and they do not apply the term muḥdath to anything unless it truly fits that description.

Accordingly, all of them maintain that whoever says, “It is muḥdath,” (in effect) means, “It is created,” and is therefore bound to affirm that it is created.

This (1) is one of the two grounds on which Dāwūd al-Aṣbahānī and others who declared, “It is muḥdath,” (2) and did so without qualification, were censured. Although Dāwūd, Abū Muʿādh, and the rest did not intend by the expression “muḥdath” that it is separate from Allah—as is intended by those who say, “It is created”—the doctrine of Dāwūd and those like him who say, “It is muḥdath but not created,” (3) while affirming the attributes, is that Allah Himself spoke it, that it subsists in Him, (4) and that it is not a created entity independent of Him.

Perhaps this (5) is what lay behind Dāwūd’s request to ʿAbd Allāh: “I would like you to excuse me before him and tell him, ‘This is not my position,’ or, ‘It is not as you have been told.’” He may have meant, “I do not say it is muḥdath in the sense they have understood and conveyed—namely, that it is created—and that is not my school.”

Aḥmad, however, did not accept his plea, for the wording itself is objectionable; even had he explained it as we have just related, (6) it would still have been unacceptable. Moreover, he denied the statement altogether, refusing to acknowledge the very phrase he had uttered, even though witnesses testified to it; once such testimony had been produced, his denial could no longer be accepted.

In addition, together with this innovation he displayed another: permitting taḥlīl (7)—the so-called “halala” arrangement—which was his doctrine; and the scholars of hadith were not