that needs to be ruled out is that of cooperation, as in his example of one doing part and the other doing part. The deficiency he identifies in taking turns is also present in dividing the work, for two partners may apportion their shares by place or by time.

They have refuted this supposition in several ways.

One is that this constitutes a deficiency in each of them that is incompatible with divinity.

Another is that if either is incapable of acting independently, he is powerless. If he is capable of acting independently, yet cannot do so while the other assists him, then he is prevented from exercising his power—which is tantamount to powerlessness, and worse still.

Likewise, if either is incapable of acting contrary to the other’s will, he is powerless. If he is capable of doing so but acts only in agreement with the other, then, if the alternative action is possible and nothing external prevents it, it can be posited, and the argument from mutual prevention applies once again. If it is not possible, this necessarily means that he is rendered powerless and prevented from acting by another.

In short, there are numerous rational proofs of this, although some people claim that it can be proved only through revelation. Yet the conclusion they have established is agreed upon by all rational people.

The Quran’s aim is to affirm Allah’s exclusive right to worship. This entails what they have stated, but the converse does not hold.

Hence the Most High says:

“Had there been in the heavens and the earth gods besides Allah, both would have fallen into ruin.” [al-Anbiyā’: 22]

He did not say, “Had there been two gods in them.” Rather, the supposition concerns gods other than the God