(1) Ibn al-Hajjāj was the lewd poet Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad ibn al-Hajjāj, whose verse was chiefly licentious and infamous; he became proverbial in that regard. He died in 391 AH. See: al-Khaṭīb, Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 4, p. 8; al-Tha‘ālibī, Yatīmat al-Dahr, vol. 3, pp. 35–125. (2) Sūrah al-Wāqi‘ah, verses 75–78. (3) Imām Abū Naṣr al-Sajzī, in his book al-Radd ‘alā man ankara al-ḥarf wa-al-ṣawt (pp. 81–82), explains why Ibn Kilāb’s followers and the Ash‘arīs were called “Kalabiyya.” He writes: “There is a unanimous consensus among the rational (mu‘taqila) that speech (kalām) consists of letters (hurūf) and sounds (aswāt). When Ibn Kilāb and his adherents rose and tried to refute the Mu‘tazilites by pure reason alone—neglecting the principles of the Sunnah, the practice of the Salaf, and transmitted reports (akhbār), which they dismissed as isolated (ahād) and therefore not definitive— the Mu‘tazilites compelled them to acknowledge the consensus that speech necessarily involves succession (ta‘āqud) and composition (ta’alluf), properties found only in what experiences movement (ḥaraka) and stillness (sukūn). Consequently, speech must have parts and phases, attributes unsuited to God’s Essence, which cannot be described by conjunction and separation, totality and partiality, movement and rest; the ruling for an essential attribute is identical to that for the Essence itself. “They concluded that the speech attributed to God is a created entity, produced and added to Him—just as one says ‘ʿAbd Allāh’ (servant of God), khalq Allāh (creation of God), or fi‘l Allāh (action of God).” Al-Sajzī adds that Ibn Kilāb and his followers, lacking knowledge of the Prophetic sunnan and relying solely on reason, found themselves unable to meet this requirement. They adopted the Mu‘tazilite position, denied sensory evidence, violated the consensus held by all—Muslims and non-Muslims alike—and told the Mu‘tazilites: “What you have stated is not reality…”