groups; indeed, some hold that its falsity is self-evident, as has been explained at length elsewhere.

As for calling the attributes “accidents,” this is a terminological convention adopted by those speculative theologians who use it, not the customary usage of Arabic speakers or of other scholars. Realities known through revelation and reason are unaffected by differences in terminology; rather, these are merely verbal disputes. In such disputes, the soundest usage is that which accords with the language of the Quran, the Messenger, and the early generations. The Muslims agree that expressions used by the Messenger and the Companions may be used. As for expressions they did not use, there is disagreement and a need for distinctions that are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As for the Kullābiyyah’s claim, “Whatever admits temporal occurrences is never free of them, and whatever is never free of temporal occurrences has itself come into being,” the majority of rational thinkers have disputed both premises. Even their own later followers disputed them on this point and acknowledged the invalidity of the rational arguments their predecessors advanced to deny that temporal occurrences subsist in Him. Later leading scholars among the Ashʿariyyah, the Shiʿah, the Muʿtazilah, and others acknowledged this, as has been explained at length elsewhere.

Another group arose among the Sālimiyyah and others—including people versed in speculative theology, jurisprudence, hadith, and Sufism, many of whom affiliate themselves with