That, exactly, is what he said—adding other remarks to the same effect.

I became angry (1) and said, “You are mistaken; this is a lie that runs counter to the consensus. You have shown neither good manners nor virtue: you have not addressed me with proper decorum, nor have you given a correct answer!

People (2) did not disagree over the question of kalām—whether the Qur’an is created—until the caliphate of al-Maʾmūn and the period that followed, toward the end of the second century. The Muʿtazila, however, had appeared long before that, in the time of (3) ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd, after the death of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, at the very beginning of the second century. In those days they had not yet spoken about the issue of kalām, nor had they disputed over it; their first innovation lay in their discussion of the questions of names and rulings (4) and the divine threat of punishment.

He replied, “Al-Shahrastānī mentions this in his book Al-Milal wa’l-Nihal.”

I answered, “Al-Shahrastānī mentions that only to explain why those engaged in speculative theology were called mutakallimūn (5), whereas the emir’s question concerned the name Muʿtazila.”

Those present disapproved of his remark, and he conceded, “I was mistaken (6).”

In the course of what I said I added: “I know every innovation that has arisen in Islam, and the first…”