The Qur'an and the Hadith, the Pen, and Recitation

One might ask why the Qur'an was not inspired like the hadith. Obviously the Qur'an was very special. It was the message of Allah to mankind in this present, pristine form, that was supposed to be applicable. Hadith are also applicable; but this was very special, special words that were from Allah (swt), a unifying factor of all of the Muslims, and it had to remain in that particular way.

The question would be better phrased the other way round: why were the hadith not directly articulated, directly inspired with wording as well? That would be a better question, because there is no real problem here. There is no reason why the question should actually arise of the Qur'an: why was the Qur'an not inspired just like hadith, leaving the Prophet (peace be upon him) to say it as he wished? That hardly seems a question at all. The question should rather be: why were the hadith not like that as well? That would have been a better question.

Another question is whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) was created before Ādam (peace be upon him), on the strength of a hadith in which Ādam (peace be upon him) opened his eyes and saw the Prophet's (peace be upon him) name on the Throne of Allah. It is hard to see how the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him) can be linked to his being created. Allah's knowledge encompasses all things. There is mention of his nūr being created, a special nūr, but not the physical body of the Prophet (peace be upon him), which was obviously created in his own time. But he was the Rasūl of Allah from before; and that is why this narration, which speaks of this, mentions lā ilāha illā Allāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu Allāh: the name of the Prophet of Allah. But it cannot be inferred from that that he was created in body, in a physical, biological body.

As for whether the pen was created first, or the human: the pen was created before the human being, as far as can be understood.

The kalām of Allah (swt) is His ṣifah, and therefore eternal; but the Qur'an is a transcription of this in a form of Arabic, with sounds and letters. So is what we recite a creation? Absolutely: it is creation, because in reciting we are bringing it into being. But it reflects the divine archetype, if we are reading it correctly.

Or do we say it is eternal, with reference to its origin, the eternal speech of Allah? Yes. In general, one says: this is the speech of Allah. One does not say eternal, or whatever: this is the speech of Allah. When one says the Qur'an is the speech of Allah, it is eternal: the Qur'an, the speech of Allah, is eternal. Saying "this is the speech of Allah, it's eternal" is not meant to insinuate that the reciter's own articulation is eternal. But no doubt, it is not a good idea to make this distinction all the time. The main thing is that we say the Qur'an is the speech of Allah, and it is eternal, and that we leave it like that in general, though we need to understand the difference.