and are the very landmarks of the religion to be rubbed out as well? He—and others—allege that those scholars say: “The eternal Qur’an (1) is nothing but the voices of the reciters and the ink of the scribes, and that both voice and ink are themselves eternal without beginning.” Who ever uttered such a notion? In what book has this been ascribed to them (2)? Tell me.

He likewise reports that they deny God’s being seen in the Hereafter, on the basis of the alleged logical consequence he claimed for them and the premise he attributed to them.

I then began to speak of the respect due to that shaykh: that he is the elder of the assembly, their teacher, and that he possesses enough intellect and religiosity to be treated accordingly (3).

I ordered that the entire creed be read aloud to him, for he had not been present at the first session; they had only brought him to the second so they could rally behind him.

A trustworthy person later told me that, after the shaykh left the gathering, he met with him and asked, “Tell me about that session.”

He replied, “Neither so-and-so nor I bear any blame. The emir asked about something and he answered him regarding it; I had thought he was asking about something else.”

He continued, “I said to them, ‘You have no grounds to object to the man. He defended the stance of eschewing figurative interpretation, whereas you uphold the stance of adopting it—both are positions reported from al-Ashʿarī.’

“I myself choose the position of abandoning figurative interpretation,” and he produced the testament he had authored, which contains the following: