for the proponent of the literal sense has adduced both rational and textual proofs that the literal meaning is indeed what is intended; as for the textual evidence, you cannot honestly deny that it is on his side.

Regarding the rational evidence, it is of two kinds: general and specific.

1. The general proof consists of the argument for the perfection of the Speaker’s knowledge, the perfection of His clarity, and the perfection of His benevolent counsel. The rational demonstration of this is far stronger than the fanciful conjectures by which the deniers try to reason. If it were permissible to disregard this decisive proof, then discarding those imaginary conjectures would be even more permissible; and if it is not permissible to set aside those conjectures, it is all the more impermissible to set aside the decisive proof.

2. The specific proof is that every attribute with which Allah has described Himself, or with which His Messenger has described Him, is unequivocally an attribute of perfection; therefore it is not allowed to strip away the attributes of His perfection or to reinterpret them so as to annul their realities.

Thus, the same rational proof that confirms life, knowledge, power, will, hearing, and sight for Him equally confirms wisdom, mercy, pleasure, anger, joy, and laughter. Likewise, the proof that He acts by His own will and choice confirms that His actions subsist in His very essence—this being the quintessence of transcendent perfection. Every attribute affirmed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah is an attribute of perfection, and reason decisively affirms that the Lord, exalted be He, possesses attributes of perfection. It is impossible that He, or His Messenger, should describe Him with an attribute that implies any deficiency. This evidence, too, is stronger than every objection raised by the deniers. To clarify further: the proofs for the Lord’s separateness from His creation and His exaltation above all His creatures are rational (1) and innate, producing self-evident knowledge of what they indicate.

As for the textual proofs, they approach a thousand in number. Hence the interpreter who abandons the literal sense is obliged to answer every one of them—yet how unlikely it is that he could provide a sound answer even to some of them! We merely demand of him a sound answer to a single proof, namely, that the Lord, exalted be He, must either have an existence outside the mind or