One may say: This argument is exceedingly weak. If the letters are within His power and come into being by His will, as you have reported from your opponents, then assigning each letter to its particular subject is like assigning all things that come into being their particular attributes, dimensions, places, and times.

This is attributable either to will alone or to wisdom, whether manifest or hidden. People have differed over whether the letters in human speech bear a correspondence to meanings that warrants their particular assignment, holding two well-known views. As for their assignment to particular subjects in human beings, there is no disagreement that this has a cause warranting that assignment. Thus, assigning letters to particular subjects has stronger grounds than assigning them to particular meanings.

As for his statement, “If they maintain that the letters coexist in His essence, while that essence is one, it follows that contraries coexist in a single thing,” we have already explained that people hold two views on this. Even if the position of those who maintain that these letters coexist is unsound, far more unsound is the position of those who maintain that successive meanings coexist and are one thing, and that diverse attributes are one thing.

As for his statement, “If they do not maintain that the letters of speech coexist in His essence, it follows that they contradict their own principle that whatever the Lord is characterized by, it is impossible for Him to become devoid of it,” this is correct. Yet their inconsistency does not establish the correctness of their opponents’ position when a third position exists. This implication is a matter of well-known disagreement, and disagreement has been reported among them themselves.