thus—even if we suppose that the shin and the side are indeed attributes, nothing in the outward wording of the Qur’an requires that He have only one shin and only one side. Even if the text did support what you claim, it would still not negate anything beyond that—neither by its explicit wording nor by its implicit sense.

Even those who accept (1) the principle of mafhūm al-laqab (2) do not consider such wording to negate what is not mentioned; for whenever the specification of something by mention is motivated by a reason other than confining the ruling to it (3), the inferred implication is, by unanimous agreement, not intended. Moreover, the purpose of the two verses is not to establish an attribute so that specifying one of the two matters would itself be deliberate; rather, an altogether different ruling is intended—namely, to expose the servant’s negligence toward Allah’s right and to describe how all creatures will prostrate when He uncovers a shin. That ruling may pertain exclusively to what is mentioned, without extending to anything else, and therefore it carries no implicit restriction.

Fourth: Even if we grant that the Almighty has informed us that He will uncover a single shin that is an attribute, where—in the apparent wording of the Qur’an (4)—is there any indication (5) that He possesses only that one attribute? If you were to hear someone say, “I uncovered my eye, and I bared my knee and my shin, or my foot, or my hand,” would you understand from this that he has (6) only that single limb? How far-fetched this is—