The adherents of the Sunnah who affirm the divine attributes replied to them:

“Your argument is an innovation in religion; none of the early generations of this community or its leading scholars used it. Indeed, al-Ash‘arī stated in his ‘Epistle to the People of the Frontier’ that this argument is forbidden in the religion of the Messengers and that the religion of the Muslims must not be founded upon it. Others stated that it is rationally invalid, just as it is religiously forbidden, and that when the early generations and leading scholars condemned the speculative theologians, the Jahmiyyah, and those who engaged in speculation about accidents and bodies, their foremost intention was to condemn arguments such as this. This has been discussed at length in its proper place.”

After “the doctrine of the Jahmiyyah” emerged, “Abū Muhammad ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sa‘īd ibn Kullāb” appeared, agreeing with the early generations and leading scholars in affirming “Allah’s attributes and His exaltedness above His creation.” He explained that His “exaltedness above His creation” is known through reason, whereas His “rising over the Throne” is known through revelation. Likewise, al-Hārith al-Muhāsibī, Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qalānisī, and other speculative theologians who affiliated themselves with the Sunnah and hadith came after him.

Then “Abū al-Hasan al-Ash‘arī” came and followed the approach of Ibn Kullāb and others like him. In his books, he outlined the doctrines of the adherents of the Sunnah and hadith, noting that Ibn Kullāb agreed with most of them. These men are called “the Sifātiyyah” (affirmers of the divine attributes), because they affirm Allah’s attributes, in opposition to the Mu‘tazilah. However, “Ibn Kullāb and his followers” did not affirm that acts connected to Allah’s will and power subsist in Him, nor did they affirm anything else connected to His will and power as subsisting in Him.

The “Mu‘tazilah” would say: “Neither accidents nor temporally originated occurrences inhere in Him.” By “accidents,” they do not mean only diseases and afflictions; rather, they mean attributes. Nor do they mean