and others like him, together with the great majority of Muslim speculative thinkers and non-Muslims alike, whether or not they choose to call Him a substance.

As for the majority who maintain that meanings—that is, attributes—truly subsist in Him, some of them label those meanings “accidents” even though they do not call Him a substance; some do in fact call Him a substance; others deny that the attributes are accidents; while yet others suspend judgment altogether, neither affirming nor denying that designation, or else ask the speaker to clarify what he intends by calling them accidents.

These Christians, on the other hand, say:

“a substance of three hypostases,”

and they describe that substance with positive attributes, namely life and speech. They also declare:

“Whatever exists is either a substance or an accident,”

which forces them to conclude that God’s attributes are accidents. Then they add:

“A subtle substance cannot be the locus of accidents,”

and thus they deem it improper to say that accidents inhere in the Lord—yet at the same time they insist that He is a substance. In this they have fallen into a manifest contradiction, combining the speech of the messengers and their followers with the utterances of the polytheists.