As for the will said to single out one of two equivalent things rather than the other without a reason, there is disagreement over whether Allah is to be described as possessing such a will.

If it is said that He is not, there is nothing further to discuss. If it is said that He is, it is nevertheless known that singling out the prophets—peace be upon them—for one treatment and their enemies for the other did not occur without a determining reason. Rather, it is known that He intended to single out the former for honor and the latter for punishment, and that the faith of the former was the reason for their treatment, while the disbelief of the latter was the reason for theirs. A fuller discussion of these matters belongs elsewhere. The point here, however, is that these three are included within the first three.

But Abū Hāmid identifies argumentation with the craft of speculative theology, maintaining the path with the science of jurisprudence, and accounts of the prophets with the science of narratives. He says that speculative theology and disputation do not establish any truth through evidence, but merely repel innovations by exposing their contradictions. He likens their practitioners to guards who protect pilgrims, and holds that the sole purpose of jurisprudence is worldly welfare. Most people have disputed his views on this and discussed them at a length that would be out of place here.

Likewise, they have criticized the philosophical ideas he presents in this book (Jawāhir al-Qur’ān, The Jewels of the Quran) and in his other books, which he regards as the Quran’s esoteric meaning. Muslim scholars have written more in refutation of this than in refutation of the foregoing, for it contains grave matters that contradict the Messenger’s intent. They have also criticized what he says about prophethood, which resembles the philosophers’ discourse on the subject.