characterized by life and death, knowledge and ignorance, and power and powerlessness. These are accidents, and whatever is characterized by accidents must be contingent or be a body occupying space. This entails its having come into existence, which is impossible.” We would be under no obligation to agree with him in affirming this negation—which entails affirming that He is living, knowing and powerful—while he denies that affirmation. For this negation cannot hold true without that affirmation.

We are under no obligation to agree with him on something he uses to arrive at a false conclusion. Indeed, we must not do so if he uses it to invalidate a truth we know. Such agreement is like making peace with the unbelievers on terms that undermine Islam, which is impermissible.

This resembles what is related of Abū al-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf, who said: “I entered the hall of debate, where a Jew had debated a group of speculative theologians concerning the prophethood of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He said to them, ‘Do you not agree with me that Moses is a messenger of Allah?’ They replied, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘But I disagree with you that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah. One whose prophethood is agreed upon is better than one whose prophethood is disputed’—or words to that effect