so I said:

My statement, “without specifying how or likening Him to creation,” rules out every false conception. I chose these two expressions because the rejection of specifying how is transmitted from the early generations. Rabīʿah, Mālik, Ibn ʿUyaynah and others made the statement that scholars have received with acceptance:

“Rising over is known; its manner is unknown; belief in it is obligatory; and asking about it is an innovation.”

These scholars of the early generations thus agreed that the manner is unknown to us. I therefore rejected specifying it, following the early generations of this community.

It is also ruled out by scriptural evidence, for the interpretation of the verses concerning the attributes encompasses the true reality of the One described and the true reality of His attributes. This belongs to the interpretation known only to Allah, as I have explained in a separate treatise on interpretation, meaning, and the distinction between knowing the meaning of a statement and knowing its interpretation.

Likewise, likening Him to creation is ruled out by scriptural evidence and the consensus of the early generations. Reason also indicates that both likening Him to creation and specifying how must be rejected, since the Creator’s ultimate reality is unknown to human beings.

In this connection, I also mentioned al-Khattābī’s statement describing the position of the early generations: to take the verses and hadiths concerning the attributes according to their apparent meanings, while rejecting any specification of their manner or any resemblance to creation. For discussion of the attributes follows from discussion of the divine essence, proceeding along the same lines and following the same pattern. Thus, if affirming the divine essence means affirming its existence, not specifying how it is, then likewise affirming the attributes means affirming their existence, not specifying how they are.