and which he constructed by combining the doctrine of their predecessors with that of the Jahmiyyah. It is weaker than the preceding method in many respects.

The argument from the contingency of the attributes of bodies rests on the premise that bodies share the same essential nature. Most rational people disagree with this, and their leading thinkers acknowledge its invalidity. We have already cited the statements of al-Ashʿarī, al-Rāzī, al-Āmidī, and others acknowledging its invalidity, and have demonstrated this through clear rational reasoning.

Since these methods are invalid according to the majority of rational people—indeed, invalid in themselves—knowledge of the Creator cannot depend upon an invalid method. Even if their validity were assumed, it is known that most rational people came to know Allah and accepted His Messenger as truthful without this method. Knowledge of revelation therefore does not depend upon its validity, and challenging it does not undermine the foundation of revelation.

[Sixth]

The sixth argument:

It should be said: Even if revelation were assumed to depend upon knowing, for example, that He is not a body, it would not be conceded that those who affirm the attributes conveyed in the Quran and Sunnah have contradicted what reason requires. Their position concerning the attributes they affirm is like that of all others who deny that He is a body while affirming some attributes.

If the latter say:

“He is living, knowing, and powerful, yet He is not a body,”

and others say:

“He is living by virtue of life, knowing by virtue of knowledge, and powerful by virtue of power; moreover, He hears, sees, and speaks by virtue of hearing, sight, and speech, yet He is not a body,”

then those who affirm the remaining attributes reported by the Messenger can say concerning them what these others say concerning these attributes.