—which was divine—the knot of the reality of prophethood appeared and became a mirror reflecting existence. The Real then appeared in it, in a form and with an attribute, as one who describes.

In this statement, he mentioned the Real facing it, the highest existence that appeared in this Real, and the end of this reality directed toward the Real. He thus mentioned three things here: the Real, existence, and the end. Yet earlier he identified the Real as the absolute existence that was reflected, and as the Real who appeared in it as one who describes. At one moment he identifies the Real with absolute existence; at another, he makes absolute existence appear in this Real. This is a contradiction.

It is then said to him:

These two expressions, in your view, refer to the Lord, Exalted is He. You have therefore made Him both manifest and a locus of manifestation. If by manifestation you mean existence, then the Lord would have come into existence time and again. This is abhorrent unbelief. How could His existence recur? How could He have come to exist in Himself after not having existed in Himself? If, however, you mean becoming evident and manifesting Himself, there was no created being to whom He could appear and manifest Himself, since the world had not yet been created. You said that the Real appeared in it as one who describes, and you called Him the Most Merciful; you did not present His manifestation as something known or witnessed. How, then, could He have become manifest to Himself after not having been manifest? This describes Him as not having known Himself until He came to know Himself.

Furthermore, you have already said that He was manifest to Himself through His unity. Thus, this is unbelief and contradiction.

(The sixth point)

This bewilderment and contradiction resemble the Christians’ bewilderment and contradiction concerning the hypostases.