Likewise, it is impossible for there to be two deities, each worshipped and loved for his own sake; for if one of them is the deity who is worshipped in and of himself, that precludes any other from being worshipped in and of himself. Such a claim would oblige that part of one’s love and action be given to this one and part to that one, whereas being loved and acted for in one’s entirety demands that all love and all action be directed to him alone. Shared devotion is a deficiency in love: the voluntary motion of the agent would no longer be for that deity alone. Therefore, neither of the two could be an object of worship and service unless the other were not; dedicating deeds to this one contradicts his having a partner, let alone those deeds being rendered to someone else altogether.

Anyone who loves two things, in fact, loves them only for the sake of a third outside them both; otherwise, it is impossible for each of the two to be loved for its own sake. What is loved for its own sake is that which the soul desires, seeks, and finds tranquility in, such that it has no other aim besides it—and this flatly contradicts the existence of any partner.

The second opinion is that of those who maintain that Allah has compensated people by obligating them to perform acts of worship so He may reward them for those acts after death; bestowing reward without any obligation, they say, would not be fitting, given the reverence and exaltation implicit in it—an honour deserved only by one who has been charged with a duty. Such is the position adopted by the Qadariyya among Muslims and by others as well.