they deny is more evident, since it is not known to have been used in the sense they affirm. Thus, they cannot claim that the meaning of “one” is confined to what they assert.

Fifth: Even assuming that its scope is general and that it applies univocally, it signifies only the shared meaning, not the particular conception they affirm.

Sixth: Even assuming that one of the two meanings is figurative, the literal meaning is what they deny, not what they affirm, since that is the meaning that first comes to the minds of those addressed.

Seventh: Even assuming that the word has distinct meanings, the meaning they claim cannot be intended without a contextual indication. For our present purpose, it is sufficient not to invoke it as evidence for either meaning.

Eighth: Those who invoke it as evidence for what they deny do so because the verbal indications found in the Quran point to it. The Quran affirms multiple attributes and multiple acts for this One, and these necessarily entail what they deny, not what they affirm.

Ninth: It may be said that the designation (al-Ahad, “the One”) is not used of anyone other than Allah except in a possessive construction or in non-affirmative contexts, as in His words:

“One of them said, ‘Indeed, I have seen myself pressing wine.’” [Yūsuf: 36]

And His words:

“And your Lord wrongs no one.” [al-Kahf: 49]

And His words:

“And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection…” [al-Tawbah: 6]

It is therefore more emphatic in affirming oneness than the designation al-Wāhid (“the One”). Nevertheless, it has only been used in the sense they deny, as in His words:

“And there is none comparable to Him.”

And similar passages. The designation (al-Ahad, “the One”) is not known to have been used in the sense they claim, whether in negation or affirmation. How, then, could the designation al-Wāhid be so used?