of the two. Each position has an element of truth when the matter is fully understood and considered impartially. None, however, encompasses the whole truth. Rather, each is correct in one respect and may be mistaken in another.
Al-Bukhārī affirms only that the servants’ acts—their movements and voices—are created. Reading in this sense is the servant’s act, subject to commands and prohibitions. As for the speech itself, it is Allah’s speech. Al-Bukhārī did not say that the servant’s utterance is either created or uncreated, just as Ahmad prohibited both formulations. Those acts and attributes of the servants that al-Bukhārī declared created were not declared uncreated by Ahmad or any other scholar of the early generations, even if they remained silent on the matter because it was self-evident and their aim was to refute the Jahmiyyah. What Ahmad declared uncreated was Allah’s speech, not an attribute of the servants; al-Bukhārī did not declare this created.
Ahmad’s aim, however, was to refute those who considered Allah’s speech created when it is conveyed from Him, whereas al-Bukhārī’s aim was to refute those who said, “The servants’ acts and voices are uncreated.” Both aims are sound, and there is no contradiction between them. Ibn Qutaybah explained this in