the view of Ibn Kullāb. He sought to avoid anything with positive existence newly arising and affirmed the implications of that position. He thus contradicted texts of the Quran and Sunnah and reports from the early Muslims in ways that made his innovation manifest, leading Imām Ahmad to shun him and warn against him.

It has, however, been said that al-Hārith retracted that position.

The later followers of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Abū Hanīfah hold two positions: some follow the approach of Ibn Kullāb and his followers, while others follow that of the leading authorities of the Sunnah and hadith. This is discussed at length in its proper place.

The point here is that Allah’s knowledge and His recording of His servants’ deeds precede those deeds. This is true, whereas the view that this knowledge and recording newly arise is a rejected position, as the poet stated—if that is indeed what he meant. Nothing in this conflicts with Allah’s commands and prohibitions. His being the Creator of His servants’ deeds does not conflict with commanding and prohibiting; how much less, then, does His prior knowledge! Nor does any of this imply that the servant is compelled, possessing neither power nor action, as the Jahmī determinists claim.

Section

As for his words:

“Nor should it be said, ‘Allah’s knowledge is of what is chosen’ …
for what is chosen is recorded.”