And is speaking of such a thing concerning Allah not among the strongest proofs of the speaker’s ignorance?

They know of no indivisible atom that bears the name of the whole to which it belongs merely because an attribute inheres in that whole. How, then, must the same follow concerning Allah, in whom the attributes of perfection inhere, even on the supposition they have advanced?

[Seventh]

It may be said:

Just as not every part of a human being must itself be a human being because attributes belonging to a human being inhere in it, nor must every part of a horse—or of any other animal—itself be a horse merely because it belongs to the whole in which the attribute inheres, why must everything that is part of the deity itself be a deity because the deity inheres in the deity as a whole, which possesses these attributes? In every existing thing, what holds true of its part is not what holds true of its whole merely because the attribute inheres in the whole. Is this not among the most unsound arguments, even though it is one of the principal supports of the proponents of negation?

[Continuation of al-Āmidī’s discussion denying that Allah Most High is a body]

He said:

“The impossibility entailed by His possessing these attributes is explained as follows: His possessing them must either be necessary by virtue of His essence, or