the Godhead, then he has said the very same thing about his disciples. On that analogy they too would have to share in the divine locus, which is impossible, and no one would ever dare to claim it.

He said:

Among the most astonishing of wonders is that a community whose scripture, proclamation, and object of worship are one—holding fast to the command of the Messiah, peace be upon him, and to his disciples, his Gospel, his sunnah, and his laws—should nevertheless differ concerning him with the greatest of disagreements.

Some of them say, “He is a servant”;
others say, “He is a god”;
others say, “He is a son”;
others say, “He is one uqnūm (hypostasis) and one nature”;
and still others say, “He is two uqnumayn (two hypostases) and two natures.”

Each faction anathematizes the other and claims that the truth is in its own hand, yet none of them brings a clear proof from the Book to establish his claim, nor any sound reasoning or interpretation that would stand scrutiny in debate. Instead, their religion and creed rely on the constructions invented for them by earlier interpreters—constructions that contradict their own Gospel and scriptures—out of whim and obstinacy against one another. Thus they associate partners with God by interpretation, although He has no partner, and they ascribe to Him a son on the basis of what they themselves have fabricated. Exalted is He—how could He possibly have a son?

Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb said: We have already set forth the proofs that invalidate each of your positions.