assert that they affirm the Divine Name but refuse to affirm any meaning for it. According to them, the Names are no more than bare labels: al-Samīʿ (the All-Hearing) without hearing, al-ʿAlīm (the All-Knowing) without knowledge, al-Raḥīm (the Most Merciful) without mercy, and so on—mere appellations. It is like calling a man “Muḥammad” even though he is blameworthy and possesses not a single praiseworthy trait, or calling another “ʿAbd Allāh” while he is among the most stubborn disbelievers, denying the very existence of God. Hence, when one says “ʿAbd Allāh,” the phrase is nothing but a proper noun identifying its bearer; in the same way, they contend that the Names of God are pure markers that carry no meaning whatsoever.

The author introduces this discussion only in passing; it is not essential to the commentary, for he himself remarks, “This is not the place to expand on the matter”—except insofar as it touches tafsīr inasmuch as the Qur’an contains many of God’s Names.

The intended point is that every one of His Names indicates His Essence, the attribute explicitly contained in that Name, and—by necessary implication—the attribute conveyed by another Name.

Explanation: A Name points to the attribute it contains and, by entailment, to another attribute contained in a different Name. Take al-Khāliq (the Creator): it signifies the Essence and the attribute of creating, and it also implies the knowledge found in al-ʿAlīm (the All-Knowing) and the power found in al-Qadīr (the All-Powerful). Thus the Name al-Khāliq entails al-ʿAlīm