can only be predicated of one who is susceptible to them is nothing but an unfounded assertion and a convention you have contrived for yourselves. Allah—glorified and exalted be He—has described the idols as dead and has denied that they possess life, saying: “Those whom they call upon besides Allah create nothing, while they themselves are created—dead, not alive” (al-Naḥl 16:20–21). Their objects of worship are trees, stones, and the like; thus the Qur’an itself overturns their claim.

As for their allegation that if we say, “Allah is living,” we liken Him to living beings, and if we say, “He is dead,” we liken Him to the dead, we reply: by that very argument you have likened Him to inanimate matter. For the moment you declare that He is receptive to neither life nor death, like a stone, you have reduced Him to the level of lifeless objects.

Next we say to them: suppose we conceded your premise. You maintain that we must not say, “He exists,” nor may we say, “He does not exist,” thereby denying both existence and non-existence. Yet this is impossible by the consensus of rational people, for existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive: if one is negated, the other must necessarily obtain. You insist it is forbidden to affirm, “Allah exists,” and equally forbidden to state, “Allah does not exist.” Should someone affirm His existence, you label it heresy; should he declare Him non-existent, you also deem it heresy. Such a position is inconceivable. In effect, you have likened Him to logical impossibilities whose existence can never be.

This, then, is the creed of the Bāṭinite esoterics concerning Allah, exalted be He: they will not allow a single Name or attribute to be affirmed for Him; instead, they deny both opposing predicates.

The others—namely, the Muʿtazilites and the extreme literalists who