has merely uttered the name “Allah” and the name “our Lord.” His glorification has thus been applied to the name, but he intends the One named. This shows that one utters the name of the One named while intending the One named. There is no doubt about this. It does not, however, show that the word ism (name), spelled “alif, sīn, mīm,” is intended to mean the One named. Rather, it shows that “Allah’s names,” such as “Allah,” “our Lord,” “my Lord, the Most High,” and the like, are intended to refer to the One named. Although they are not themselves the One named, they are used to refer to Him.

As for the name given to these names—ism, spelled “alif, sīn, mīm”—it neither is the One named, that is, the Essence, nor is it intended to refer to the One named, that is, the Essence. Rather, it refers to what it designates: the names themselves, such as Allah’s most beautiful names mentioned in His words:

“To Allah belong the most beautiful names.”

To them, then, belong these most beautiful names, which these people regarded as designations, maintaining that calling them “names” was an extended use of the term. They thereby contradicted the consensus of all peoples, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, as well as clear reason and authentic transmitted evidence.

Those who shared this premise and said, “Names are of three kinds: they may be identical with the One named, different from Him, or neither identical with Him nor different from Him”—and who regarded “the Creator,” “the Provider,” and similar names as different from the One named, while regarding “the All-Knowing,” “the All-Wise,” and similar names as belonging to the One named—erred in another respect. Even if we grant them that the word ism, spelled “alif, sīn, mīm,” means the One designated by the names, His name “the Creator” is the Lord, the Creator Himself, not the created things that are separate from Him. His name “the All-Knowing” is the All-Knowing Lord, whose attribute is knowledge. Knowledge, then, is not the One named; rather, the One named is the All-Knowing. On their own premise, therefore, they ought to have said: here, the name is the One named together with His attribute.