he is told:

Denying that He is separate from the world is false, and whatever entails a falsehood is itself false. Thus, if denying the meanings designated by these expressions entails denying His separateness, then denying those meanings is false. The aforementioned arguments for denying their meanings, understood in this sense, are therefore invalid.

The proponent of affirmation says: Denying His separateness from the world and His being above His creation is false. Indeed, these denials entail rejecting as false what the Messenger affirmed concerning his Lord and reported about Him, which is also disbelief. Yet not everyone who utters disbelief becomes a disbeliever: the proof establishing his disbelief must first be established against him. Once that proof has been established against him, he then becomes a disbeliever. Indeed, denying these matters entails declaring the Messenger a disbeliever on account of what he affirmed concerning his Lord and reported about Him. In reality, it even amounts to denying the Maker and negating Him.

Although denying these things entails disbelief in this respect, many groups among the believers have denied them. An implication of a position is not itself the position of its adherent unless he accepts that implication. Many people deny or affirm certain expressions—indeed, they deny or affirm certain meanings—and this entails things that constitute disbelief, without their knowing that these implications follow. Rather, they contradict themselves. How frequently people contradict themselves, especially in this matter! Contradiction is not disbelief.

The versifier says:

I was told that whoever says this is both misled and misleading. This is true, for he has misled others through his statement and has himself been misled by others. Not everyone who misleads others is a disbeliever. I also maintained that the statement of anyone who says this entails negation; thus, disbelief lies latent