after He had not been speaking, the Mu'tazila and those like them have no argument against them except the argument for denying the attributes—and that is an invalid argument. Nor do the Kullābīs have any argument against them except that this entails (1) the perpetuity of originated events, because anything receptive to something cannot be devoid of both it and (2) its opposite, and because receptivity to originated events would be among the necessary concomitants of His essence.

As for these arguments (3), these people have already committed themselves to positions that are (4) even weaker, as has been explained at length in the appropriate places (5). The most astute among them have acknowledged the weakness (6) of all these (7) rational arguments on this subject. As for the revelatory proofs, they support those who affirm, not those who negate.

The view that He has always been one who speaks whenever He wills, and that speech is inseparable from the Lord’s essence, is supported by arguments (8) too extensive to examine exhaustively here. Whichever of the two views proves correct, one may move to it.

Al-Rāzī and others say: “All schools (9) of rational thinkers are logically committed to maintaining that originated events subsist in Him. If this is correct, it is possible to maintain that He speaks by His will and power.” We have discussed at length the furthest conclusions reached by rational thinkers on these issues, [and what is established by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the statements of the Salaf of the Ummah] (10), in the book “Averting the Conflict between Reason and Revelation” (11) and elsewhere.