that are ambiguous and innovated, they neither affirm nor deny them without first clarifying their meanings. Whatever meanings accord with the Quran and Sunnah they affirm, and whatever contradicts them they deny. Thus, they do not assert without qualification that He is a body or a substance, nor do they say that He is neither a body nor a substance. Likewise, they neither affirm nor deny the term “spatial locus” without qualification.

As for this person’s statement:

“Thus, they were imagined by those who cannot conceive of an existent that is not a body, nor was it feared that their minds would incline towards professing corporealism. Such is the condition of most people.”

This is contradictory. If most people cannot conceive of an existent that is not a body, then, upon hearing these matters, their minds will certainly incline towards affirming corporealism. His subsequent statement that those whose minds are led by this to affirm corporealism are few contradicts what preceded it.

[Return to Ibn Rushd’s discussion in Manāhij al-adillah and Ibn Taymiyyah’s response]

He said:

“In my view, before the misguided sects explicitly affirmed this attribute, the proper course was to follow the method of revelation concerning it, making no explicit denial or affirmation, and to answer anyone among the general public who asked about it with the words of the Exalted:

‘There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.’

[al-Shūrā: 11]