We have already explained that this verse is not intended in the sense put forward by certain scholastic theologians when they invoke the “argument of mutual hindrance” to prove the oneness of the Lord, exalted be He. Mutual hindrance would prevent the effect from coming into existence in the first place; it does not entail its corruption after it has already come to be. The former line of reasoning concerns causes and beginnings that function like efficient causes, whereas the latter deals with judgments and ends that relate to final causes. A clear example is His statement:

“You alone we worship and You alone we ask for help” (Q 1:5),

where the sought-after end is mentioned before the means that lead to it, as has been discussed elsewhere.

Later, a group who spoke of realizing Tawḥīd along the Sufi path imagined that Tawḥīd of Lordship was the ultimate goal, that annihilation (fanāʾ) in it marked the final station, and that once one beheld this, all appreciation of good and repugnance of evil fell away. Their thinking led them to suspend command and prohibition, promise and threat, because they failed to distinguish between His all-encompassing Will—covering every creature—and His Love and Pleasure, which are confined to acts of obedience; nor did they differentiate between His creational words, which no righteous or wicked person can evade—for the decree embraces every being—and His religious words, with whose observance only His prophets and allies comply.

Therefore, even as the servant beholds the universal Lordship that embraces believer and unbeliever, righteous and wicked alike, he must also behold His Divinity, reserved for His believing servants—those who worship Him, obey His commands, and follow His messengers.