apply the analogy consistently,” they must either draw a distinction or be inconsistent. This would not, however, constitute proof against attributing hearing and sight to Him. Likewise, if those who hold that all five forms of perception can have Him as their object—as these people and those who agree with them do, such as al-Qādī Abū Yaʿlā and others—say to those who affirm that He can be seen, “You must describe Him as an object of hearing, smell, taste, and touch, just as you have said concerning sight,” the latter likewise take two approaches: some explain the distinction, while others distinguish touch from the other forms of perception, because the revealed texts affirm it but not the others.

Abū al-Maʿālī said in his al-Irshād (The Guide):

“If it is said: ‘You have described the Lord Most High as possessing hearing and sight, and hearing and sight are two forms of perception. Yet other forms of perception are established in the observable realm: perception relating to tastes, perception relating to smells, and perception relating to heat, cold, softness, and roughness. Do you attribute to the Lord Most High the properties associated with these forms of perception, or do you confine yourselves to describing Him as possessing hearing and sight?’

“We reply: The correct position, which we hold with certainty, is that the properties associated with perception must be attributed to Him, since every form of perception is negated by an opposite that is a defect. Thus, whatever establishes the obligation to