Most rational people disagree with them about affirming such things, let alone calling them composition. Even if what they claim were conceded, calling it composite would not accord with established language; rather, it is a clear designation they have agreed upon. A body possessing attributes—such as an apple with its colour, taste, and scent—is not, in established language, described as composed of its colour, taste, and scent, nor are these called its parts. Nor is it customary in language to say that a human being is composed of length, breadth, and depth, or even of life and speech. The same applies to similar things that some philosophers and speculative theologians call composition, either through errors in reasoning or through terminology peculiar to them rather than shared by ordinary speakers.

Thus, these people have no right to deny what is known to be established by revelation and supplication, and in imitation of the polytheists, Christians, and Sabians who:

“They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, and the Messiah, son of Mary, though they were commanded to worship only one God. There is no god but Him. Glory be to Him, far above what they associate with Him.”
Al-Tawbah: 31.

As for this intercession, which the polytheists affirmed and the Quran invalidated, I have seen among these philosophizers who deny the divine attributes, such as Ibn Sīnā, and those who resemble them in certain matters