“The other set is lying in its testimony,” and bringing to light what invalidates that testimony and shows it to be untruthful. The claimed right cannot be established in this way. For if we believe each set both in its testimony concerning the claimed right and in its charge that the other witnesses lack probity, it follows that those witnesses’ testimony cannot be accepted. Thus neither set’s testimony can be accepted, and the right is not established.

If we single out one set of witnesses for acceptance, or accept both sets’ testimony concerning the right while disregarding their criticisms of one another, that would be arbitrary.

Moreover, there is not a single question that has not been disputed among both theologians and philosophers. The philosophers disagree over direction and the occurrence of temporal events, and the theologians likewise disagree over these matters. Those in both groups who affirm them raise rational objections against the arguments of those who deny them.

Although the adherents of the Sunnah recognize through reason sound meanings contrary to what those who negate the divine attributes maintain, they do not describe Allah’s attributes using ambiguous, innovated expressions. They do not assert without qualification that Allah is a body, that temporal events occur in Him, that He is composite, or anything similar.

Nor do they negate these things in terms that encompass denying what the Messenger affirmed and reason indicates. Rather, they explain ambiguous expressions, clarify difficult points, distinguish possible meanings, follow the clear verses, and recognize that sound reason agrees with authentic revelation.

These proponents of philosophy, such as this man and others like him, although inwardly agreeing with those who negate the divine attributes in some of their negations, acknowledge that revelation did not teach this, and they refute