The first person known for denying them was Abū al-Ma‘ālī al-Juwaynī. He denied the attributes reported in revelation. As for figuratively reinterpreting them, he did so in al-Irshād, but later, in al-Risālah al-Nizāmiyyah, he abandoned that approach and declared figurative reinterpretation forbidden.

He explained that the early generations unanimously forbade figurative reinterpretation, and cited their consensus as proof that it was forbidden—neither obligatory nor permissible. Thus, those who followed his approach denied the attributes reported in revelation, while holding two different positions concerning figurative reinterpretation. Al-Ash‘arī and the leading scholars among his followers, however, affirmed these attributes and refuted those who denied them or withheld judgment concerning them, let alone those who figuratively reinterpreted them.

[The Early Generations’ Views on Voluntary Acts Subsisting in Allah Most High]

As for the question of voluntary acts subsisting in Him, Ibn Kullāb, al-Ash‘arī, and others denied this. On that basis they built their position concerning the Quran. Because of this and other matters, scholars criticized them on this subject in ways well known from scholarly works, accusing them of innovation and of retaining traces of Mu‘tazilī doctrine. Disagreement over this became widespread among those who identified with the Sunnah, including Ahmad’s followers and others.

In his book al-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Bakr ‘Abd al-‘Azīz reported two positions held by Ahmad’s followers concerning what it means for the Quran to be uncreated, both based on this principle:

The first: it is beginningless and does not depend on His will and power.

The second: He has always been One who speaks whenever He wills.

Abū ‘Abd Allāh ibn Hāmid likewise mentioned two positions. Among those who agreed in denying that matters connected with His will and power subsist in Him—as Ibn Kullāb held—were