[where he said]:

“Section: A remarkable point overlooked by many scholars of fundamental principles. Just as one must not go to excess in affirmation, exceeding what the revealed Law affirms and indicates, so too must one not go to excess in negation or venture to deny anything of Allah without evidence. Negation, too, carries the risk of denying what necessarily belongs to Him, glorified is He. Thus, negation requires evidence just as affirmation does. Just as affirming what does not befit Him is disbelief, denying what may be true of Him is error and sinfulness. An example is how these preachers and storytellers go to excess in denying imperfections of Him, then include among those denials things reported in the Sunnah. They say: ‘He is neither above nor below; He is not perceived, not known, not recognized,’ and so on and so forth. Thus, their denials may lead them to deny an attribute reported in the Sunnah.”

I say: This is the correct position held by the early generations, the leading scholars, and the vast majority of Muslims: negation, like affirmation, is permissible only with evidence. How, then, can one deny without evidence what is supported by evidence—whether conclusive or based on the apparent meaning? Indeed, how can it be said, “Any attribute whose affirmation is not supported by conclusive evidence must be denied, or must be categorically denied,” only for conclusive evidence then to be declared inconclusive?