you have likened the lāhūt (divine nature) within the nāsūt (human nature) to the soul in the body, it follows of necessity that the lāhūt must suffer whenever the nāsūt suffers, just as the soul is pained whenever the body is pained. He, together with the others, admitted that this consequence is unavoidable.

Thirteenth point:
Their claim, “Since subtle entities can manifest only through dense entities, the Word of God can manifest only in something dense,” is a defective syllogism that proves nothing. It could carry weight only were they first to establish that every subtle entity appears exclusively in a dense one and in nothing else, so that one might then say: “For this reason God manifested in something dense and not in something subtle.” Otherwise, if one were to say that He indwells neither the subtle nor the dense, or that He indwells both, their assertion that He must indwell the dense Messiah alone would collapse. They have not constructed a sound, productive proof, nor have they furnished evidence for its premises. They have provided neither the logical form nor the material content of an argument—only sophistries that deceive none but the ignorant who blindly follow them.

Moreover, from the fact that the soul indwells the body it does not follow that everything must indwell the body; that is a mere unfounded claim. The spirits of the children of Adam manifest in their own bodies and not in the bodies of animals, nor even in those of the jinn. Angels can assume human form, and so can the jinn, whereas a human being never appears except in human form. What, then, in their discourse indicates that the Lord indwells in the dense human being but not in the subtle?

The group then began to argue for the embodiment of the creative Word of God, saying: “As for the embodiment of the creative Word of God in a created human being and their being born together—that is, the Word along with…"