you say that causes are divided into necessary and contingent, eternal and originated. You say that He exercises providence, although the term “providence” is also used of attributes of His servants. You say that He is a principle, an originator, and other such expressions that you also apply to others: you call the intellects “principles” and attribute origination to them. You say that each intellect originated what is beneath it, and that the tenth intellect originated everything beneath the lunar sphere. You say that He necessitates by His very essence, although the term “necessitation” is also applied to others.

They say that He is lover, beloved, and passionate love itself, although the term “passionate love” involves a likening of Allah to creation and a possible implication of deficiency that no rational person can overlook. Yet the divine scriptures do not call Him an intellect, a lover, an object of intellection, or a beloved.

They also say that He experiences pleasure and delight. The term “pleasure” involves a likening of Allah to creation and a possible implication of deficiency that no rational person can overlook. They say that He perceives, and that pleasure is the most excellent perception of the most excellent object of perception. Thus they call Him both the perceiver and the perceived.

More astonishing than all this is your statement: “Philosophy is to become like God to the extent of one’s ability.” This is how those who agreed with you came to affirm that the servant becomes like the Lord in essence, attributes, and actions—such as the author of the books Withheld from Those Unfit to Receive Them, and those who followed him among the advocates of absolute unity