But if what is ascribed to Him does not subsist in its own right, but can only be an attribute—such as knowledge, power, speech, pleasure, or anger—then this can only be the ascription of an attribute to Him, one that subsists in Him, glorified is He. Thus, when one says:

“I seek Your guidance through Your knowledge, and seek ability through Your power,”

His knowledge is an attribute subsisting in Him, and His power is an attribute subsisting in Him. Likewise, when one says:

“I seek refuge in Your pleasure from Your wrath, and in Your pardon from Your punishment,”

His pleasure and wrath subsist in Him, as do His pardon and punishment. Their effects, however—the blessings that reach the servant and the afflictions averted from him—are created, separate from Him, and are not His attributes. The effect may be called by the name of the attribute, as in the authentic hadith:

“Allah says to Paradise: ‘You are My mercy; through you I show mercy to whomever I will among My servants.’”

Here, mercy is a self-subsisting entity and cannot be an attribute of something else. This, then, is the distinction between ascribing something as an attribute and ascribing it as a possession.

When it is said, “The Messiah is the Word of Allah,” this means that he was created through the word, for the Messiah himself is not speech. This is unlike the Quran, which is itself speech. Speech does not subsist in its own right, but only in the speaker. Its ascription to the speaker is therefore the ascription of an attribute to the one it describes, even though the speaker speaks through his power and will. Even if it is called an act in this respect, it is an attribute insofar as it subsists in the speaker.

Since this is so, whoever says that speech is a single meaning subsisting in the speaker’s essence cannot give a sound answer to this question. Thus, if it is said