The Muʿtazilites therefore highlighted the so-called “attributes of action,” such as justice and beneficence, arguing that one may say: “He is just and beneficent by virtue of His creating justice in another and His creating beneficence in another.” This, however, proved problematic for those who claim that no act subsists in God Himself, that His act is nothing but the external effect, and that His creating is identical with the creature brought into existence.

By contrast, whoever applies the principle consistently and says as well that actions do in fact subsist in Him, while the created effects are external to Him, thereby distinguishing between “creating” and “the thing created,” finds his proof coherent and sound.

The point at issue here¹ is that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—sought refuge in Allah’s pardoning and His granting well-being from His punishment, even though it is impermissible to seek refuge in something created. This is analogous to asking Allah by His answering and rewarding, though one does not ask by means of a created being.

Hence, the position of those scholars who said, “One should ask only by Him,” does not preclude asking by His attributes, just as swearing an oath is legislated only by Allah, according to the sound ḥadīth in which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

“Whoever must swear an oath, let him swear by Allah, or else keep silent.”²

In another wording reported by al-Tirmidhī: “Whoever swears by anything other than Allah has committed shirk.”³ Al-Tirmidhī remarked, “A ḥasan ḥadīth.”

Nevertheless, an oath sworn “by Allah’s might,” “by Allah’s life,” or the like—forms of oath that are authentically reported from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him—does not fall under the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah. The term “other” (al-ghayr) may be intended to denote something wholly separate and detached. For this reason, the early Muslims and the rest of the leading imams did not describe the Qur’an or Allah’s other attributes as “other than Him,” nor did they assert that they are “not other than Him,” because the word “other” is equivocal: it may be intended