And this is the method Abū Hāmid followed in debating your brethren, and it is a sound method. It has become clear that what Abū Hāmid related concerning their argument using the term “composite” constitutes a sound response. Their argument using this term parallels those others’ argument using the term “particularization,” when they said that whatever has a particular characteristic must have one who assigns it that characteristic. This is the approach followed by those who deny the attributes and call their denial “monotheism.” It is also the approach followed by Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad ibn Tūmart, whom his followers called the Mahdī, and others like him who deny the attributes and call this “monotheism.”

[The Statements of Ibn Tūmart]

Ibn Tūmart gave his followers this designation, since his teaching on monotheism was that of Jahm and Ibn Sīnā, who denied the attributes. It is said that he received this teaching from someone whose writings sometimes agree with the philosophers and sometimes oppose them.

I say: For this reason, I have seen a book by Ibn Tūmart on monotheism in which he explicitly denied the attributes. Accordingly, in his Murshida (Guide), he mentioned neither the affirmation of the attributes nor the affirmation of seeing Allah. Nor did he state that Allah’s speech is uncreated ن, or mention other such matters that those who affirm the attributes customarily discuss. Thus, the substance of his position agreed with that of Ibn Sab‘īn and those who espouse absolute existence, in agreement with Ibn Sīnā. Ibn Tūmart stated in his Fawā’id al-Mashriqiyya (Eastern Benefits) that existence is common to