Section: A discussion of their claim that the hypostases are essential attributes that function like divine names

As for their statement, “These are essential attributes that operate as names,” then if by “essential” they mean that every attribute is itself a substance, this is patently false. An attribute that inheres in something else cannot at the same time be a self-subsisting substance. Anyone who imagines that the heat resident in fire is a self-standing substance like the fire itself is either mentally unsound or a sophistic obstinate.

The first deserves the treatment reserved for the insane, while the second merits a punishment that will deter him from his obstinacy.

Furthermore, were it permissible to call an attribute a substance, then power would have to be a substance as well.

If, however, by “essential” they intend that these are intrinsic attributes whereas others—such as Creator and Provider—are attributes of action, it is well known that among His intrinsic attributes are power and others besides, so they are by no means limited to these three.

Moreover, although speech subsists in His essence, some say that it is connected to His will and power; this is the position of the early imams and the majority. Others maintain that it is not so.

Likewise, it is said that “speaker” applies to whoever produces speech even if the speech is external to him; it is also said that it applies to the one in whom the speech inheres, even if it is not by his will and power; and it has also been said, “The speaker is the one in whom…"