With this as their “method,” they affirmed that the Quran is uncreated, on the strength of the scriptural texts and the consensus of the early generations, and because they considered this consistent with the principle they had established concerning the divine attributes. They held that reconciling the transmitted prophetic texts with rational inference was possible only by regarding the Quran as a meaning subsisting in Allah Himself, exalted is He, like His other attributes—just as the earlier group had classified it among things made and created, rather than as eternal like the other attributes. They considered that it could only be either created or eternal, since affirming a third category subsisting in Allah would entail temporally originated events subsisting in His essence, which would demonstrate that the bearer of these events has a beginning and invalidate the argument for the world’s having a beginning.

They then held that it could not consist of many meanings, but must be either a single meaning, according to one group, or four meanings, according to another. On this basis, they committed themselves to the position that speech in its true nature is the meaning subsisting within the self, and that letters and sounds are not part of speech in its true nature, but merely signify it and are therefore given its name. According to one group, this designation is figurative; according to another, it is literal, with the same word bearing distinct meanings; and according to a third, it is figurative in the case of Allah’s speech but literal in the speech of others.

The earlier group, along with some who affiliate themselves with the Sunnah, disagreed with them, saying: “Speech consists of nothing but letters and sounds. Beyond these there is no meaning other than knowledge and what is of its kind, or will and what is of its kind.” Thus the dispute arose between the two groups.