His speech is created,” he should be told: “Then the same implication applies to hearing and sight, for the Basran Mu‘tazilah affirm perception.”

If he says: “I follow the position of the Baghdadi Mu‘tazilah: I do not affirm hearing, sight, or speech subsisting in Him. Rather, I say that His speech is one of His created things, because affirming these attributes amounts to ascribing corporeality to Him and likening Him to creation. Indeed, I do not even affirm will for Him, just as the Baghdadis do not affirm it. Instead, I treat it as a negation or a relation: I say that His being willing means that He is neither overpowered nor compelled, or that it means His being a creator and commander”—he should be told: “Then the same implication applies to His being living, knowing, and powerful, for the Mu‘tazilah unanimously affirm that He is living, knowing, and powerful.” He should also be told: “You know of nothing living, knowing, and powerful except a body. Thus, if you affirm that He is living, knowing, and powerful, your position entails ascribing corporeality to Him and likening Him to creation.”

If he goes further in negating the divine attributes and says: “I do not follow the Mu‘tazilah, but rather the pure Jahmiyyah and the esotericists among the philosophers and the Qarmatians. I therefore negate the names along with the attributes, and I do not call Him living, knowing, powerful, or speaking except figuratively, in the sense of negation and relation: that is, He is neither ignorant nor powerless, and He has made others knowing and powerful”—he should be told: “Then the same implication applies to His being existent, necessarily existent in Himself, without beginning, and an agent. For it has been said that Jahm affirmed His being an agent and powerful, because, according to him, a human being is neither powerful nor an agent; thus, in his view, this involves no likening of Allah to creation.”

Once he reaches this point, he must adopt the position of one of their groups and say: