Yet his position on the eternity of the world is more unsound than theirs, and the contradictions in his position can be exposed even more fully than those in theirs.

For this reason, when discussing the eternity of the world, he goes back and forth, recounting the statements and arguments of both parties as though he were an outsider to the dispute. He leaves it to the reader’s judgment to decide which position is stronger, although his own preference for the position of those who affirm its eternity is apparent.

As for denying the attributes, however, he asserts this categorically, treating it as conclusively established and admitting no hesitation. They agree with him on this, and it was through this that he was able to argue against them for the eternity of the world. Through it, too, he was able to deny the Hereafter and distort words from their proper meanings. He said:

“We say concerning the texts about the Hereafter what you said concerning the texts about the attributes.”

He also said:

“Just as the divine scriptures do not explain the actual truth concerning monotheism”—meaning the monotheism on which the Muʿtazilites agreed with him, namely, denying the attributes on the basis of denying corporeality and composition—“so too they do not explain the actual truth concerning the Hereafter.”

He based this on the premise that the true nature of the matter cannot be explicitly disclosed to the general public; rather,