Thus the early generations and the imams did not disapprove of speculative theology merely because it employed newly coined terms such as “substance,” “accident,” “body,” and the like. Rather, the meanings expressed through these terms contain reprehensible falsehoods in their arguments and conclusions that must be prohibited, for these terms encompass ambiguous meanings in both negation and affirmation.
As Imam Ahmad said when describing the people of innovation:
“They differ over the Book, oppose the Book, and agree in opposing the Book. They speak in equivocal terms and mislead the ignorant with the equivocal language they use.”
If the meanings they intend by such expressions are understood and weighed against the Quran and Sunnah—so that the truth affirmed by the Quran and Sunnah is affirmed, and the falsehood rejected by the Quran and Sunnah is rejected—then this is the truth. This differs from the approach of those who follow their desires: they use these terms to negate and affirm, both in their methods of argument and in the questions they discuss, without explaining the distinctions and classifications that constitute the straight path.
This is one of the sources of confusion. Nothing in the words of the Prophet, any of the Companions or their successors, or any of the imams whose teachings are followed makes any aspect of the foundations of religion—whether its proofs or its doctrinal questions—depend upon what is designated by terms such as “substance,” “body,” “spatial occupancy,” “accident,” and the like.
Those who use these expressions differ in what they intend by them, sometimes because they assign different meanings to the terms, and sometimes because they disagree about the meaning a term denotes. For example, some say that a “body” is something composite, then dispute whether it is a single substance, subject to the condition of composition?