His attributes, then an attribute neither creates nor provides, nor is it a god, whereas the Messiah, in their view, is a god. Had the Christians said that Allah’s speech was in the Messiah’s breast just as it is in the breasts of the other prophets and believers, there would have been nothing objectionable in their statement.

Those commonly known as proponents of indwelling are those who maintain that Allah dwells within human beings, as do the Christians, the extremists among the Rāfidah, and the extremist followers of religious masters; or those who maintain that He dwells within everything, as the Jahmiyyah claim that He Himself is in every place. Yet He—glorified be He—has nothing of His essence within His creatures, nor anything of His creatures within His essence. The same applies to anyone who maintains that He is united with the Messiah or anyone else, that He is united with all created things, that His existence is the very existence of created things, or anything similar.

As for saying, “Allah’s speech is in the hearts of His prophets and His believing servants; the messengers conveyed Allah’s speech, and what they conveyed is Allah’s speech; and the speech is in the written sheet,” and similar statements, this is not called indwelling. Whoever calls it indwelling does not, by giving it that name, negate the realities involved.

It has already been explained that this does not entail an attribute’s separating from a created being and passing to another. How much less could this apply to an attribute of the Creator, blessed and exalted be He! However, because this bears an apparent resemblance to indwelling, people have disagreed over whether to affirm or deny the term “indwelling” in this context. May one say, “Allah’s speech dwells within the codex,” or “dwells within people’s breasts”? And may one say, “People’s written speech dwells within the codex,” or “dwells within the hearts of those who have memorized it,” and the like? One group denied indwelling, such as Judge