and His having no need of it depends upon His not being a body. His not being a body depends upon negating His attributes and acts, because whatever possesses attributes and acts is a body. Negating these depends upon what the coming into being of bodies establishes. Thus, if the proof that bodies come into being is invalidated, the proof of the Messenger’s truthfulness is invalidated.

Moreover, the proof that bodies come into being is also the proof that the world came into being and that the Maker—exalted is He—exists. If that is invalidated, the proof establishing the Maker’s existence is invalidated. Thus, knowledge of the Maker’s existence and belief in the Messenger’s truthfulness become dependent upon negating the divine attributes and acts. If revelation then contains something indicating the affirmation of these attributes and acts, its import cannot be accepted, because that would contradict the proof of his truthfulness. Rather, it is known in general that the Messenger did not intend thereby to affirm attributes and acts: either because the person transmitting it from him lied, because the wording does not indicate their affirmation, or because he did not intend to affirm them.

We must then either propose possible interpretations that the wording can bear, even if the intended meaning is not specified, or set this aside and say: “We do not know the intended meaning.”

This is the foundation of their position. Those who agree with them in negating some of the attributes or acts adopt whatever part of this argument suits their purpose. In essence, their position is that it is impossible to believe everything contained in revelation; indeed, believing some of it is possible only by not believing another part.

Their rational proof therefore indicates the Messenger’s truthfulness only on this basis, so they cannot accept any texts of the Quran and Sunnah that contradict it.