on the basis of the opponent’s own doctrine. For during the ordeal, when they argued against him by citing the saying, “Al-Baqarah and Āl Imrān will come,” he answered that it meant that the reward of Al-Baqarah and Āl Imrān would come, just as Allah’s words, “that Allah should come to them,” meant His command and His power according to their figurative interpretation—not that he himself held this view. His position was to refrain from figurative interpretation.

The third view was that they accepted this as a position reported from Ahmad. The imams’ statements may vary on such questions, but the sound, well-known position transmitted from him is the rejection of figurative interpretation. Ibn al-Zāghūnī and others mentioned both reports, noting that refraining from figurative interpretation was the well-known report followed by most of the scholars of our school. In the report allowing figurative interpretation, he explained this as deliberate intent and purpose, not as command and power, just as they interpreted, “Then He turned toward heaven.” Accordingly, if figurative interpretation is adopted, there are two ways of interpreting this.

Although Ibn al-Zāghūnī, Judge Abū Ya‘lā, and others like them hold that coming and arrival should be accepted in their apparent sense, their position on this is of the same kind as that of Ibn Kullāb and al-Ash‘arī. For he too rejects figurative interpretation of descent, arrival, and coming, and regards these as attributes known through revelation. He says: “These actions do not necessarily imply bodies; rather, things other than bodies may be described by them.” Ibn al-Zāghūnī’s discussion of this