Teist âdeta çapraz ateş altındadır: Eğer kelimeler, dinî bağlamda insanî tecrübede kazandıkları anlamlarıyla kullanılacak olursa, o zaman, sonsuz olan Tanrı`ya uygulanamaz; yok, dil insanî köklerinden arındırılırsa, insanlar için anlamsız olur ve insanî dil olmaz ve bu seferde Tanrı`dan söz edemez. Daha teknik bir ifadeyle, teistler tek anlamlı ya da çok anlamlı dilden birini seçmek zorunda kalmış görünmektedir. Tek anlamlı dilde, bütünüyle insani tecrübeye bağlı olan söylemin konusu, Tanrı olamaz; çok anlamlı dilde ise, ifadelerin semantik içerikleri buharlaşır. Dilin çok anlamlı olarak kullanılması, Tanrı`yı tasvir etmek için kullanılan kelimeleri antropomorfik niteliklerinden arındırır, ancak bu da agnostisizme neden olur. Ne teşbihî ne de tenzihî dil Gaybî konularda tek başına yeterlidir. Sözgelimi, Allah`ın Zâtı sözkonusu olduğunda, ya O`nu mevcûdât seviyesine indirme (teşbihî anlatım), ya da tavsif ederken âdeta ‘yok’u tanımlıyormuş gibi (tenzihî anlatım) istenmeyen bir duruma sebep olabilir. Dolayısıyla, bu durumda teistler Tanrı hakkındaki ifadelerin anlamını bilemezler. Şunu dahi söylemek mümkün olmaz: Tanrı`ya yüklenen “varoluş” kavramının, insanların günlük kullanımıyla bir ilişkisi var mıdır yok mudur? Tanrı hakkında mantık açısından açık olmayan terimlerle konuşmayı tercih etmek, O`nun iyiliğinden, sevgisinden, hikmetinden söz edildiği zaman, kelimelerle oynamaktan başka bir şey olmaz. Kısaca, eğer din dili ya da teolojik dil büsbütün tek anlamlı olarak kurulursa, antroposentirizme kayar; çok anlamlı olarak kullanılırsa, anlam içeriğini yitirir ve agnostisizme düşme tehlikesiyle karşılaşır. Böyle olunca, din dili Tanrı hakkında bir şey söylemez. Konevî bu iki aşırı ucu -teşbihî dil ve tenzihî dil- birleştirmektedir. Bu da ifadelerin tek anlamlılık ile çok anlamlılık arasında bir yerde duran temsilî kullanımıdır. 

Theist was caught in the crossfire: If the words are to be used in the religious context with the meanings that they gained in human experience, then those can not be applied to the infinite God; otherwise, if the language is emptied from its human roots, it becomes meaningless for human beings and not human language, and it can not talk about God this time. In more technical terms, the theist seems to have to choose either univocal or equivocal language. In univocal language, the subject of discourse, which is entirely dependent on human experience, can not be God; in equivocal language, the semantic contents of the expressions evaporate. The equivocal use of language removes the anthropomorphic qualities of the words used to describe God, but this causes agnosticism. Neither anthropomorphic language nor negative language is enough for metaphysical issues. For example, when the Person of God is in question, we may cause undesirable situations such as reduction Him to the level of creatures or defining Him as if we were describing something that is not. So in this case, the theists can not know the meaning of the expressions about God. It is not even possible to say that: Does the notion of “existence,” which is imposed on God, have a relationship with people`s daily use or is it not? When it was mentioned of His goodness, his love, His wisdom, to prefer to talk about God with non-explicit terms from the point of logic, it is also nothing more than playing with words. It seems that, while talking about God, although there is no other choice but to use the words produced to refer to the outside world, it is not right to talk about it as if we are talking about any object, like talking about an entity that we know. To put it more clearly, it is not possible to talk about God by staying within the usual reference frame of our language. If we accept that language is univocal in the religious context, we fall into anthropocentrism; when it is accepted that it is equivocal because the language will be emptied from the meaning at one point, the door to agnosticism will be opened. At this point, there is an intersection area between the univocal and equivocal on the religious use of language, which is trustworthy in terms of logic, and the religious use of language finds its basis in this area. The widespread use of this is to eliminate the meaning of a term improper to use for God and to leave the rest to theology. The terms we use about God inevitably express what we are capable of and what our expressions can reach. Therefore, talking about God is done by a negative language in positive and a positive language in negative. The concept related to a relatively well-known thing can be legitimately applied to something relatively unknown through analogy. The analogy is based on the principle of substituting the concrete with the abstract. We seek the opportunity to capture the abstract behind the semi-transparency of the concrete. At the first moment, we encounter the external meaning, under the clear meaning, the original purpose which this meaning conduce to is hidden. This is to combine the similarity (anthropomorphism) and the dissimilarity (prohibition of anthropomorphism). If one recognizes God based solely on the similarity (anthropomorphism), he falls into polytheism; if he ignored the similarity (anthropomorphism) and preferred the dissimilarity (transcendentalism), this time he would deny the divine aspect of the creatures. For god, there is both similarity and dissimilarity aspects at the same time. The language approach that gives weight to one of them becomes unilateral. According to the analogical language approach, two of them are compatible and complementary to the other. The analogical language, from our point of view, by leaning on God`s names, existential works, and spiritual manifestations, to form a concept about Him and to apply words to Him in a limited way. The names and attributes provide the connection of God with the universe as a whole and with individual entities. Each name and attribute has many manifestations, information, judgments, and conclusions in the entities that remain within the domain of influence and providence of them. According to Qunawi, each class of existence is based on The Real and receives information from Him by leaning on a special name have influence upon one of them. Thus, everything that exists establishes a relationship with God through a certain name.Therefore, without divine names and attributes, we can not obtain certain information about both God and the nature of the existence. These names and attributes signify the actual reality of God; in this respect, they express the ways in which God is manifested, as well as things in the world. Everything in the universe expresses certain aspects of His life, knowledge, will, and power due to the fact that they manifested God. For example, our life is not the real-life; for true life belongs to God alone. But at the same time, our life has a certain reality; otherwise, we could not know or perceive anything.In short, if the religious statements are established as a purely univocal, it shifts to anthropocentrism; If those used equivocal, these statements lose their meaning, and we face with the danger of falling in agnosticism. As such, religious language does not say anything about God. Qunawi combines these two extreme ends id est the similarity (anthropomorphic language) and the dissimilarity (transcendental language). And this is the analogical use of expressions, which stands somewhere between univocal and equivocal. According to this, while pure perfect attributes are found in God in the real sense id est as eternal, transcendental, timeless, these are existing in creatures as only limited, temporal, variable. . . etc. But in any case, if we can load an attribute to a subject in a similar sense, in both loading instances, there is a common intersection of the meaning that the attribute shows.