the response would be twofold:

First: This is countered by the Jabriyya’s figurative interpretations of the texts cited against them as evidence and by their assertion, “This is ambiguous.” Yet he(1) cited nothing more than the scriptural texts themselves, so we cited the texts advanced by both sides.

Second: We demonstrate the invalidity of their interpretations one by one, as has been explained at length elsewhere. Their interpretations entail such displacement of words from their proper contexts, violation of the language, contradiction in meaning, and opposition to the consensus of the umma’s early generations and leading scholars that even some of these flaws suffices to demonstrate the falsity of their distortions. It also demonstrates that there is no unambiguous passage in the Quran that contradicts this, such that it might be said, “This is ambiguous, whereas that is unambiguous.” Rather, the parts of the Quran confirm one another.

Whoever among the people of innovation opens this door will have no firm footing, for his opponent will do exactly as he does. He will therefore be left with(2) no argument immune from being countered in the same manner. How could it be otherwise, when most of their interpretations are necessarily known not to have been intended by Allah and His Messenger in their words?](*) (3).

[Section from the Rāfidī’s discussion of voluntary acts—“An agent with power cannot render an act within his power preponderant”—and the response to him]

Chapter

The Rāfidī(4) said: “The opponent said: ‘An agent with power cannot render an act within his power preponderant(5) without a determining factor. Once preponderance obtains,(6) the act becomes necessary, and thus there is no power