through an act that inheres in the agent himself. As for the act itself, which inheres in him, it requires no further act, but comes about through his power and will.

For this reason, those who hold this view say that the act of creation originates in time (hādith), but do not say that it is created. They differ, however, over whether it may be called muhdath (newly brought about), holding two views.

Likewise, they say that He speaks by His will and power, and that His speech is discourse (hadīth)—indeed, the finest discourse. They unanimously agree that it is not created, and it is described as both hadīth and hādith. They also hold two views on whether it may be called muhdath.

For those who customarily use the term muhdath only for a created thing separate from Allah—as was the prevalent usage among those who debated the Quran during the ordeal of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and who understood muhdath to mean nothing other than a created thing separate from Allah—Ahl al-Sunnah do not permit the Quran to be called muhdath in this sense. Rather, whoever calls it muhdath has thereby called it created.

For this reason, Imam Ahmad objected to “Dāwūd” using this expression when he received a written report that Dāwūd had said it. Those who employed this terminology assumed that this was what Dāwūd meant, so the imams of the Sunnah rejected it. Yet Dāwūd himself did not intend this meaning. Rather, he and the leading scholars among his followers agree that Allah’s speech is uncreated. He intended only that it inheres in Allah Himself. This is the position of more than one imam of the early generations, including al-Bukhārī and others. The disagreement over this among Ahl al-Sunnah is “terminological”: they agree that it is not a created thing separate from Allah, and that Allah’s speech inheres in His essence. The imams of the Sunnah—