This doubt of the Imam denying hulal al hawadith (successive events) is from where he says “Likewise, whoever claims that His fiʿl (act) is muhdath (originated) and that it is not makhluq (created), then there is no doubt that he is more deserving of the name of kufr than the one who claims that He has always been ʿAlim (All Knowing) without ʿilm (knowledge).”

But Who Is He Referring To When He Says “Whoever Claims His fiʿl is Muhdath & Not Makhluq”

The meaning of this statement becomes clear once the pronoun in “His fiʿl” is properly understood.

The more coherent reading is that the pronoun refers to the servant’s act, not to Allah’s act.

In that case, the sentence means: Whoever claims that the servant’s act originates but is not created by Allah is more deserving of the name of disbelief than the one who says that Allah has always been All Knowing without possessing knowledge. This was noted by the muhaqiq ʿAli ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn ʿAli al Thubaytil 

This position reflects the doctrine of the Muʿtazilah Qadariyyah.

They affirmed that creations actions occur in time and are originated, but they denied that those actions are created by Allah.

Instead, they claimed that the servant independently originates his own acts.

Ibn Jarir argues that this belief carries more severe implications than merely denying an attribute such as knowledge.

If a servant’s act occurs within Allah’s dominion yet is not created by Him, then something exists in His kingdom that He did not create. If it occurs without His will, then something takes place that He did not will.

If it can happen contrary to what He wills, then what He wills may fail to occur. All of this necessarily implies incapacity. It suggests that events unfold beyond His power or outside His will. Incapacity is the attribute of the weak, not the attribute of the One described with absolute power and sovereignty.

It implies that within Allah’s dominion there exists something not subject to His creative power and will. That is why he says such a person is more deserving of the name of kufr. The gravity lies in the unavoidable implication that Allah’s power is restricted, which contradicts the foundation of tawhid in lordship and creation.

Also it does not follow to say something that Allah’s acts being originated but not created mean that these successive acts are not within Allah’s dominion, and that there exists something that he has no power over.

What also coincides with this reading is that in in At Tabari’s tafsir we explicitly see him affirming hulul al hawadith, so how can he affirm Allah speaks when he wills, and that his will is inseparable from the moment he brings something to existence, while also saying every occurring act is created?

Would it be best to say At Tabari contradicted himself or that he is not actually denying hulul al hawadith? What will the opponents claim?!

The most correct of the statements regarding His saying:

وَإِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ
“And when He decrees a matter, He only says to it: ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Al Baqarah 2:117)

is that it is general concerning everything that Allah has decreed, governed, and administered.

This is because its apparent wording indicates generality.

It is not permissible to divert the apparent meaning to an inner interpretation through taʾwil (figurative reinterpretation) without proof, as has already been clarified in our book and in Kitab al Bayan ʿan Usul al Ahkam.

Since that is established, Allah’s command to a thing, when He intends to bring it into existence, is expressed by His saying “Be.”

This occurs at the very moment of His iradah (will) for it to be mukawwan (brought into existence).

The existence of the thing He intends to create and originate does not precede His iradah (will) for it, nor does it precede His amr (command) for it to exist, and it does not come after them.

Thus it is not permissible that a thing be maʾmur bil wujud (commanded with existence) and murad (willed) except while it is existent.

Nor can it be existent except while it is maʾmur bil wujud (commanded with existence) and willed.

Its coming into being is inseparable from His iradah (will) and His command, without delay and without precedence.

Side Note: If this was understood under the Ash’ari view that means creation would be eternal. So At Tabari is free from the Ashaa’irah and their kind. 

A parallel to His saying:

وَإِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ
“And when He decrees a matter, He only says to it: ‘Be,’ and it is.”

is His saying:

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَن تَقُومَ السَّمَاءُ وَالْأَرْضُ بِأَمْرِهِ ثُمَّ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ دَعْوَةً مِنَ الْأَرْضِ إِذَا أَنتُمْ تَخْرُجُونَ
“And among His signs is that the heaven and the earth stand by His command,then when He calls you with a single call from the earth, immediately you will come forth.” (Ar Rum 30:25)

Meaning, the coming forth of the people from their graves does not precede Allah’s duʿa to them, nor does it come after it. Rather, it occurs in direct accordance with His amr (command) and iradah (will), without delay and without separation.

Tafsir At Tabari (2/469–470)

A bonus point can be drawn from page 150 of At Tabsirah we see the Imam saying:

كما كان غير جائزٍ أن يتحول كلامُ اللهِ –عز وجل– مخلوقاً بقراءةِ قارئٍ، أو كتابةِ كاتبٍ، أو حفظِ حافظٍ، أو يتحولَ الصانعُ مصنوعاً، أو القديمُ محدثاً بذكرِ محدثٍ مصنوعٍ إياه؛ فكذلك غيرُ جائزٍ أن تتحولَ قراءةُ قارئٍ، أو تلاوتُه، أو حفظُه القرآنَ قرآناً، أو كلامَ اللهِ –تعالى ذكره–، ولكنَّ القرآنَ هو المقروءُ، والمكتوبُ، والمحفوظُ، كما أنَّ الربَّ –جلَّ جلالُه– هو المعبودُ، والمذكورُ.

Just as it is not permissible for the speech of Allah – Mighty and Exalted – to become makhluq (created) by the recitation of a reciter, the writing of a writer, or the memorising of one who memorises; nor for the Maker to become masnuʿ (made), nor for the qadeem (eternal) to become  muhdath(originated) by the mention of a originated being; likewise it is not permissible for the recitation of a reciter, his tilawah (recitation), or his hifz (memorising), to turn the Qur’an into being Qur’an or into being the speech of Allah – Exalted is His mention.

Rather, the Qur’an is the maqruʾ (that which is read), the maktub (that which is written), and the mahfuz (that which is memorised), just as the Lord, is the maʿbud (One who is worshipped) and the madhkur (One who is mentioned).

The Ash’aris do not believe this, rather they believe our recitation of the Qur’an is created. So their usage of At Tabari backfires in the same chapter. 

Full Chapter Translated

The statement concerning the branches that occur from the foundations that were mentioned, namely that it is not permissible for anyone to be ignorant of them, from knowing tawhid (Allah’s oneness), Allah, and His names and attributes.

Abu Jaʿfar said: We have already proven earlier in this book that it is not permissible for anyone who has reached taklif (legal responsibility) to be ignorant that Allah, Exalted is His mention, is ʿAlim (All Knowing) with ʿilm (knowledge), Qadir (All Powerful) with qudrah (power), Mutakallim (One who speaks) with kalam (speech), ʿAziz (Mighty) with ʿizzah (might), and that He is Khaliq (Creator).

And that there is no muhdath (originated thing) except that it is masnuʿ (brought into being) and makhluq (created).

We said: whoever is ignorant of that is kafir (a disbeliever) in Allah. If that is correct by what we used as proof, then there is no doubt that whoever claims that Allah is muhdath (originated), and that there was a time when He was not ʿAlim (All Knowing), and that His kalam (speech) is makhluq (created), and that there was a time when He had no kalam (speech), then he is more deserving of kufr (disbelief), and the name of iman (faith) is removed from him.

Likewise, whoever claims that His fiʿl (act) is muhdath (originated) and that it is not makhluq (created), then there is no doubt that he is more deserving of the name of kufr than the one who claims that He has always been ʿAlim (All Knowing) without ʿilm (knowledge), because the one who says that has required that, within Allah’s dominion, there exists what He has no power over and does not will, and that He may will something but something else occurs, and what He wills does not occur. (The word “not” is problematic. If the pronoun in “His act” returns to Allah, then it must be removed, and the rest of the sentence gives that impression. But if the pronoun returns to the servant, then there is no problem, and this is more fitting, because the flow of the discussion to its end points to it, meaning: the servant’s act is not created by Allah, Mighty and Exalted.

This is the statement of the Muʿtazilah Qadariyyah. In that case, he becomes a doer alongside Allah of what Allah does not will and does not wish, so there occurs in Allah’s dominion what He does not will, and this is ʿajz (incapacity))

There is no doubt that this is the attribute of the ʿajazah (incapable), not the attribute of the people of qudrah (power).

If that is so, then there is no doubt that whoever claims that the kalam (speech) of Allah changes by its tilawah (recitation) when it is recited, and by its hifz (memorising) when it is memorised, or by its kitabah (writing) when it is written, into being muhdath (originated) and makhluq (created), then he is kafir in Allah, Exalted is His mention.

Likewise, the statement about it, without doubt, is that it is ghayr makhluq (not created), whether recited (maqruʾ), memorised (mahfuz), or written (maktub), just as if someone said: the Bariʾ (Originator) of all things changes, by being mentioned, or by being known, or by being written about, into something masnuʿ (brought into being) and not a Saniʿ (Maker), there would be no doubt about his kufr.

Likewise, whoever says, without doubt, that He changes away from what He is upon from His sifat (attributes) because of the mention of one who mentions Him, or the knowledge of one who knows Him, or the writing of one who writes His Name, has disbelieved.

Likewise, the statement that one of His sifat (attributes) changes away from what it is upon because of the mention of one who mentions, or the knowledge of one who knows it, or the writing of one who writes, or doubting that it is not permissible for it to change, be replaced, or be altered away from what Allah, Exalted is His mention, has always been described with.

Just as it was not permissible for the kalam (speech) of Allah, Mighty and Exalted, to change into being makhluq (created) by the recitation of a reciter, or the writing of a writer, or the memorising of one who memorises, and just as it was not possible for the Maker to become something made, or for the eternal to become muhdath (originated) by the mention of a muhdath (originated) masnuʿ (made) that He made, likewise it is not permissible for the recitation of a reciter, his tilawah (recitation), or his hifz (memorising) to turn the Qur’an into being the Qur’an or into being the speech of Allah, Exalted is His mention. Rather, the Qur’an is what is read, written, and memorised, just as the Lord, Glorious is His Majesty, is the One who is worshipped and mentioned.

The shukr (gratitude) of the servant to his Lord is his ʿibadah (worship) of Him, and his dhikr (remembrance) of Him is other than Him. Whoever doubts that has disbelieved, without doubt.

Just as that is so, likewise the statement about the one who claims that something from the acts of servants, or other than that from the muhdathat (originated things), is not makhluq (created), or is not brought into being by Allah’s takwin (bringing into existence), Exalted is He, and His creating it and originating it itself, then he has disbelieved in Allah. (A summary of this meaning is narrated by Ibrahim al Harbi from his shaykh Imam Ahmad, in his treatise affirming that the Qur’an is not created. He said: I was sitting with Ahmad ibn Hanbal when a man came and said: O Abu ʿAbd Allah, among us are people who say: “Their utterances of the Qur’an are created.”

Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: The servant turns to Allah with the Qur’an in 5 ways, all of them not created: memorising in the heart, reciting with the tongue, listening with the ears, looking with the eyes, and writing with the hand.

The heart is created, and what is memorised is not created. The recitation is created, and what is recited is not created. The looking is created, and what is recited is not created. Ibrahim said: Then Ahmad ibn Hanbal died, and I saw him in a dream wearing green and white clothes, with a crown of gold set with jewels on his head, and sandals of gold on his feet, walking. I said: What did Allah do with you?

He said to me: He brought me near and drew me close, and He said: I have forgiven you. I said: My Lord, because of what? He said: Because of your saying: “My speech is not created.” End. Al Dhahabi also narrated it with another chain in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ 11/291.

See also al Manaqib by Ibn al Jawzi, page 435 and what follows, and also see Mukhtasar al Sawaʿiq al Mursalah by Ibn al Qayyim, page 426 and what follows, in the discussion of the Qur’an and uttering it.)

This is the same, whether it is the servant mentioning his Lord or the shaytan mentioning him, except that some of them intend, by claiming that his remembrance of his Lord is created, that his Lord is created, and by that he becomes a kafir (disbeliever) whose blood and wealth are permissible.

Likewise, the statement about a speaker, if he said: “My recitation of the Qur’an is created”, and he claims that he intends by that that the Qur’an is created, then he is a kafir without doubt with us. I do not think anyone given any share of understanding and intellect would claim that or say it.

But if he says: By my saying “my recitation” I mean my act, for which Allah rewards me, and which occurred from me after it was not present, not the Qur’an which is the speech of Allah, Exalted is His mention, which has never ceased to be a attribute before the existence of all creation, and will never cease after their perishing, and which is ghayr makhluq (not created).

Then the statement about him is like the statement about the one who claims that his dhikr (remembrance) of Allah, Exalted is He, with his tongue is created, meaning by that his act, not his Lord who created him and created his act.

at-Tabsirah fi Ma’alim ad-Din by Ibn Jarir at-Tabari page 149–152