Rather, He is light, He has light, and His veil is light, even though this is not perceptible to us. To deny that He is this perceptible light, there is no need for the proofs he mentions. Yet he incorporates into them a denial that He is light in any sense, which is false. We shall therefore address the arguments he presents.

In his first argument, he says: “If He were light in His essence, this attribution would serve no purpose.”

This is false for several reasons:

First, He is the Self-Subsisting Sustainer in His own right. Nevertheless, the hadith states: “You are the Sustainer of the heavens and the earth and all who are in them.”

Second, He has called the moon a light, saying:

“It is He who made the sun a radiance and the moon a light.” [Yūnus 5]

Nevertheless, the moon is called “the light of the earth.”

Third, anything that possesses an attribute in itself which also bears a relation to something else may be named both with and without that relation being specified. Thus, one says “a scholar” and “the scholar of the world.”

In his second argument, he says: “If His being the light of the heavens and the earth meant this perceptible light, there could be no darkness whatsoever anywhere in the heavens and the earth, for He, Exalted is He, is everlasting and never ceases to be.”