the Book and Sunnah?! This is precisely what we intended to refute, and it describes the followers of the author of al-Irshād who agreed with the Mu‘tazilah on this matter.

As for al-Rāzī and others like him, they went even further than the Mu‘tazilah in this regard. The Mu‘tazilah do not say that revealed proofs cannot yield certainty. Rather, they affirm that they yield certainty and rely on them far more than these people do.

Second:

The statements of Imam al-Shāfi‘ī, may Allah be pleased with him, and other imams like him included condemnation of the speculative theology of Hafs al-Fard and others concerning the Quran.

The argument on this matter rests on denying that acts subsist in Him. For the Mu‘tazilah say: “Speech necessarily involves an act dependent upon the speaker’s will and power. If speech subsisted in Him, acts would subsist in Him. Since these originate in time, He would then be a locus for temporally originated things, and the proof by which we established that the world originated in time would be invalidated.”

We have explained that al-Shāfi‘ī’s condemnation of the speculative theology of Hafs and others was not due to their denial of divine decree, for Hafs did not deny it. Rather, it was due to their denial of the divine attributes and acts, which was based on the argument from accidents.

Likewise, the statements of Imam Ahmad and other imams condemning speculative theology encompassed the speculative theology of the Jahmiyyah. The statements of Ahmad and others like him on this matter are numerous, clear, and well known, for his debates with the Jahmiyyah and his refutations of them are too well known and too numerous to