that the knower be a knower, and this is no different in the visible world or the unseen. If that is the case, then the fact that His speech differs from the speech of created beings in one respect does not entail that it is a single entity unless you show that this difference itself necessitates its unity; yet you have not done so, nor is there any way to do so. All you have said(1) is that you have drawn an analogy with the Speaker, saying, “It must be one because the Speaker is one,” and we shall address that.

Forty-fourth angle: You have based your assertion that Speech is a single, pre-eternal meaning on likening it to the Speaker. When you were asked, “How can a single speech(2) combine diverse descriptions(3) so that it is simultaneously command, prohibition, statement, interrogation, promise, and threat?” you answered: “That is conceivable by the proof that establishes its pre-eternity and prevents it from being diverse or composite, unlike the speech of the created, just as one can conceive of a Speaker who is one entity, without limbs, parts, or instruments—though no such indivisible speaker exists among originated beings.”

Your statement, “just as one can conceive of a Speaker who is one, even though no such speaker is conceivable among created things,” means: “Just as this is conceived with respect to the One described, it should likewise be conceived with respect to His attribute.”

It may therefore be said to you: Either the sound proof truly indicates the oneness you affirmed for the Speaker, or it does not. If it does not, you have analogised one unproven claim to another without evidence, so the single demand for proof becomes two. But if it does, we say to you: The oneness of the One described is known by that very proof; whence, then, should it follow that, once it is known the Described is one, the