the Necessary Existent apprehends everything, then He is not truly one; rather, there is multiplicity.’ We say:

Since He apprehends Himself through Himself, His subsistence as an intellect through Himself and for Himself does not require Him to apprehend multiplicity. Multiplicity follows as a subsequent concomitant, not as something internal to the essence and constituted by it. It also follows in an ordered sequence. A multiplicity of concomitants arising from the essence, whether separate from it or not, does not impair unity.

A multiplicity of relational and non-relational concomitants accrues to the First, as does a multiplicity of negations, and consequently a multiplicity of names. Yet this has no effect on the oneness of His essence.”

I say:

He said: “These words explicitly affirm that Allah has attributes subsisting in Him that are neither relations nor negations,” as he said: “A multiplicity of relational and non-relational concomitants accrues to Him, as does a multiplicity of negations.”

This is acknowledged by the commentators on his words, both those who defend him and those who do not.

[Al-Rāzī’s Discussion in the Commentary on al-Ishārāt]

Al-Rāzī’s Discussion in the Commentary on al-Ishārāt

Al-Rāzī said in his commentary:

“I say: This is a sound objection, which may be formulated as follows: If you say that Allah knows all essences, and that knowledge consists in the form of the object known being present in the knower, then the forms of all objects of knowledge are present in His essence. You then maintain that the knower is not united with knowledge. It therefore follows that the essence of