—the Most Beautiful Names—and affirming what the attributes entail. Thus, on the whole, their position is better than Jahm’s, while the position of Dirār ibn ‘Amr al-Kūfī is better than theirs.

As for Ibn Kullāb, al-Qalānisī and al-Ash‘arī, they do not belong to this category. Rather, they are known as affirmers of the attributes and renowned for their doctrine of affirmation. Their positions, however, contain elements of Jahmī principles on account of which, people say, they fall into inconsistency, combine opposites and make unintelligible assertions. They therefore regard them as wavering between the two sides, belonging to neither. This explains why some identify elements of Jahmī doctrine in their positions. Similarly, the imams—such as Ahmad and others—used to say:

The Jahmiyyah have split into “three groups”: one group says that the Quran is created; another suspends judgment, saying neither that it is created nor that it is uncreated; and another says that our utterances of the Quran are created.

It is well known that they meant only their division over “the question of the Quran” specifically. Otherwise, many of these people affirm the attributes, seeing Allah, and His rising over the Throne. They classified a person as a Jahmī in certain matters—meaning that he agreed with the Jahmiyyah on those matters—to expose the weakness of his position, not to say that he was like the Jahmiyyah or that the same ruling applied to him as to them. No one who understands what he is saying would make such a claim.

Hence, Ahmad’s statements generally classify those who say that their utterances of the Quran are created as Jahmīs; he hardly ever declares them unbelievers without qualification, as he does those who say that the Quran is created. This view has been attributed to several people known for their adherence to the Sunnah and hadith, such as al-Husayn al-Karābīsī and Nu‘aym