His Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is undoubtedly true. As for their denial of the attributes of the Lord, exalted is He, their claim that He has not spoken with speech subsisting in Him, that He cannot be seen either in this world or in the Hereafter, and similar claims, these belong to the corrupt elements of their religion.

This is the method Ibn ʿAqīl followed when he inclined towards certain Muʿtazilī positions. He had studied under Abū ʿAlī ibn al-Walīd and Abū al-Qāsim ibn al-Tabbān, both followers of Abū al-Husayn al-Basrī. Thus, his writings sometimes defend their arguments and sometimes refute them. He possessed a keen intellect and was prolific in discourse and writing, so his works contain contradictory positions reflecting his changing circumstances, as do those of Abū Hāmid, al-Rāzī, Abū al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzī and others.

Ibn al-Jawzī follows his example in his ventures into speculative theology, as in his discussions in Minhāj al-Usūl (The Method of Fundamentals), Kaff al-Tashbīh (Repelling Anthropomorphism), and similar works.

Consequently, these men’s writings contain denials of the attributes known through scriptural reports. They also reject calling the relevant verses and hadiths “verses concerning the attributes” and “hadiths concerning the attributes,” calling them instead “verses of ascription” and “texts of ascription.” These and similar statements agreeing with Muʿtazilī positions make it clear that al-Ashʿarī and the leading scholars among his followers who affirm these scripturally reported attributes and related matters are closer to the Sunnah, the early generations and the imams, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others, than these men whose statements on this issue incline towards the Muʿtazilī method.

This method, which Abū al-Husayn followed in establishing that whatever is brought into existence necessarily requires something newly occurring, is also the method followed by Abū al-Maʿālī, Ibn ʿAqīl and others in much of their discourse.