namely, (1) whether it is intellectually possible for the meaning apprehended from imperative formulations to be the very same meaning apprehended from declarative formulations, and for the self-existent reality within the soul that constitutes a command concerning this thing and the report about it to be identical to what subsists in the soul as a command concerning something else and the report about it.

Sixty-ninth rejoinder:
It may be said: He maintains that if the Creator knows, by a single act of knowledge, the totality of the infinite objects of knowledge, why should it not likewise be possible for Him to convey, by a single report, information about the infinite objects of report? We answer him: Grant (2) that this would establish the oneness of the report; but on what basis do you insist that His single report about the infinite objects of report must itself be identical with His command concerning the infinite commands or His bringing into being the infinite created things? Even if you draw an analogy between report and knowledge, is it conceivable that the report itself is the very same reality as the command?

Seventieth rejoinder:
The principle to which they appeal and (3) with which they compare the alleged possibility—namely, divine knowledge—is itself without proof. How did they arrive at the claim that the Creator possesses only one undivided, non-plural knowledge? Neither the Book nor the Sunnah affirms this, no Imām of the Muslims has ever said it, let alone there being any consensus on the matter, (4) nor is there any rational argument to support it. Allah has said in His Book: “and they cannot encompass anything of His knowledge except what He wills” (5). Thus He informs us that part (6) of His knowledge may be encompassed, not all of it. And He said in His Book: