Moreover, you call Him “eternal,” “necessarily existent,” and “an essence,” and use other such terms not found in revelation. The Lawgiver distinguishes between the names by which He is invoked—He is to be invoked only by the Most Beautiful Names—and terms used to speak of Him in order to affirm a meaning He rightfully possesses, which someone denying His rightful attributes has denied of Him. Thus, if someone disputes His eternity or necessary existence, you describe Him as He rightfully deserves, saying that He is eternal and necessarily existent. If the dispute with those who say that He is a substance and a body concerns wording, their justification for using these terms is: “In denying this designation, the denier denies attributes that the Lord rightfully possesses. We therefore affirmed His rightful attributes by affirming what this designation signifies, just as you and others have done with such terms as ‘eternal,’ ‘essence,’ and ‘necessarily existent.’”

Second:

You argued for denying this designation on the grounds that the Arabs have not been reported to use “substance” to mean something that subsists in itself.

The answer to you is:

Nor have they been reported to use it to mean everything that occupies space and bears accidents. Nor have they been reported to use the word dhāt (essence) to denote the self. Rather, in their usage, dhāt is the feminine form of dhū (“possessor of”), and is used only in a possessive construction, as in the words of Allah Most High:

“So fear Allah and set right the relations between yourselves.”

Al-Anfāl 1

And His words:

“Indeed, He knows what is within the hearts.”

Al-Anfāl 43.

And the statement of the Prophet