And if what they mean is that the attributes subsist in Him, with each one called “other” than the other, then the disagreement here is purely over wording: should we call each attribute “other” or should we not?
Some people say, “Every attribute of the Almighty Lord is other than the rest,” and they define two things as “other” if it is possible for one of them to exist in the absence of the other, or for one to be known while the other is unknown.
Others say, “It is not that attribute—yet it is not simply itself either—for two things are only truly other when it is possible for one of them to exist without the other, or for one to be separated from the other in time, place, or existence.”
The stance of the earliest Muslims and their leading scholars was that when they were asked, “Is the knowledge of Allah and the speech of Allah other than Allah or not?” they would neither deny nor affirm outright.
For if one says, “They are other than Him,” it suggests that they are detached and separate from Him; and if one says, “They are not other than Him,” it suggests that they are identical with Him. Instead, they would ask the questioner to clarify his intent.
If by “other than Him” he means something detached from Him and separate from Him, then the attributes of any subject are never detached from the one described, even when that subject is created—so how could this be true of the attributes of the Creator?
But if by “other” he only intends that the attribute is not the very Essence itself, then indeed an attribute is not identical with the One described; in that respect it is other than Him. When the name of the Exalted Lord is used without qualification, it encompasses the sacred Essence together with the perfect attributes that befit Him, and it is impossible for the Essence to exist stripped of those attributes of perfection.
Thus, the name Allah embraces the Essence characterized by perfect attributes, and these attributes are not something added to that referent; rather, they are included within it, yet they