and then they subject them to forced interpretation, even though they have no knowledge that what the texts entail is actually negated. It is self-evident that whoever ranks the Messenger as no more than one of those theologians or mystics contains within his statement a degree of heresy and unbelief known only to Allah—so what should be said of someone who, in reality, places him beneath them? Even if they themselves are unaware that this is the logical outcome of their claim, we have pointed it out precisely to expose the unsound foundations on which their position rests. That said, we know full well that anyone—among them or among others—who truly believes in Allah and His Messenger would never relegate the Messenger to such a station.

Third:
It may be said: Whatever attributes you have denied and allegorically reinterpreted can be affirmed on the basis of reason and mystical unveiling by arguments no weaker—and indeed stronger—than those you cite for the attributes you do accept. I have explained this in detail elsewhere, demonstrating that the proofs, both transmitted and rational, establishing His mercy, love, pleasure, and anger are in no way inferior to the proofs establishing His will; they may even be stronger. Consequently, whoever allegorically interprets the texts on love, pleasure, and mercy while maintaining the texts on will is mired in contradiction.

Fourth:
What you have advanced is virtually identical to the stance of the philosophers and the Muʿtazilites, who say, “We reinterpreted the texts because the rational proofs (1) show that their literal implication must be negated.” Every answer the proponents of affirmation among the people of hadith and the sunnah give to them applies equally to you.

Fifth:
The people of affirmation possess sound, clear reason and genuine mystical unveiling that concur with the revealed texts; thus they stand in full agreement with the Quran, the sunnah, and the consensus of the early generations