correct.”

I say: In claiming that this interpretation, rather than the first, accords with Arabic usage and the word’s derivation, they spoke according to the extent of their knowledge after hearing the quoted verses of poetry. What they said is unquestionably false. Rather, interpreting al-Samad as implying cohesion and the absence of division in His essence, and His having no hollow interior, accords better with Arabic usage and derivation than construing the name in terms of His attributes—that He is forbearing or a giver who gives to people so that they turn to Him. For the root meaning of al-Samad is cohesion, as explained earlier. This meaning is therefore more appropriately established in the essence of the One so named than in His attributes.

Moreover, whatever is said about the meaning of al-Samad being established in His attributes, His actions, or His creatures’ actions toward Him necessarily entails that this meaning is also established in His essence. Likewise, its being established in His essence necessarily entails the reality of His attributes. The entailment thus holds in both directions, but the aspect pertaining to His essence takes precedence over the others. How, then, can the reverse be claimed for another interpretation, when this is the interpretation established from the leading Companions and Successors through mass-transmitted reports conveyed by the leading scholars of the Muslim community?