In short, once the intended meaning is known, whether we say, “This is the apparent meaning,” or “This is not the apparent meaning,” is a merely verbal disagreement. If, in the oath-taker’s customary usage, the apparent meaning of this verse is something resembling the attributes of created beings, he has broken his oath. If, however, its apparent meaning in his customary usage is what befits Allah Most High, he has not broken it.

If his locality’s customary usage of this expression is unknown, there is no circumstance from which his intent can be inferred, and his intention cannot be ascertained, then he may have intended either a sound meaning or a false one. His oath is therefore not deemed broken on the basis of doubt.

All of this follows from the position that someone who swears to something, believing it to be as he has sworn, has broken his oath if it proves otherwise. According to those who do not consider him to have broken his oath, the ruling concerning his oath is clear.

Know that, if you investigate why most of those who deny this attribute and others like it have denied them, you will find that they have assumed the apparent meaning of this verse to be an istiwā’ like that of created beings, or an istiwā’ that entails temporal origination or deficiency. They then attribute this position to their opponents and proceed to adduce evidence of its falsity. They then say, “It must therefore be interpreted as dominion, appearance and manifestation, or superiority and pre-eminence—that is, loftiness of rank and standing.”

Yet a “third meaning” remains: an istiwā’ befitting His majesty, which this expression signifies just as the words knowledge, will, hearing, and sight signify their respective meanings. This meaning is attested by revelation.