and clear. Praise be to Allah Most High.

Fifth:

Even if he supported this with evidence from revelation—for example, by establishing through a revealed text that He is Generous—he would not be entitled to interpret it in this sense, for two reasons:

First:

The proofs he presents are not drawn from revelation or the revealed law, as he himself acknowledges. It is therefore unacceptable for him to present a proof drawn from revelation while claiming that it is rational. Moreover, this name does not occur in the Quran, although it appears in some hadiths.

Second:

To establish that these names have been transmitted from the Lawgiver and to explain their meanings, one must refer to those who transmitted the Quran and hadith from him, in both wording and meaning. These are the scholars, the heirs of the prophets, who received faith, the Quran and hadith from one another in a chain reaching back to him. Alternatively, one must ascertain this oneself from the language in which he addressed people. Undoubtedly, the philosophers are among those furthest removed from this. Were they to claim to transmit wording and its meaning from the messengers without referring to those knowledgeable about the teachings handed down from the messengers, their claim would be unacceptable by the agreement of all rational people.

How, then, can anyone legitimately appeal to such a weak indication to deny Allah Most High’s will, when the Quran is full of affirmations of His will and volition, and His mercy