affirm Him?’ If they affirm Him, their affirmation necessarily entails what they sought to avoid, for that which comes into being is also real; thus both share reality. There is no middle ground between affirmation and negation. If they say, ‘He is not negated,’ they are told: ‘Negating a negation is affirmation, just as negating an affirmation is negation. Since negating a negation necessarily establishes reality, likeness follows.’

If they say, ‘We do not apply affirmative expressions to His attributes, nor do we utter them,’ we reply: ‘You have spoken affirmatively about the Lord’s attributes, or used wording that implies affirmation. What matters in expressions is their meaning.’ We then ask: ‘Do you believe in the reality of God—glory be to Him?’ If they say, ‘We do not,’ discussion with them about matters dependent upon this must cease. Moreover, they defy what is self-evident, for we know that negating a negation is affirmation.

If they say, ‘We believe in His reality but do not express it verbally,’ we reply: ‘Our discussion concerns realities, not the expressions used for them.’ If they say, ‘Then ascribe reality and existence to God without saying so, and believe in the existence of that which comes into being without saying so, thereby avoiding likeness in wording, for likeness in wording is something to guard against in matters of belief,’ we reply:

‘Wording is avoided because it implies coming into being or imperfection. We therefore pay no heed to any wording that implies neither coming into being nor imperfection. Furthermore, guarding against denial is more important than guarding against resemblance.’