of it and some?

If you reinterpret everything, forcing it away from its true purport, that is open stubbornness, blatant disbelief, and a flat denial of Lordship itself (1). At that point you would have no firm ground left for affirming the very being of the Lord, exalted is He, nor any of His attributes or actions. And should you grant this position without finding it repulsive, you would thereby join (2) your comrades among the materialist atheists who acknowledge for the universe neither Creator nor Lord.

Suppose you say, “Rather, I affirm that the universe has an Artisan and Creator, yet I will not describe Him with any attribute found in His creation; whenever He is described with something that applies to a creature, I interpret it figuratively.”

You are then told: Do these Most Beautiful Names and the attributes with which He has described Himself point to real, established meanings in their own right, or do they not? If you deny that they convey any fixed meaning, that is the epitome of negation (taʿṭīl). But if you affirm that they do in fact indicate meanings that are real and established, you must answer: what has licensed you to reinterpret some of them while leaving others untouched? And what distinction—whether on the basis of revelation or (3) reason—exists between that which you affirm, that which you deny, and that about which you remain silent, neither affirming nor negating?

The very same textual proofs (4) that He possesses hearing, sight, knowledge, power, will, life, and speech are also proofs that He has mercy, love, anger, pleasure, joy, laughter, a face, and two hands; the evidentiary force of the texts for all of these attributes is identical. Why, then, have you denied the reality of His mercy