going into detail about them, for ordinary people cannot attain any certainty whatsoever in this matter. By ordinary people here, I mean anyone who has not devoted himself to the demonstrative disciplines.

It makes no difference whether or not he has mastered speculative theology, for that discipline cannot attain this degree of knowledge. At its highest level, speculative theology is dialectical rather than demonstrative wisdom, and dialectic cannot arrive at the truth in this matter.

This discussion has thus clarified the extent of the knowledge explicitly set out for ordinary people concerning this matter, and the methods by which they have been guided to it. It has also shown that the methods by which they have led people concerning these matters, claiming them to be part of the revealed Law, are not part of the revealed Law; rather, the revealed Law is silent about them.

I say:

His aim in these words is to show that the methods his fellow philosophers use to deny the attributes are demonstrative, unlike those of others.

But matters are not as he claims. Rather, the methods his fellows have adopted in denying the attributes are far weaker than those adopted by the Mu'tazilites, even though