for your opponent to affirm an essence above the world that admits neither division nor composition; this would be more reasonable.

If you may say, “Knowledge is not distinguishable from power, nor will from life,” then he may say, “What lies opposite the right side of the Throne is not distinguishable from what lies opposite its left side.”

It is known that multiplicity in attributes is more evident than multiplicity in something possessing magnitude. If the former is acceptable, the latter deserves acceptance all the more; and if the latter is rejected, the former deserves rejection all the more. No rational person can reject what is established as multiple meanings known through plain reason, especially when revelation expressly affirms this in numerous places.

Allah Most High has affirmed for Himself the most beautiful names, whose meanings are multiple: the All-Knowing, the All-Powerful, the Merciful, the Almighty, and others. The Mighty Book also testifies to His words, which nothing can equal. He has thus affirmed the multiplicity of His names and words, which entails the multiplicity of His attributes. Yet He is the One who is called by His most beautiful names and described by His sublime attributes, truthful and just in His perfect words, which are complete in truth and justice. Since this argument rests upon denying the attributes, its foundation is known to be unsound.

[The third response]

It may be said: Regarding your statement, “If it is divisible, it must be composite, and this has already been shown to be false,” you previously stated that He does not occupy space, because everything that occupies space is divisible by its very nature—on the assumption that ‘the part’ is denied—and everything divisible by its very nature is contingent because it depends on