and that the author of the shariah intended by it what is understood from its apparent meaning so the outcome is what this speaker indicated which is denial and not interpretation so it is clear disbelief that is not subject to any doubt at all. therefore we know with certainty that if someone had explicitly stated the denial of paradise hell the houris and the palaces among the companions they would have rushed to kill him and believed that from him as a denial of allah and his messenger. if it is said perhaps they were doing that and exaggerating in it to close the door of explicitly stating it since the public interest it requires that the discourse with them should not be conducted except in a manner that suits their understanding and affects their souls and arouses their motives. and if these appearances are removed from their souls and their minds fall short of comprehending rational pleasures they will deny the origin and reject reward and punishment and the distinction between obedience and disobedience and disbelief and faith will fall away from them. we say you have acknowledged the consensus of the companions on declaring this man an unbeliever and killing him because it is explicitly stated and we did not object to the fact that the one who is explicitly stated is an unbeliever whose killing is obligatory and agreement has been reached on this. and your statement that the reason for their excommunication was to take into consideration the interest of the common people remains and this is a delusion and a mere conjecture that does not mean anything about the truth. rather we know with certainty that they believed that as a denial of allah the most high and his messenger and as a rejection of what was mentioned in the shariah and which reason did not reject. if it is said why did you not follow this approach in the representations mentioned in the attributes of allah the most high from the verse of istiwa and the hadith of the descent and the word of the foot and the tyrant placing his foot in the fire and the word of the image in his saying peace be upon him that allah created adam peace be upon him? in his image and other than that of news perhaps it exceeds a thousand and you know that the righteous predecessors did not interpret these apparent meanings but rather they used to apply them to the apparent meaning. then you did not disbelieve the one who denied the apparent meanings and interpreted them but rather you believed in the interpretation and declared it. we said how?
وأن صاحب الشرع اراد بها المفهوم من ظاهرها فالمصير إلى ما أشار اليه هذا القائل تكذيب وليس بتاويل فهو كفر صريح لا يتوقف فيه اصلا ولذلك نعلم على القطع انه لو صرح مصرح بانكار الجنة والنار والحور والقصور فيما بين الصحابة لبادروا إلى قتله واعتقدوا ذلك منه تكذيبا لله ولرسوله فإن قيل لعلهم كانوا يفعلون ذلك ويبالغون فيه حسما لباب التصريح به اذ مصلحة العامة تقتضي أن لا يجرى الخطاب معهم الا بما يليق بافهامهم ويؤثر في نفوسهم واثارة دواعيهم وإذا رفعت عن نفوسهم هذه الظواهر وقصرت عقولهم عن درك اللذات العقلية انكروا الاصل وجحدوا الثواب والعقاب وسقط عندهم تمييز الطاعة عن العصيان والكفر عن الايمأن قلنا فقد اعترفت باجماع الصحابة على تكفير هذا الرجل وقتله لانه مصرح به ونحن لم نزرد على أن المصرح به كافر نجب قتله وقد وقع الاتفاق عليه وبقى قولكم أن سبب تكفيرهم مراعاة مصلحة العوام وهذا وهم وظن محض لا يعنى عن الحق شيئا بل نعلم قطعا انهم كانوا يعتقدون ذلك تكذيبا لله تعالى ولرسوله وردا لما ورد به الشرع ولم يدفعه العقل فان قيل فهلا سلكتم هذا المسلك في التمثيلات الواردة في صفات الله تعالى من اية الاستواء وحديث النزول ولفظ القدم ووضع الجبار قدمه في النار ولفظ الصورة في قوله عليه السلام أن الله خلق ادم عليه السلام على صورته إلى غير ذلك من اخبار لعلها تزيد على الف وانتم تعلمون أن السلف الصالحين ما كانوا يؤولون هذه الظواهر بل كانوا يجرونها على الظاهر ثم انكم لم تكفروا منكر الظواهر ومؤولها بل اعتقدتم التأويل وصرحتم به قلنا كيف