which nothing resembles, then His hearing, sight, speech, descent, and rising over the Throne likewise have an objective reality. He possesses attributes of perfection, and the hearing, sight, speech, descent, and rising of created beings do not resemble His. This argument is binding upon them both in matters of reason and in their interpretation of revelation.

For if someone affirms one thing and denies another on rational grounds, he faces the same implications regarding the attributes conveyed by the Quran and Sunnah that he denies as he does regarding those he affirms. If asked to distinguish between what he considers objectionable in either case, he would find no difference between them. Thus, those who deny some attributes but not others—requiring, for those they deny, either consigning the matter to Allah or interpreting the wording contrary to what it entails—have no consistent rule.

If they are asked, “Why have you reinterpreted this but acknowledged that, when the same question applies to both?” they have no sound answer. Such is their inconsistency in denial; likewise, they are inconsistent in affirmation.

For those who interpret the texts as conveying one of the meanings they affirm, when they divert a text from the meaning it entails to another meaning, the meaning to which they divert it carries the same implications as the meaning from which they diverted it. Thus, if someone says, “His love, pleasure, anger, and displeasure mean His will to reward and punish,” the implications he faces concerning will are analogous to those he faces concerning love, hatred, pleasure, and displeasure.