indwells Christ alone,’ then anyone who maintains that He indwells all existing things is far greater in unbelief than the Christians.”

They cannot refute those who profess indwelling unless they adopt the position of those who affirm the divine attributes and maintain that He is separate from the world. Thus, one of two positions necessarily follows for them: either indwelling or negation—and negation is worse than indwelling. They cannot invalidate the doctrine of indwelling while maintaining their own doctrine of negation, which is worse. Only those who affirm the divine attributes can do so.

Even if they say, “The doctrine of the Christians and the proponents of indwelling is too contemptible to deserve attention,” they cannot invalidate it while adhering to Jahmī doctrine. Hence, the arguments they have presented contain no proof that invalidates it. They must therefore either admit the possible validity of the position of the Christians and the proponents of indwelling, or invalidate their own position. Anyone who reflects on this will see that there is no way around it.

Suppose, however, that they can invalidate the Christians’ position insofar as they restrict divine indwelling and union to Christ, by arguing: “If divine indwelling and union are possible with Christ, they are possible with others.” Those who profess universal indwelling and union accept this consequence. They say, “The Christians’ unbelief lies in this restriction. Likewise, idol worshippers erred only in worshipping some manifestations rather than others.” In their view, the fully realized knower is one who does not confine himself to certain manifestations and sites of divine self-disclosure, but worships everything. Ibn ‘Arabī, the author of al-Futūhāt al-Makkiyya (The Meccan Revelations) and Fusūs al-Hikam (The Bezels of Wisdom), explicitly stated this, as did others like him among the leading figures of these Jahmīs who profess the unity of existence