up comparisons for Allah. Indeed, Allah knows and you do not know.” (16:74) For such likening constitutes shirk, for it can be sustained only by distorting the revealed texts or denying them outright, while simultaneously belittling Allah by equating Him with the deficient creation.

• Nor is it permissible to affirm for Allah any name or attribute while specifying “how” (kayfiyyah), for that is speaking about Allah without knowledge. It breeds chaos and confusion regarding His attributes, since each person will imagine a modality different from the next. Moreover, it is an attempt to grasp with the mind what the mind can never reach; whatever form you may conceive, Allah is higher and greater still.

• This branch of monotheism is the very one over which the People of the Qiblah have argued the most, and the positions taken with respect to its texts fall into six categories:

Category One: Those who accept the texts upon their apparent meaning in a manner befitting Allah—without distortion, denial, asking how, or likening. These are the salaf, and this is the correct view, decisively supported by the Quran, the Sunnah, sound reason, and the earlier consensus, whether the proof is conclusive or presumptive.

Category Two: Those who accept the texts upon their apparent meaning but regard them as being of the same kind as the attributes of created beings. These are the anthropomorphists (mumatthilah); their doctrine is invalidated by the Quran, the Sunnah, reason, and the explicit rejection of the salaf.

Category Three: Those who depart from the apparent meaning, assign to the texts meanings devised by their own intellects, and alter the wording of revelation in order to sustain those meanings. These are the negators (muʿaṭṭilah): some engage in extensive negation, such as the Jahmiyyah, the Muʿtazilah, and the like, while others negate to a lesser degree, such as the Ashʿarīs.

Category Four: Those who say, “Allah knows best what He meant by them,” consigning the knowledge of their meanings to Allah