true. Thus, if this account transmitted by Abū Ma‘shar and cited as evidence by al-Rāzī is true, it is among the strongest proofs supporting the doctrine of their opponents, whom they called proponents of tashbīh. If it is untrue, it is a lie. They are therefore either liars and fabricators, or refuted and defeated—liars and fabricators concerning the very doctrine over which they claimed victory.

The eighth argument: Shirk was widespread among the Arabs, yet none of them is known to have believed that an idol was in the image of Allah Most High. Before them, it had existed among many nations, and it has well-known causes, such as making idols as images of those they venerated among the prophets and the righteous, or as talismans representing the angels, stars, and the like that they worshipped. None of these polytheists is known to have believed that an idol was an image of Allah. Throughout the Islamic era, shirk has remained widespread in the lands of the Indians and the Turks. The Indians are philosophers and are among Abū Ma‘shar’s foremost predecessors. Yet neither the Indians nor the Turks say this. It is therefore clear that this man was the first to fabricate it.

The ninth argument: Even if this were one of the causes of shirk, it is well known that its other causes are greater and more numerous, and that shirk is more widespread among others than among those whom he called proponents of tashbīh. If the presence of shirk among