as to whether a command has a verbal form or not. For if, in their view, a command is the meaning subsisting in the self, that meaning cannot be said either to have or not to have a verbal form; such a description applies only to words. Rather, the disagreement concerns the wording which, in their view, is an expression of the command. We hold that this wording is itself a command, and that its form indicates this without any contextual indication. They hold that its form alone neither makes it an expression of a command nor indicates that meaning. Rather, its interpretation depends on what the evidence establishes: if the evidence indicates that it was intended to express a command, it is interpreted accordingly; and if the evidence indicates that it was intended to express something else—such as a threat, a challenge exposing inability, a warning, or another meaning—it is interpreted accordingly. Nevertheless, our discussion with them concerns the general question: does this wording indicate a command without a contextual indication or not?” He continued his detailed discussion of this issue to its conclusion.

This position is also known among the leading scholars of the Khurasanian tradition. Among its later representatives was Abū Muhammad al-Juwaynī, the father of Abū al-Ma‘ālī.

In his account of his virtues, Judge Abū al-Qāsim ibn ‘Asākir cited what ‘Abd al-Ghāfir al-Fārisī recorded in his biography of Abū Muhammad al-Juwaynī. He said:

“I heard my maternal uncle Abū