general; this too is something upon which the Muslims are unanimously agreed, and it is known by sheer necessity of the religion. There is not a single group among either the early or later generations that does not transmit from the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—something concerning the Divine attributes, whether by way of affirmation or negation. Allah is described by affirmation—that is, by affirming His praises, lauding Him, and exalting His glory—and He is described by negation, namely by declaring Him free of every defect and imperfection. Exalted is He, far above what they say.

Or he may mean that one must not say (1) regarding these texts, “Their ruling is such-and-such,” whether that be outright acceptance, allegorical interpretation, or anything else. If this is his intent, then the speaker must bind himself to the very restriction he lays upon others: he should not pronounce any judgment about these verses and hadiths, nor say, “Their apparent meaning is intended,” or “Their apparent meaning is not intended,” or “Interpretation is permissible,” or “These texts bear other meanings,” (2) and the like—for that would, on this reckoning, be an engagement with the verses and hadiths on the attributes.

If he does keep to this and says to others, “Adhere to what I have adhered to; add nothing to it and take nothing away,” then that is fairness (3). Quite different, however, is the case of one who forbids others (4) to speak about them while he himself does so—as is in fact what happens.

The same holds for his statement: “They are not (5) to be sent to other lands, nor included in fatwas that pertain to them.” If by this he means that the texts themselves are not to be written down or cited in legal verdicts, this is patently false and is known by necessity to contradict the religion of Islam, as mentioned earlier. But if he means that their legal ruling should not be written down, nor the fatwa-seeker informed of that ruling, then it will be said to him: you too must commit yourself