and it may likewise denote the object acted upon, as in their saying: *liḥyah* (beard)(1), *wajhah*, *sharʿah*, and *bidʿah*. For the form *fiʿlah* can carry the meaning of the passive participle, just as in His words, “We ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice” (2)(3) – that is, with something that had been slaughtered. In the same way, a *sharʿah* is that which has been legislated, a *bidʿah* is that which has been innovated(4), and a *wajhah* (5) is the direction toward which one turns. Accordingly, one may also say of the word *ṣifah* that, so long as it has not been transferred from its verbal-noun sense, it signifies the thing described(6)(7). On this basis people have disagreed: were *waṣf* and *ṣifah* originally one in meaning—namely, spoken descriptions—or were they later employed for abstract meanings by applying the verbal-noun to the object? In that case, *waṣf* would be the utterance itself, while *ṣifah* would be the object characterised by that utterance(8) [that is, *waṣf* is the verbal noun, and *ṣifah* is the thing described by the utterance](9). Most of the *ṣifātiyyah* adopt this second view, although their wording also remains valid on the first, as we explained previously, for common usage may reserve one of the two terms by convention and not the other(10). Still, presenting their doctrine through this second approach is fuller and more precise, as we have shown here. Hence the words of Ahmad and others: “Whoever attributes to Allah something of what He attributes to Himself.” The “thing attributed” here is the attribute itself—such as His knowledge and His two Hands. This very attribute is what Allah has attributed to Himself; in other words, He has informed us of it and affirmed it for Himself, as in His saying, “He sent it down …”