there is no attribute that he denies on the grounds that it entails corporeality and is an attribute of bodies without an argument analogous to his own being raised against what he affirms.

If he affirms some attributes, he is told: “What is said about this attribute that you deny is just like what is said about those you affirm. If one entails corporeality and is false, the other is likewise. If you say, ‘I affirm this in a manner befitting the Lord,’ you are told: ‘The same applies to this other attribute.’ If you say, ‘I affirm it while denying corporeality,’ the reply is: ‘The same applies here. You cannot use this to distinguish between two equivalent cases.’”

If he affirms the names but denies the attributes, as the Muʿtazilah do, then the same argument he makes concerning the names is put to him concerning the attributes. If he affirms One who is living, knowing, and powerful, although he knows of no one described in these terms except a body, then affirming that He possesses knowledge and power—as stated in the Quran and the Sunnah—is no different.

If he affirms neither the names nor the attributes, as is the case with the thoroughgoing Jahmiyyah and the heretics, he is told: “You must nevertheless affirm an existent that subsists in itself, although you know of nothing like this except a body.”

If he says, “I do not designate Him by any name, either affirmatively or negatively,” he is told: “Your silence does not negate realities. There is no middle ground between negation and affirmation: He is either real, actual, and existent, or unreal and nonexistent.”