But if he means that a servant’s description cannot encompass his Lord’s attribute, then this is true. I do not think he intended what some speculative theologians mean: that no attribute can subsist in another attribute, because an accident cannot subsist in another accident; rather, both attributes and both accidents subsist in the entity itself.

As for his statement, “His action has no cause,” it is ambiguous, though closer to the truth. If he means that He has done nothing on account of a cause external to Himself, then this is true. But if he means that He did not do things on account of a cause within Himself, such as His will, volition, and knowledge, then this is not true. It is more likely that he intended the first meaning.

As for his statement, “His existence has no temporal limit,” this is true and correct.

As for his statement, “He is exalted above the conditions of His creation,” this is correct if he means that He is unlike His creation in every respect. But if anyone takes these words to mean that He cannot be described by attributes befitting Him, just as His creatures are described by those attributes in a manner befitting them, then this is false. He is indeed described as possessing knowledge, power, hearing, sight, and speech, even though His creatures are described as possessing these in a manner befitting them.

As for his statement, “There is no mingling between Him and His creation, nor any exertion in His actions,” this is correct, for Allah has neither helper nor supporter, as He, the Exalted, says:

“And they have in either of them no