do not call Him a substance, while others do. As for anyone who denies that attributes subsist in Him, such a person will describe God as neither a substance nor a body.

These Christians are plainly self-contradictory. Because of that, they have adopted a method that no school of rational thinkers will endorse. This becomes evident

Sixthly:

People hold two positions regarding the affirmation of attributes that subsist in the very Essence of God, exalted be He.

The first position—held by the early Muslims, their leading imams, and the great majority of mankind, whether they belong to the revealed communities or not—affirms that attributes truly subsist in God, blessed and exalted. Whether these attributes should be called “accidents” is itself a matter of two opinions.

The second position is that of those who deny the attributes: the atheistic Jahmites and other innovators among the Muslims, together with the philosophers who side with them, and some Jews and Christians. For these people no meanings or attributes subsist in Him at all, and therefore they likewise deny that any accidents subsist in Him. Within this camp, some nevertheless call Him a substance—Aristotle and his followers, for instance—whereas others, such as the later philosophers like Ibn Sīnā, refrain from calling Him a substance.