As for taking turns, that would be an imperfection in each of them. It would be more fitting, if there were two, for there to be two worlds. Since the world is one, its Maker is one, for a single act can proceed only from a single agent.

Thus, His words:

“and some of them would have overpowered others” [al-Mu'minūn: 91]

should not be understood solely in terms of their differing actions, but also in terms of their agreement. For acts that agree obstruct one another when directed at the same object, just as differing acts do.”

He said:

“This is the difference between our understanding of the verse and that of the theologians, although an indication of what we have said may be found in the writings of Abū al-Ma'ālī.”

I say:

Rather, the argument that speculative thinkers attribute to the theologians, which they call the argument from mutual hindrance, is a complete demonstration of their intended conclusion: that the world cannot proceed from two agents, although this pertains to the oneness of lordship. The Quran explains both the oneness of divinity and the oneness of lordship.

The point here, however, is that this author's objection to the argument of the speculative theologians is a well-known objection. Others have raised it and supposed that it undermines the proof, as al-Āmidī and others have mentioned. Some have even supposed that divine oneness can be known only through revelation.

Matters are not as they suppose. Rather, it is a sound rational demonstration, as formulated by