and he did not say, “He has always been addressing others whenever He wills.” According to those who hold that speech is eternal and necessary, what depends on His will is only His addressing others—a contingent act—not His speaking.

This is clarified by Ahmad’s statement elsewhere—may Allah be pleased with him:

“Allah has always been speaking, knowing and forgiving.”

He thus mentioned three attributes: the attribute that is eternal and necessary, namely knowledge; and the attribute that is contingent and dependent on His will, namely forgiveness. There is agreement concerning these two. He also mentioned speaking, the third category, concerning which there is disagreement. It resembles knowledge insofar as it is an attribute subsisting in Him that does not relate to created beings, and it resembles forgiveness insofar as it depends on His will, as he explained elsewhere.

It is therefore clear that, for Ahmad, its eternity means that Allah has always been such that, if He wills, He speaks, and if He wills, He remains silent. He did not newly acquire the ability to speak, which is an attribute of perfection, just as He did not newly acquire the ability to forgive—although perfection consists in speaking when He wills and remaining silent when He wills.

As for the judge’s statement that this amounts to saying that His speech comes into being, they offer two replies.

The first is that it should not be called muhdath (newly originated), but should be called hadīth (discourse), since muhdath denotes something created and separate from Allah, whereas Allah Himself has called His speech hadīth. This is the position of the Karrāmiyya and most hadith scholars and Hanbalīs.

The second is that it may be called muhdath, as in His words:

“a new reminder from their Lord”

without being created. This is the position of many jurists, hadith scholars and speculative theologians