the Light of the heavens and the earth, and for light to be ascribed to Him, without the light ascribed to Him being identical to Him.

(The second approach)

It may be said: This objection applies to you as well; it is not confined to those who call Him by the name He has given Himself and explained. Whether you say “Guide,” “Illuminator,” or something else, the one named “Light” is the Lord Himself, not the light ascribed to Him.

When you say, “He is the Guide, so His light is guidance,” you make one of the two lights a self-subsisting entity and the other an attribute. Those who call Him Light say the same. Since the objection applies to both positions and their proponents, singling out one of them as contradicting his own position is injustice and obstinacy in argument, or ignorance and deviation from the truth.

As for the views he has mentioned, there is no doubt that people have expressed more views on this matter than he has cited. The true and false reports, and the correct and mistaken opinions, circulating among the Muslim community are beyond anyone’s reckoning but Allah’s. Discussions of “the interpretation of Allah’s names, attributes, and speech” contain such quantities of sound and worthless material that none but the Lord of all worlds can reckon them. What matters, however, is truth, knowledge, and religion.

Long ago, in one of my writings addressed to a distinguished person, I wrote:

Knowledge is what is established by evidence, and beneficial knowledge is what the Messenger brought. What matters, then, is that we speak on the basis of knowledge: authenticated transmission and rigorous investigation. Anything else—even if some people embellish such things—is merely painted earthenware; otherwise, it is sheer falsehood, like what he has mentioned concerning this verse and others. These books that many people call “books of Quranic commentary” contain much