and others, that an act does not subsist in its agent. The early generations and the majority of rational people rejected this, saying that an agent can only be one in whom the act subsists, and that a distinction must be made between the agent, the act, and what the act produces. In his book Khalq Af‘āl al-‘Ibād (The Creation of the Acts of the Servants), al-Bukhārī reported the scholars’ consensus on this.

Those who held that an act does not subsist in its agent, yet also held that Allah is the agent of the servants’ acts—as did Abū al-Hasan and others—that the servant performs no act, and that everything the servant creates is an act of His, ascribe to Him attributes of action that are separate from Him. They divide His attributes into attributes of essence and attributes of action, although, in their view, these actions are the effects produced separately from Him. Their position therefore entails that He be characterized by the injustice and evil deeds He creates, despite their assertion that He is not characterized by the speech and other things He creates. This was a contradiction on their part, which the Mu‘tazilah exploited against them.

When they affirmed a principle of Ahl al-Sunnah—that when a quality subsists in a subject, a name is derived from it for that subject and not for another, as with the name “speaker”—the Mu‘tazilah challenged them with the names “Creator” and “Just.” They offered no sound answer to this objection. The principle upheld by the early generations and the imams, however, is consistent throughout.

Among the proofs they cited that the Quran is uncreated was the saying of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, invoked by Imam Ahmad and others:

“I seek refuge in Allah’s perfect words.”

They said that refuge is not sought in anything created. They were then challenged with his saying:

“I seek refuge in Your pleasure from Your wrath, in Your granting well-being from Your punishment, and in You