but may sometimes not constitute an oath, as with “the Ever-Living” and “the Self-Sufficient.” A third category is not ordinarily understood to refer to Allah; rather, its reference is indeterminate and shared, and it is applied both to Him and to created beings, as with the name “existent” and similar terms. This category does not constitute an oath when used without qualification. If Allah is intended by it, does it constitute an oath? There are two well-known opinions. The first is that it does, which is the apparent position of Ahmad’s school: according to them, an oath is binding whether expressed explicitly or indirectly. The second is that it does not, which is the apparent position of al-Shāfiʿī’s school and one opinion within Ahmad’s school, because these scholars do not regard an oath expressed indirectly as binding.

This being so, it is clear that denying resemblance in every respect amounts to negating and denying the Lord of the worlds, as Muslims unanimously agree, just as affirming it without qualification amounts to setting up rivals to the Lord of the worlds. Yet some people neither understand this nor believe that the term “resemblance” signifies the likeness denied of Allah, for the term “resemblance” has both broad and narrow senses, as we shall explain. This is why most people have gone astray concerning it: it has no clearly defined limit. What is ruled out by agreement among Muslims—indeed, among the adherents of all religions, and even among all rational people who acknowledge Allah—is known of necessity