—a single attribute, not two distinct ones like life and knowledge—so it is evident that their analogy with the sun is mistaken.

Some of them try another formulation, saying: “the sun, its heat, and its light,” and they give a similar example with fire.

This illustration would indeed be more plausible—were it proven that the very body of the sun possesses an intrinsic heat that inheres in it. Yet no evidence supports that claim, and many thinkers flatly reject it, asserting that the bodies of the sun, the moon, and the stars are not to be described as either hot or cold. This is, in fact, the position of Aristotle and those who follow him.

As for their comparison with the human spirit and its speech: if by “spirit” they mean a person’s life, that is not what the term “spirit” signifies. And if by “spirit” they intend the entity that departs the body at death—the rational soul—then that is a self-subsisting substance, not one of the body’s accidents. On that premise, the Spirit of God would likewise have to be a self-subsisting substance alongside another substance analogous to a human body, making the Lord—exalted be He—a composite of body and spirit like a human being. No community of faith affirms such a doctrine, neither Muslims nor Jews nor Christians; rather, they all regard it as outright disbelief. It is therefore clear that their triple analogy is untenable.

Fourth: Any analogy must be drawn either with the attributes of the sun, fire, and man; with the soul that inheres in those bodies; or with something wholly separate from them, such as light