, not to the servant, since the servant has not been mentioned. For he said: “Allah does not sleep, nor is it fitting for Him to sleep. He lowers the balance and raises it. The deeds of the night are raised to Him before the deeds of the day, and the deeds of the day before the deeds of the night. His veil is light. If He removed it, the splendours of His Face would burn everything within reach of His sight among His creation.” Yet according to his interpretation, the pronoun can refer only to the servant, as they have explicitly stated.

Fourth, on their own premises, the pronoun cannot refer to the servant, since neither light nor fire veils him at all. Rather, the veil consists only in vision not being created, or in something that prevents beneficence.

Fifth, even if we supposed that there were light, fire, or something represented by either, and that it burned the servant, it would burn him entirely; the burning would not be confined to the splendours of his face.

Sixth, he said: “If He removed it, the splendours of His Face would burn everything within reach of His sight among His creation.” If the splendours were what was burned, with the word in the accusative, and fire were the agent of burning, then the subsequent words, “everything within reach of His sight,” would be incoherent. Conversely, if everything within reach of his sight were the agent of burning, then fire would not be the agent. Thus, fire and everything within reach of his sight cannot both be the subject of the verb. Making either one the agent of burning precludes the other from being the subject, both grammatically and in meaning.