Kalam

Durie's first chapter deals with Quranic Theology. There... isn't one.

There exists an Islamic science which they call in Arabic kalam. This corresponds best with the French suffix -logie: it covers abstraxions, in a way that Arabic 'ilm does not. Aristotle stumbled around for the best word himself, "Meta-Physics" works as well as any.

For Westerners such as we, theology as such was abandoned (Runciman, 17-21) and reintroduced to us during the High Middle Ages. To this day Western takes on "theology", often vaguely latinised to "divinity", expand to general study of the ambient religion. Durie sides with Gregory Nazianzene that "theology" is best applied to how we explain God Himself.

Islam doesn't need a science on God's nature. As with the Jews; for the Muslim, God just is. Kalam more goes to what attributes are intrinsic to a unitary Godhead.

In the Quran, God (often) saves (njw) His own from various challenges, usually by unbelievers. But God is never Al-Najee(?), the Saviour. Why not? Because a sixteen-year-old kid like Tate Myre (may his name be a blessing) can save you. Tate Myre cannot, however, forgive you. He cannot lawfully show you mercy. He is not your king and he's not your lord. He certainly did not create you! These emblems are reserved for a sovereign. They are attributes of God Alone. Albeit potentially and only in part loaned to His Caliph.

... nah, I'm not buying this argument either. The Quran could well have applied "Al-Najee" to God. It simply didn't think to.