interpret Ahmad’s words, for the necessity of the heart’s submission alongside its knowledge is evident and established by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslim community. Indeed, it is known by necessity to be part of Islam. Any Jahmī who disputes that the heart’s submission is part of faith is like a Karrāmī who disputes that the heart’s knowledge is part of faith. Understanding Ahmad’s words in this way is therefore appropriate to his discussion here.

Furthermore, the distinction between the heart’s knowledge and its mere assent devoid of submission—which is regarded as the heart’s affirmation—is subtle, and most rational thinkers deny it. Even assuming that this distinction is valid, not everyone is required to stipulate two things when they cannot conceive of any difference between them. Most people cannot conceive of a distinction between the heart’s knowledge and its assent. They say:

“The distinction proposed by Ibn Kullāb and al-Ashʿarī is an invalid claim with no reality.”

Many of his followers have acknowledged that there is no distinction. Their principal argument rests solely on the assertion made by a liar. They say:

“In his heart there is an assertion contrary to what he knows, which demonstrates the distinction.”

Others replied:

“That consists in supposing an assertion and knowledge; it is neither actual knowledge nor an actual assertion. As for what they posit as an affirmation of the heart distinct from knowledge and will, it amounts only to supposing instances of knowledge and will, not some other kind of thing distinct from them.”

For this reason, they maintained that a person cannot have within his heart an assertion contrary to what he knows. He can only utter such a statement with his tongue. As for an assertion contrary to what he knows existing within his heart, that is impossible. This is among the arguments they used to establish that, with regard to the Lord Most High, it is inconceivable for falsehood to subsist