what is distinct is the same as that concerning what is separate, that the judgment concerning what is not distinct should be [the judgment concerning what is not distinct], since both are found among created beings? If the two pass before your inward sight as intended for you, you will find the matter just as we have described it to you.”

I say:

This indicates that, by explaining “one” as “distinct and separate,” he does not mean “indivisible,” as Ibn Fūrak claimed. For he regards indivisibility as exclusive to Allah Most High, whereas everything else whose existence can be apprehended is divisible. Ibn Kullāb, however, held that this description could apply to a created being: that it could be one and distinct, and that it was a body—as previously explained from his words and his distinction between a solid body and a body with interstices.

They raised this objection against him only because they explained “one” as “having no counterpart,” without affirming for Him any reality by virtue of which He is one. He, by contrast, affirmed a reality by virtue of which He is one: His being distinct in Himself.