Whoever is fair-minded will recognize what we have said, accept it as his creed, heed our counsel, and worship Allah by affirming every one of His attributes—these and those alike—while denying for all of them any resemblance, nullification, figurative reinterpretation, or suspension. This is precisely what Allah requires of us, for both sets of attributes are found side by side in the very same sources, the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If we affirm one set without reinterpretation yet distort and allegorize the other, we resemble those who believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part. In this there is a sufficient admonition and clarification, if Allah, exalted is He, so wills.

I say: From the words of the Imām, al-Juwaynī—may Allah have mercy on him—it has become clear why the later generations, save those whom Allah willed otherwise, diverged from the understanding of the early scholars in interpreting the verse concerning istiwāʾ. They mistakenly took it, as we have explained, to mean a type of establishment that befits only a creature; deeming that to be anthropomorphism, they repudiated it by reinterpreting it as “taking possession.”

What is truly astonishing is that the very thing they fled from by means of this reinterpretation, they fell into in a form far worse, and that can be summed up in the following points:

1. Taʿṭīl—stripping Allah of the attribute of being truly exalted above His creation in a manner befitting Him. This is plain in the words of Imām al-Juwaynī.

2. Ascribing to Allah a rival in His dominion who opposes Him in His affair, for in Arabic usage istīlāʾ (seizing control) is only spoken of after contest (mughālabah). You will see this in the biography of the linguistic imām Ibn al-Aʿrābī, where it is stated that a man once said in his presence, explaining istiwāʾ, that it means “took possession.” The imām replied, “Be silent! The Arabs do not say of a man, ‘He istowlāʾ over something’ unless there is someone contending with him for it; whichever of the two prevails, it is said, ‘he istowlāʾ.’ Allah, exalted is He, has no contender.” Its chain back to him is authentic, as I clarified in comment ⦗210⦘, and the scholar Naftaweh the grammarian cited it as evidence in “Refutation of the Jahmiyyah,” as you will see in his biography ⦗119⦘.

So we ask those who resort to reinterpretation: who is this opponent of Allah, exalted is He, that He had to overpower and from whom He had to seize His dominion?!