All of this states unambiguously that he is not Allah; rather, he is Allah’s servant who carried out those acts by Allah’s leave—just as other prophets before him performed similar wonders. It is equally explicit that the one who grants permission is not the one who receives it, that the teacher is not the one being taught, and that the Benefactor who favored him and his mother is other than he, just as he is other than his own mother.

Fourth argument:
They claim that “the Creator” refers to the Word of Allah that became united with the human nature (nāsūt). They then interpret the phrase “by Allah’s permission” to mean “by the permission of the Word united with the human nature.” This exposes their self-contradiction and their slander against the Quran, for Allah Himself states that the Messiah fashioned from clay the form of a bird “by Allah’s permission,” thereby distinguishing between the Messiah and Allah and making clear that Allah is the One who grants the permission. These people, however, insist that the intended meaning is that the divinity (lahūt) fused with the Messiah’s humanity is both the Creator and the Permitter—thus collapsing Creator and Permitter into a single entity. Such an interpretation flatly contradicts the explicit wording of the Quran.

Fifth argument:
If the divinity is truly the Creator, He would not need to grant permission to Himself. They say He is one God and the Creator of all things—so how could He require His own authorization or bestow favor upon Himself?

Sixth argument:
The Creator must be either the Essence endowed with speech or the speech itself, which is an attribute of the Essence. If the Creator is that speech, then speech is