or powerful does not entail that they are identical in their reality. The point is that, in this book too, he has acknowledged that likeness in certain respects is established by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the agreement of rational people, let alone Muslims. Yet he criticized his corporealist opponents only for affirming likeness in the entirety of their essential nature. This is the point at issue between him and them.

When we reach the arguments to which he referred, we shall, Allah Most High willing, set out what is needed to judge fairly between him and them, and explain whether all bodies are identical in their entire essential nature and full reality. This is not the place to discuss that.

Although he included this section at the end of the book, we have cited it here to show his acknowledgment, and that of all others, of what the scriptural and rational evidence establishes: that likeness exists in certain respects, and that this does not entail identity in reality. This also makes clear how this expression can be general or specific, unqualified or qualified.

The point here is that the expressions “like” and “equal” involve considerable ambiguity: the same wording bears different senses, and the intended meaning is unclear. Thus, if, by what he negated through this