of it—no one would be permitted to introduce it into the religion of the Muslims. This is unlike what the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, conveyed, for believing it is obligatory. Innovated statements entail denying much of what the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought. This is recognized by anyone who understands both the Messenger’s intended meaning and that of those who advance these innovated statements.

When newly introduced theological discourse spread, incorporating ideas that contradicted the Quran and Sunnah, and people began using it to oppose them, explaining what they meant by these expressions and the linguistic and rational arguments they offered for them became a means of showing the believer how to avoid innovation and misguidance—or escape them if he had already fallen into them—and how to ward off, inwardly and outwardly, whatever in this discourse conflicts with his faith in the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This is discussed at length in its proper place.

The point here is that what the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought cannot be dismissed through ambiguous expressions such as “corporealism” and others, which may encompass a false meaning, while the person denying them denies both truth and falsehood. When false meanings are mentioned, hearts recoil. When they press upon someone their claim that his position entails corporealism, he recoils when they tell him, “This entails corporealism, because this can only be conceived of in a body,” and he cannot adequately refute what they have said or unravel their argument. Yet they are all inconsistent. In reality, their argument is that the attributes with which the Lord has described Himself can only be conceived as they are in