their number except the Lord of the heavens. No one has been able to produce a single statement from them supporting denial, unless it be among the conflicting reports transmitted by those least familiar with their words.

Some of these people cling to “ambiguous statements” they have heard, some false and some true. One example is what they relate from ʿUmar, that he said:

“The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and Abū Bakr would converse, and I was like an East African between them.”

This is false by the consensus of scholars versed in transmitted reports. Even supposing it were true, its meaning is unspecified. If those who affirm maintain that the two were discussing affirmation, since this accords with what has been transmitted from them, their interpretation would be more justified than the deniers’ claim that they were discussing denial.

The same applies to the hadith concerning Abū Hurayra’s bags, in which he said:

“I learned from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, two bags’ worth of knowledge. One I have spread among you; as for the other, were I to spread it, you would cut this throat.”

This hadith is authentic, but its meaning is unspecified. An explanation has, however, been transmitted: the other bag contained reports of great battles and tribulations. Even supposing it contained something concerning the divine attributes, nothing in it indicates denial. Rather, the reliably preserved hadiths of Abū Hurayra—such as those concerning “His coming on the Day of Resurrection,” “descent,” “laughter,” and similar matters—all support affirmation. Not a single statement resembling the deniers’ doctrine has been transmitted from Abū Hurayra.

As for the “Jahmī speculative theologians,” they say that reason is the indication that diverts them from what the discourse signifies, and that he therefore deemed rational evidence consonant with the deniers’ doctrine sufficient.