knowledgeable and omnipotent, and that one is living, knowledgeable, and powerful—their sharing the names “living,” “knowledgeable,” and “omnipotent” does not oblige us to say that the entity designated by one label is identical to the entity designated by the other in what is necessary, possible, or impossible for either of them.

Rather, three distinct considerations are involved here:

First: the common denominator in which they resemble one another. This is a universal concept that belongs exclusively to neither of them, and such an all-inclusive universal exists only in the mind of the one who conceptualises it.

Second: that which is unique to the first entity, just as the Lord is distinguished by the particular mode of life, knowledge, and power that subsist in Him.

Third: that which is unique to the other entity, namely the servant, with respect to his own life, knowledge, and ability. What is exclusive to the Lord—glorious and exalted—is never shared by the servant, nor can any of the deficiencies that may attach to the servant’s attributes be ascribed to Him. Conversely, what is exclusive to the servant is never shared by the Lord, and the servant has no title to any of the perfect attributes that belong solely to the Lord, mighty and majestic.

As for the shared denominator—the universal notion that exists only in the human mind—it entails neither the specific characteristics of the Creator nor those of the creature; hence there is no impropriety in their both sharing that purely mental concept.