and saying to him, “You claim to be the rational minds of the world and the most intelligent of creation, yet you say things that even the least rational person would not say!” I would put objections of this kind to him, saying:

“If the first intellect is one in every respect, only one thing can proceed from it; an intellect, a soul, and a celestial sphere cannot all proceed from it. If, however, it contains multiplicity, then more than one thing has proceeded from the One. If it is said that this multiplicity consists of things that have no existence, then what has no existence cannot give rise to existence.

“Moreover, if they allow multiplicity to proceed from a single intellect under some consideration, let them allow it to proceed from the First Originator under the same consideration, without this intermediary. For example, they say that an intellect proceeds from it by virtue of its necessary existence, a soul by virtue of its existence, and a celestial sphere by virtue of its possible existence. If these attributes are positive realities, then more than one thing has proceeded from the One. If they are relational or negative, or a combination of both, then, according to them, the First Originator also possesses negative and relational attributes and combinations of the two.”

The falsity of their position on this issue, which forms the very foundation of their doctrine of divine unity, is thus evident in numerous ways. These demonstrate that such people are among the most ignorant and misguided of creation, and the furthest removed from knowing Allah and affirming His oneness. Indeed, ordinary Jews and Christians, with whom we disagree, know more about Allah than the leading figures among these Sabian philosophers who have altered religion.

We have explained elsewhere that the separate immaterial entities of which they speak originate only in the mental universals they conceived by abstraction