that the dispute among their three sects is as follows: some maintain ittiḥād (union) with the Messiah, while others maintain ḥulūl (indwelling) in him. They accordingly state that, among the three sects, there are those who uphold (1) indwelling and that the lāhūt (2) indwelt the nāsūt. They further say that this is the view held by the majority of them: the two are two essences, two natures, and two hypostases, comparable to body and soul. As for those who explain the matter merely as the manifestation of the lāhūt within the nāsūt, they are not counted among these.
Groups of scholastic theologians—such as Ibn al-Zāghūnī—have transmitted from them that they all profess both union and indwelling, but that the union is in the Messiah whereas the indwelling is in Mary. They state that the Christian sects agree that God is a single substance and three hypostases (3), and that each hypostasis is a distinct substance encompassed by the universal substance, though they also record certain disagreements among themselves (4).
They then say: they allege that the substance is the Father, that the hypostases are life—namely, the Holy Spirit—knowledge, and power, and that God united with one of the hypostases, the one (which) (5)
(1) In the Ṭ edition the phrase “and some say” was inserted, although it is not required by the context.
(2) In the original it reads al-nahūt (“divinity”), which is an error. The correct reading is confirmed by S and Ṭ.
(3) I note that Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyya (may God have mercy on him) states in his work al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-man baddala dīn al-Masīḥ (The Sound Reply to Those Who Altered the Religion of Christ), vol. 3, p. 141—where he refutes the Christians and censures their views—that:
“Nowhere in the utterances of the prophets—neither Christ nor any other—is there any mention of God’s aqanīm (persons), whether three or more; nor any affirmation of three attributes; nor any naming of any attribute of God as ‘Son of God’ or ‘Lord’; nor any description of His life as ‘Spirit’; nor any assertion that God has a Son who is a true God from a true God by the essence (jawhar) of His Father, and who is a creator just as God is a creator; and likewise other statements implying various forms of disbelief. None of these was transmitted from any prophet.”
(4) The disagreement is mentioned by the Shaykh (may God have mercy on him) in the same source, vol. 2, pp. 309–310, where he says:
“Then they differed: some held that the aqanīm (persons) differ in uqnūmiyya (personhood) but agree in jawhar (essence). Others maintained that they do not differ in personhood but are mutaghāyirah (distinct). A faction held that each one is neither the other nor something other than it, and that they are neither mutaghāyirah (distinct) nor mukhtalifah (different).”
(5) The text within the brackets is an addition found in S, Ṭ, and al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 2, p. 310.