Allāhu akbar (Allah is the Greatest), that would still be a sound explanation. And if, concerning “My dhikr,” we were to say, “It is the scriptures He has sent down to His servants,” that too would be a valid meaning, for the wording embraces both senses. This is a case of ikhtilāf tanawwuʿ—a diversity of complementary interpretations—because the second sense does not contradict the first. Everything Allah has revealed necessarily entails remembering Him and serves as a reminder to His servants.

If, however, the questioner aims to learn the particular attribute contained in the name, then something more is required than merely identifying the referent. For example, he may ask about al-Quddūs, al-Salām, or al-Muʾmin. He already knows that the One intended is Allah, but what he wants to know is the meaning of His being Quddūs, Salām, or Muʾmin, and the like.

Explanation
If he says, “Who is al-Quddūs?” we answer, “Allah.” Or if he says, “Who is al-Salām?” we answer, “Allah.” Yet if he asks, “What is al-Quddūs? What is al-Salām?” the reply differs, for his use of “what” shows that he seeks the meaning—that is, what does al-Quddūs mean? what does al-Salām mean? Conversely, when he says, “Who is al-Quddūs?” you do not define the term for him; you simply point him to the One named by it, namely Allah, exalted is He.

Once this is understood, the early scholars often referred to the named reality with a phrase that identifies the same entity, even if that phrase includes an attribute absent from the other name. Thus one might say, “Aḥmad is al-Hāshir, al-Māḥī, and al-ʿĀqib,” or, “al-Quddūs is al-Ghafūr al-Raḥīm.” The point is that the referent is one and the same—not that each attribute is identical to the other.