thereafter along the lines of these views, although most of those who adopted some of these views do not know what others have said. Indeed, even their leading scholars who have written on this subject know, at most, two, three, or four of these views—such as those of the Mu'tazilah, the Kullābiyyah, the Sālimiyyah, and the Karrāmiyyah. They do not know that anyone within Islam has held any other view. One of them may compile a large book on “the doctrines of Muslims” and “religions and sects,” mentioning most of the innovated views on this subject, yet neither knowing nor transmitting the view handed down from the early generations and the leading scholars. Yet the Quran and the Sunnah, together with sound reason, support that view alone. All the others are contradictory positions, as has been explained at length elsewhere.

The point here is that someone may regard, for example, the view of the Mu'tazilah—or the views of the Mu'tazilah and the Karrāmiyyah, or those views together with that of the Kullābiyyah, or those views together with that of the Sālimiyyah—as false doctrines held by the people of innovation. He then believes that the only remaining position that could represent Ahl al-Sunnah is the other view, even though it too is an innovated position contrary to sound reason and authentic transmitted evidence. He derives further conclusions from that view and attributes them to the Sunnah. Then, when he reflects on the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah and the reports from the early generations, he finds that they contradict that view in both its foundations and its implications.

This is what happened to those who denied the superiority of “the Opening of the Book,” “the Verse of the Throne,” and “Say: He is Allah, One” over other portions of the Quran. Their mainstay is the unsound principle I mentioned earlier. As for speech being one, it is inconceivable that it should admit