knows universals.’ They also said: ‘Knowledge of a thing consists in the presence within the knower of a form matching the object known.’ They further said: ‘The form of the objects known exists within the essence of Allah Most High.’ Even Ibn Sīnā said: ‘If that attribute is not included in the essence, but is instead one of its necessary concomitants…’ How can someone who holds this position deny the attributes?

“In short, there is no difference between those who affirm the attributes and the philosophers, except that those who affirm the attributes say: ‘The attributes subsist in the essence,’ whereas the philosophers say: ‘These intelligible forms are accidental properties whose existence depends upon the essence.’ What those who affirm the attributes call an ‘attribute,’ the philosopher calls an ‘accidental property’; and what an affirmer of the attributes calls ‘subsistence,’ the philosopher calls qiwām (existential support) and taqawwum (dependence upon that support). The difference is merely one of expression; there is no difference in meaning.”

[Fourth point]

It may be said: “If the terms ‘occupying space’ and ‘divisibility’