The response is:

This man shares the view of Ibn Sīnā and similar philosophers and esotericists, who maintain that, regarding belief in Allah and the Last Day, the messengers presented people with something contrary to reality so that the general public might benefit. Had reality been disclosed to them, they would have understood nothing from it but sheer negation. The messengers therefore presented them with images and likenesses bearing some resemblance to reality, in a form from which they could benefit.

Abū Hāmid adopts this view in places. His prohibition of figurative interpretation in Restraining the Common People and Distinguishing Faith from Heresy rests on this principle. These people consider leaving the texts according to their apparent meanings to be the beneficial course to which people must be made to adhere. Yet they believe that the prophets neither explained the truth nor bequeathed knowledge that scholars ought to acquire. Rather, in their view, those who impart true knowledge are the Jahmiyya, the Dahriyya, and others among the proponents of negation and denial.

What this man says about light he took from Abū Hāmid’s Mishkāt (The Niche). Various groups of prominent jurists and worshippers have joined them in this, having been taken in by this deviation concerning Allah’s names and signs.

Everyone who believes in denying what the Messenger affirmed falls, to that extent, into a form of deviation. Such people are numerous among later generations but few among the early generations.

Anyone who carefully examines the writings of many Quran commentators, hadith commentators, and authors of creeds founded on negation and works of speculative theology will find enough of this to make the reality of the matter clear.

As for his statement about light—that it is perceptible to the senses, yet sight cannot grasp it, and likewise