As for his statement:

“The doctrine of the early generations consists solely of affirming divine oneness and transcendence, not attributing a body to Allah or likening Him to creation.”

The response to him is this: the terms “divine oneness,” “divine transcendence,” “likening Allah to creation,” and “attributing a body to Allah” have acquired multiple meanings because dialectical theologians and others use different technical conventions. Each group means something by these terms that others do not.

The Jahmiyya among the Mu'tazila and other groups mean by “divine oneness and transcendence” the denial of all attributes, and by “attributing a body to Allah and likening Him to creation” the affirmation of any of them. Thus, anyone who says, “Allah sees,” or “He possesses knowledge,” is, in their view, someone who likens Allah to creation and attributes a body to Him.

Many dialectical theologians who affirm the divine attributes mean by divine oneness and transcendence the denial of all or some of the attributes known from scriptural reports, and by attributing a body to Allah and likening Him to creation the affirmation of all or some of those attributes.

The philosophers mean by divine oneness what the Mu'tazila mean, and more besides. They even say that He has only an attribute of negation, an attribute of relation, or one combining the two.

The Ittihādiyya (proponents of the unity of existence) mean by divine oneness that He is absolute existence. Others have still other technical usages for this term.

As for the divine oneness with which Allah sent the messengers and revealed the scriptures, it includes none of these technical usages. Rather, Allah commanded His servants to worship Him alone and associate no partners