exemplified in the observable world; and this very fact is precisely why the Sacred Law did not explicitly deny corporeality (1) of the Creator—glorified be He. For the masses only accept (2) a ruling about the unseen when an analogue of it is known to exist in the sensible realm, as in recognizing the presence of a craftsman: since, in what we perceive, the existence of a product is contingent upon the craftsman, that same condition must obtain for the unseen Maker. Whenever, however, the attribute ascribed to the unseen is not known to exist in the sensible realm for most people, and is grasped only by the scholars (3) firmly grounded in knowledge, the Sacred Law either forbids the pursuit of such knowledge—if the common folk have no need of it, as with the knowledge of the soul—or it furnishes an example from the sensible realm when the people’s happiness (4) requires that they know it.

The objection advanced in denying direction—by those who reject it—is not perceived by the masses, especially when they have not been explicitly told that He (5) is not a body. Thus, in all these matters one must follow the procedure laid down by the Sacred Law and refrain from interpreting what the Sacred Law has not itself (6) interpreted.

With respect to these issues in the Sacred Law, people fall into three ranks:
A group that is unaware of the doubts that may arise (7) in this regard, especially when