that would be a slander against them. Even if the critic did not intend this, his wording nevertheless contains both ambiguity and misleading insinuation (1).

If you mean that they affirmed that He possesses attributes which subsist in Him (2), are eternal as He is eternal, and are attributes of perfection—such as life, knowledge, and power—then this is the truth. Who would deny this except one forsaken and given to sophistry? (3) Whoever denies these attributes and says that He is living without life, knowing without knowledge, and powerful without power (4), plainly holds a false position.

The same applies if he says, “His knowledge is His power, and His power is His knowledge,” and then further says, “He is knowledge and power,” thereby identifying the bearer of the attribute with the attribute itself, and one attribute with the other. Statements of this kind (5) are found among those philosophers and Mu‘tazilah who deny the attributes. Merely grasping what they are truly asserting makes its falsity evident. The refutation of them and their specious arguments (6) is set out at length elsewhere (7).

[The] Fifth Aspect (8):

Your assertion that “they posited eternal beings alongside Allah, Mighty and Majestic,” is incorrect. For those who affirm the attributes do not regard these meanings as falling outside what the name Allah denotes. Rather, they may say, “They are additional to the essence”—that is, to the essence