al-islāmī
before the discovery of its author’s summa 1⁄4 ([Beirut] 1970), 73 f.; R.C. Martin, A Muta-
theologica during the 1950s in Yemen (Cairo zilite treatise on prophethood and miracles being probably
the Bāb alā l-nubuwwah from the Ziyādāt al-shar
1326, 1329) and his Mutashābih al-Qurān by Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī, Ph.D. diss., New York
which is concerned with the ambiguous 1975; id., The role of the Basrah Mutazilah in
verses, i.e., those that apparently convey formulating the doctrine of the apologetic
meanings incongruent with Mutazilī posi- miracle, in jnes 39 (1980), 175-89; U. Rudolph,
Al-Māturīdī und die sunnitische Theologie in Samar-
tions. By contrast, Abd al-Jabbār’s most kand, Leiden 1997; Sezgin, gas ; M. Siddiqi, Some
extensive commentary, apparently entitled aspects of the Mutazilī interpretation of the
al-Muī
, seems to be lost. The most signifi- Qur
ān, in Islamic studies 2 (1963), 95-120; W.M.
Watt, Early discussions about the Qur
ān, in mw
cant Mutazilī work of exegesis after Abd
40 (1950), 27-40, 96-105; B.G. Weiss, Medieval
al-Jabbār was al-Tahdhīb fī l-tafsīr of al- Muslim discussions of the origin of language, in

ākim al-Jushamī, a student of Abū zdmg 124 (1974), 33-41.

āmid Amad b. Muammad b. Isāq
al-Najjār (d. 433⁄1041), who in turn was a
student of Abd al-Jabbār. Mysterious Letters

Sabine Schmidtke The alphabetic characters of the Arabic

language (q.v.) that appear in non-verbal
Bibliography combinations at the beginning of certain
Primary: Abd al-Jabbār, al-Mughnī fī abwāb al- sūras (q.v.) of the Qur
ān, just after the
tawīd wa-l-adl, vol. vii, Khalq al-Qurān, ed. I. al-
basmala (q.v.). The gift of “letters” came to