by an attribute that distinguishes Him from others is not known and therefore cannot be worshipped. Here, he stated that there must be an attribute distinguishing Him from others, whereas those who negate the attributes say, “This attributes corporeality to Him.” Earlier, he stated that it is impossible for there to be no shared aspect or resemblance whatsoever between Him and any existing thing, whereas those who negate the attributes say, “This likens Him to creation.”

Thus, the meanings they intended by “likening” and “corporeality” entail that whoever is described as free of these things, in their intended sense, is nonexistent—indeed, necessarily nonexistent, with existence being impossible. Yet the wording can also convey the denial of false notions, such as denying that He resembles created beings by being their equal in some respect; denying this is obligatory. Likewise, it is obligatory to deny that He is susceptible to division and disintegration, which would mean that He is not the Self-Sufficient, the One.

They also used ambiguous, equivocal language capable of conveying both truth and falsehood, but intended by it what is false, even if they also intended what is true. They misled people into thinking that they intended only to deny what is false. As Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “They speak in ambiguous terms and mislead the ignorant through the confusion they create.”