or comparable imams of the Muslims held their view.

Alongside the Kullābiyyah and their like, other groups emerged among scholars of jurisprudence, hadith, and speculative theology, including Karrāmiyyah and non-Karrāmiyyah. They said that He, glorified be He, speaks by His will and power, with speech that subsists in His essence, and that He speaks with letters and sounds by His will and power. In this way, they sought to escape the two innovations of the Muʿtazilah and the Kullābiyyah. Yet they said that it had not been possible for Him to speak in pre-eternity; rather, speech became possible for Him after having been impossible for Him, without any cause arising that necessitated its becoming possible or His becoming able to speak.

Many scholars of speculative theology, jurisprudence, and hadith agreed with the Karrāmiyyah on this position. However, no such view has been transmitted from any of the four imams or comparable imams of the Muslims. In this, they shared the position of the Jahmiyyah and the Muʿtazilah, for all these groups say that speech had not been possible for Him in pre-eternity, but then became possible for Him after having been impossible for Him, without any cause arising that necessitated its becoming possible.

The Jahmiyyah and the Muʿtazilah, however, say that He created speech in something other than Himself, without any speech subsisting in Him. For if speech subsisted in Him by His will and power, temporal occurrences would subsist in Him. They say that temporal occurrences do not subsist in Him.

The Jahmiyyah and the Muʿtazilah explain that temporal occurrences fall within the category of attributes that they call accidents. In their view, no attributes subsist in Him. They argue that attributes are accidents, and an accident can subsist only in a body, whereas He is not a body. This is because a body is never free of temporal occurrences, and whatever is never free of temporal occurrences is itself originated in time.