possible for His words, “one God,” to stand in apposition. For this is whole-for-whole apposition, not part-for-whole apposition. It is thus clear that his God and the God of his fathers can only be one God.

The second grammatical interpretation is that His words, “one God,” are in the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier. Yet this qualifier denotes an inseparable state, for He can only be one God. This is like His words, “It is the truth, confirming”—for it can only confirm. Other examples include “the religion of Abraham, inclining to truth” and “and they kill the prophets without right.” Whoever worships another alongside Him has not worshipped Him as one God, and whoever associates partners with Him has not worshipped Him. He can only be one God. Thus, if someone does not worship Him in His inseparable state, there is no other state in which he could worship Him; he has therefore not worshipped Him.

If it is said, “The polytheist sets up other gods alongside Him, so he worships Him in a state in which He is not the only God,” the answer is: This is a mistake arising from the fact that the word “god” can mean either the One who rightfully possesses divinity or something that people have taken as a god, even though it is not a god in reality. Rather, these are names that they and their fathers have given them. Those things are not gods in themselves; they are gods only in the minds of their worshippers.

Their divinity is therefore something the polytheists have imagined and established in their own minds, without its corresponding to external reality. It is like regarding someone who is not learned as learned, someone who is not alive as alive, or someone who is neither truthful nor upright as truthful and upright. Such a person is told: “In your view, this person is truthful, upright and learned.” These are beliefs that do not correspond to reality, and statements that are false and unfitting.