each reality would subsist in Him in an unrestricted manner, just as life, knowledge, power, and other attributes subsist in Him absolutely—then such a statement (1) would be admissible. Hence it becomes clear that, even though one can conceive of a single Speaker who has neither parts nor divisions, it does not follow that His speech must be conceived as one undifferentiated meaning that is simultaneously command and prohibition, nor that this thing is identical to that.

The Fiftieth Angle:
What he has cited—that the One described is a single entity without parts—could indeed serve as an argument for the possibility that any given attribute of His might likewise be one, devoid of parts and components. Thus, if knowledge or branches of knowledge, power or degrees of power, speech or individual words, or anything else subsists in Him, it may be said of every attribute inhering in Him that it, too, is without parts or divisions. Accordingly, if commands and reports subsist in Him, then each specific command and each specific report is itself indivisible and undetached. Yet this reasoning cannot be used to prove that one attribute is identical to another—such as saying that command is report or that hearing is sight—for such a claim is false.

The Fifty-First Angle:
If you wish to validate this claim, you must either affirm it by saying, “This attribute is that attribute,” or you must refrain from doing so. Should you affirm it, it would then be valid to declare that hearing is sight, that both of them are knowledge, that knowledge is power, and that power is life. If, however, you do not affirm it, then it is not correct to say that the command to perform the prayer is the same as the command to give zakah, much less to say that the command to pray is identical with the report concerning the angels’ prostration to Adam.

The Fifty-Second Angle:
One may ask: What do you mean (3) by your statement, “Just as one may conceive of a speaker who is a single entity, not—”