Yaḥyā ibn ʿAmmār, along with his companion—the aforementioned Shaykh al-Islām Abū Ismāʿīl al-Anṣārī—and others, maintained that this narration belongs to the same category as the ḥadīths dealing with the Divine attributes, which tighten the chest of anyone whose intellect cannot contain them. These scholars rebut those who force such reports into the mold of Bāṭinite esotericism—an approach that does, in fact, appear in some of Abū Ḥāmid’s statements and in the words of others.

It is self-evident to anyone familiar with the Prophet’s statements that he came with affirmation, not negation, and that the messengers affirmed Allah’s attributes in detail while generally declaring Him transcendent—far removed from both negation (taʿṭīl) and anthropomorphic likening (tamthīl).

In truth, every evil stems from one of two roots: either neglecting a rightful duty or transgressing into falsehood. This, in practical terms, means falling short of the Sunnah or venturing into innovation—such as abandoning a portion of what is commanded, committing something prohibited, rejecting a truth, or embracing a falsehood. Most people go astray through one of these two doors.

Thus, among those who affiliate themselves with the people of ḥadīth, the Sunnah, and the mainstream community, there are some who, as noted, are negligent: they fail to acquire the texts properly, to grasp their meanings, or to furnish them with the proofs they deserve and repel objections against them. Such weakness is a deficiency in upholding the truth.

Others may fall into falsehood outright—either by adopting an innovation first introduced by the innovators, then feeling obliged to defend its logical consequences, or by inventing an innovation themselves, thinking it a completion of the Sunnah. This is precisely what befell people in the controversy over the Qur’an as the Speech of Allah and other matters related to His attributes.