Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:171

"O People of the Scripture": This is an isolation of the address, specifically targeting the Christians to restrain them from the extreme misguidance they are upon. Abu Ali al-Jubba'i, Abu Muslim, and a group of exegetes held this view. From al-Hasan, it is reported that it is an address to both them and the Jews, because ghuluww (exaggeration)—that is, overstepping the bounds and the excessiveness forbidden in His saying, "Do not exaggerate in your religion"—occurred among all of them. As for the Christians, some said: 'Isa, peace be upon him, is the son of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic; others said he is Allah himself; and others said he is the third of three. As for the Jews, they said: He, peace be upon him, was born of an illicit relationship. The view held by the majority is preferred, for the claim of the Jews has already been refuted previously, and because it is more consistent with what follows.

"And do not say about Allah except the truth": That is, do not speak or believe anything except the truthful statement, rather than speech involving claims of union (ittihad), indwelling (hulul), or taking a consort or a son. The exception here is mufarragh (vacant), and according to the majority, it is muttasil (connected). Some claimed that the "truth" here refers to declaring Allah exalted above having a consort or a son. However, it is more likely that the exception is inqita' (disconnected), because "declaring Him exalted" is not something said about Him, but rather something said for Him or in Him; for the meaning of "saying something about someone" is to fabricate against him, which contradicts the view of the majority regarding the mufarragh exception. So, understand this.

"The Messiah": (pronounced with a lightened ya), the meaning of which has passed. It is also recited as al-Massih with a kasra under the mim and a shadda on the sin, similar to al-sitt. It is a subject (mubtada'), and His saying, "‘Isa", is a substitute (badal) for it or an explanatory appositive (‘atf bayan), as stated by Abu al-Baqa’ and others. His saying, "son of Maryam", is an attribute for him that is useful in refuting what they claimed regarding his being a son to Him, the Mighty and Majestic. His saying, "a messenger of Allah", is the predicate of the subject, and the sentence is an incipit, provided to offer a reason for the prohibition against the false statement, which implies an order for its opposite—meaning that he, peace be upon him, is limited to the rank of messengership and does not exceed it to what you claim.

"And His word": This is conjoined to "messenger of Allah." The meaning of his being a "word" is that he came into existence by the word "Be" (kun) without the usual material. This is the view of al-Hasan and Qatadah.

Al-Ghazali, may his secret be sanctified, said: "Every newborn has a near cause and a far cause; the first is the semen, and the second is the command 'Be.' Since evidence has shown the absence of the near cause in the case of 'Isa, peace be upon him, He attributed him to the far cause, which is the command 'Be,' as an indication of the negation of the near cause." He clarified this with His saying: "He cast it to Maryam," meaning He caused it to reach her and manifest within her, making it like the semen cast into the womb; thus, it is a metaphor. It is also said: the meaning is that people are guided by him just as they are guided by the word of Allah, the Exalted. This is narrated from Abu al-Jubba'i. Others say the meaning is the glad tidings of Allah, the Exalted, which He gave to Maryam through the tongue of the angels, as He said: "When the angels said, 'O Maryam, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word...'" The sentence "He cast it" is a state (hal), as some have said, from the pronoun governed by the genitive in "His word," assuming the particle qad; the factor in this is the meaning of the genitive. The estimation is: "And His word, casting it..." It is also said it is a state from the pronoun of him, peace be upon him, implied in what "His word" points to, from the meaning of the derivative which is the agent for it. It is also said it is a state from the agent of "was" (kana), implied with id (when) connected to "word" in the sense that the intended meaning is the "created one," with the estimation: "When He cast it to Maryam."

"And a spirit from Him": Conjoined to what preceded it. He, peace be upon him, is called a "spirit" because he came into being from the blowing of Jibril, peace be upon him, into the garment of Maryam, peace be upon her, by His command, the Exalted. The naming of the breath as a "spirit" appears in their speech, among which is the saying of Dhu al-Rumma: "...and revive it with your spirit." "From" is connected to an omitted term serving as an attribute for "spirit," and it indicates the start of origin (ibtida' al-ghayah) metaphorically, not partition (tab'id), as the Christians claimed.

It is told that a skilled Christian physician debated ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Waqidi al-Marwazi before al-Rashid one day and said to him: "There is in your Book that which indicates that ‘Isa, peace be upon him, is a part of Him, the Exalted," and he recited this verse. Al-Waqidi then recited His saying: "And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth - all from Him." He said: "Then it would follow that all things are a part of Him, the Exalted, and He is far above that." The Christian was silenced and accepted Islam, and al-Rashid was immensely happy and bestowed a magnificent gift upon al-Waqidi. It is said he was called a spirit because people are revived by him just as they are revived by spirits. This is the view of al-Jubba'i. Others say the spirit here means mercy, as in His saying: "And He supported them with a spirit from Him." On one interpretation, it is said the spirit refers to the revelation by which Maryam was given the glad tidings. It is also said that it was customary for them that if they wanted to describe something with the utmost purity and cleanliness, they would call it a "spirit." Since 'Isa, peace be upon him, was formed from the breath, not from semen, he was described as a spirit. Others say the spirit here means "the secret" (sirr), as one says: "The spirit of this matter is such," meaning he, peace be upon him, is one of the secrets of Allah, the Exalted, and one of His signs. It is also said the meaning is "possessor of a spirit," deleting the genitive, or using "spirit" in the sense of "possessor of a spirit," and the attribution to Allah is for honor. Similar to this is what is in the Torah: "Musa is the man of Allah," "the rod is the rod of Allah," and "Jerusalem is the house of Allah." It is also said the spirit refers to Jibril, peace be upon him, conjoined to the implied pronoun in "He cast it," the meaning being: Allah and Jibril cast it to Maryam; but its weakness is obvious. In any case, there is no argument for the Christians in any of their claims regarding the honor of 'Isa, peace be upon him, by attributing the spirit to Him, as others share in that. In the Gospel of Luke, he said to his disciples: "Your Heavenly Father gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him." In the Gospel of Matthew: "Yuhanna the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother’s womb." In the Torah: "Allah said to Musa, peace be upon him: Select seventy from your people so that I may pour upon them from the spirit that is upon you, that they may bear the weight of this task with you." He did so, and He poured upon them from His spirit, and they prophesied immediately. Also, regarding Yusuf, peace be upon him: The King said, "Have you seen a youth such as this, in whom the spirit of Allah, the Exalted, resides?" And so on.

Perhaps "the spirit" in all of this is a sacred matter and a divine secret that Allah, the Exalted, pours upon whom He wills of His servants, as He wills, and at whatever time He wills. Calling 'Isa, peace be upon him, by this is a form of hyperbole, as one says of Zayd: "He is justice." It is not intended to be the spirit by which life originates at all. This sometimes appears in a form, just as the Qur'an appears in the form of a pale man, and death in the form of a ram. This is supported in general by what is in the Gospel of Matthew at the end of the discourse on the baptism of 'Isa, peace be upon him: "Yesu was baptized and came out of the water; the doors of heaven were opened for him, and he saw the spirit of Allah come upon him in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven said: 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.'" If this is authentic, it destroys what the Christians claim, that he, peace be upon him, became incarnate by the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb. As for what it contains of describing him, peace be upon him, with prophecy, the answer to that will come, God willing.

"So believe in Allah" and specify Him with divinity, "and His messengers" all of them, and do not remove anyone among them to that which is impossible to describe him with, namely divinity. "And do not say 'Three'"—meaning the gods are three: Allah, the Exalted, the Messiah, and Maryam, as His saying informs us: "Did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'"—since its meaning is: two deities other than Allah, the Exalted, who are with Him, making three.

This estimation is narrated from al-Zajjaj, or that Allah, the Exalted, is three, if it is authentic that they say: "Allah, the Exalted, is one substance with three persons (aqanim): the person of the Father, the person of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit." They mean by the first the Essence or Existence, by the second Knowledge (the Word), and by the third Life. Thus it is said. The investigation of the discourse in this station, according to some researchers, is that the Christians agreed that Allah, the Exalted, is a substance—meaning self-subsistent, not located in a space, not specific to a direction, not measured by a dimension, not accepting of temporal occurrences in His Essence, and the occurrence of change or non-existence is not conceivable for Him. He is one in substance and three in "personhood," and the persons are attributes of the ancient substance: Existence, Knowledge, and Life. They expressed Existence as the Father, Life as the Holy Spirit, and Knowledge as the Word. Then they differed: the Melkites, followers of Melka who appeared in the Roman Empire and took control of it, held that the persons are not the ancient substance, and that each one of them is a god. They explicitly affirmed the Trinity and said: "Allah is the third of three," He is exalted above what they associate with Him. They said that the Word united with the body of the Messiah, put on his humanity, and merged with it like the merging of water into wine, and the multiplicity turned into unity. They claimed the Messiah is a universal humanity, not a specific one, and that it is ancient and eternal, and that Maryam gave birth to an eternal god, though they disagreed whether Maryam was a universal or specific human. They agreed that the union of divinity with the Messiah was without Maryam, and that killing and crucifixion occurred to the humanity and divinity together. They applied the word "Father" to Allah, the Exalted, and "Son" to 'Isa, peace be upon him. Nestorius the Wise, in the era of al-Ma'mun, held that Allah, the Exalted, is one, and the three persons are not other than His Essence, nor are they the essence itself. The Word united with the body of the Messiah, not in the sense of merging, but in the sense of illumination—meaning it illuminated him like the sun illuminates from a hole onto a crystal. Some Nestorians said: "Each of the three persons is living, speaking, and existing," and they explicitly affirmed the Trinity like the Melkites. Others forbade this, and some affirmed other attributes like Power and Will, etc., but did not make them persons. They claimed the Son was eternally begotten from the Father, but his incarnation and unity with the body of the Messiah occurred when he was born, and the temporality belongs to the humanity; so the Messiah is a perfect God and a perfect man, and they are ancient and temporal, and the union does not invalidate the antiquity of the ancient nor the temporality of the temporal. They said the crucifixion befell the humanity, not the divinity. Some Jacobites held that the Word turned into flesh and blood, so the God became the Messiah. They said: "Allah is the Messiah 'Isa ibn Maryam." They narrated from Yuhanna the Evangelist that he said at the beginning of his Gospel: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." And he said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Allah, and Allah, the Exalted, is the Word." Some of them said: "The divinity appeared in the humanity such that it became the same thing," like the appearance of the King in the form referred to by His saying: "He represented himself to her as a well-proportioned human." Some said: "The ancient substance of the God and the newly-arrived substance of the man combined like the combination of the rational soul with the body and became one substance, which is the Messiah, and he is God." They say: "God became man, even if the man did not become God," just as it is said of a piece of charcoal thrown into the fire: "It became fire," but it is not said: "The fire is charcoal." They say: "The union of divinity is with the specific man, not the universal," and that Maryam gave birth to a god, and that killing and crucifixion occurred to the divinity and humanity together, for if it were only one of them, the union would be invalidated. Some said: "The Messiah, despite the union of his substance, is ancient in one respect and temporal in another." Some Jacobites said: "The Word took nothing from Maryam, but merely passed through her like water through a gutter." Some claimed the Word would enter the body of the Messiah and then depart from it, at which point plagues and pains would befall him. Some Christians claimed that the meaning of the union of divinity with humanity is the appearance of divinity on humanity, even if nothing shifted from the divinity to the humanity and nothing indwelled, just like the appearance of the engraving of a seal on wax or a visible image in a mirror. Some said: "Existence and the Word are ancient, and Life is created." Others said: "Allah, the Exalted, is one and named Him Father, and the Messiah is the Word of Allah, the Exalted, and His Son by way of selection, and he is created before the world and is the creator of all things." Historians and transmitters recount that Arius, one of the great Christians, believed—along with his sect—in the oneness of the Creator and did not associate anyone with Him, nor did he see in the Messiah what the Christians see, but rather believed in his messengership and that he was created, body and soul. His saying spread among the Christians, so they corresponded and gathered in the city of Nicaea under King Constantine and debated. Arius explained his position, then Alexander, the Patriarch of Alexandria, refuted him and denounced his saying before the King. They debated, and their dispute lengthened. The King was astonished by the spread of their saying and the frequency of their disagreement. The Patriarch stood for them and ordered them to research a consensus. Their opinion agreed on something, which they edited and called "The Creed" (al-Amanah), and most of them today are upon it: "We believe in Allah, the Exalted, the One, the Father, the maker of all things, the owner of all things, the creator of what is seen and what is not seen; and in the one Lord, the Messiah, the Son of Allah, the Exalted, the One, the first of all creation, who was begotten of his Father before all worlds, not created, true God of true God, of the substance of his Father, by whose hand the worlds were perfected and everything was created, who for the sake of us mankind and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and Maryam and became man, and he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered and was crucified in the days of Pilate and buried, and rose on the third day as it is written, and ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand of his Father, and he is ready to come another time to judge between the dead and the living. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the one, the spirit of truth who proceeds from his Father, and in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and one holy apostolic congregation, and in eternal life forever and ever."

These are the sum of the sayings and the absurdities of these infidels, which, along with their contradiction of reason and collision with the foundations, are things that have no support or reliance for them except the imitation of their predecessors and the taking of the literal meanings of words they do not encompass. Moreover, what they called "The Creed" has no basis in the law of the Gospel, nor is it taken from the speech of the Messiah or the sayings of his disciples. It is, with that, agitated, contradictory, and incoherent, with some parts belying and clashing with others. Since you have known this, listen to what is recited to you in their refutation to complete the benefit and confirm the invalidation of those corrupt creeds. As for their statement that Allah, the Exalted, is a substance in the aforementioned sense: we have no dispute with them from the side of meaning, but from the side of verbal application according to the Law, and the matter is easy. As for their limitation of the persons to three—the attribute of Existence, the attribute of Life, and the attribute of Knowledge—it is void. Because after granting that the attribute of Existence is additional, if they were asked for proof of this limitation, they would find no way to it except their saying: "We researched and found nothing other than what we mentioned," which is not certain, as is not hidden. Then it is void by what is established in its place regarding the obligation of the attributes of Power, Will, Hearing, Seeing, and Speech. If they say: "The persons are the properties of the substance and the attributes of its own self, and it is among their rules that they must belong to the substance and not transcend to another, and this is realized in Existence and Life because there is no connection for the existence of the ancient Essence and its life to anything other than it, and likewise Knowledge, because knowledge is specific to the substance in terms of being known by it," this is contrary to Power and Will, for they have no specificity to the ancient Essence but rather relate to others which are empowered and willed, and the ancient Essence is not empowered or willed. Also, Life dispenses with Power and Will in the sense that the living one is never free of them, unlike Knowledge, for one might be free of it. And because it is impossible for Life to dispense with Knowledge due to the specificity of Life by the prohibition of degrees of hyperbole and preference, unlike Knowledge. We say: As for their statement that Existence and Life are specific to the ancient Essence and have no connection to others, it is granted. However, it follows from that that Knowledge would not be a person because of its connection to something other than the ancient Essence, as it is known by it! If they say: "Knowledge was a person because it was connected to the ancient Essence, not because it was connected to others," then they must acknowledge that "Seeing" is a person because it relates to the ancient Essence in that it sees itself—but they did not say that. And it follows from that that the "Persistence" (baqa') of the Essence of Allah, the Exalted, must be a person because of the persistence's specificity to itself and its lack of connection to others, just as in Existence and Life. If they say: "Persistence is the very Existence," then it would follow that the existent is persistent at the time of its occurrence, which is impossible. And their statement that Will dispenses with Power and Will: do they mean that Power and Will are the very Life, or that they are external to it, necessary to it and never separating from it? If the first, they have contradicted their school where they said: "Life is a person because of its specificity to the ancient substance, and Power and Will are not specific to the ancient Essence," which suggests difference, and there is no union with it. If they say: "It is necessary to it while being distinct," it is denied, for just as it is permissible for a living one to be free of knowledge, it is also permissible for him to be free of power and will, such as in the state of sleep or fainting. And their statement that "It is impossible for Life to dispense with Knowledge due to the specificity of Knowledge to the degrees of hyperbole and preference" implies that it would also not dispense with Power, due to its specificity to this type of hyperbole and preference.

As for their statement that the Word dwelt in the Messiah and put on humanity, it is void from two aspects. First, it has been established that it is impossible for an attribute of the Ancient to dwell in another. Second, saying that the Word dwelt is no more primary than saying that the Spirit—which is Life—dwelt. If they say: "We only inferred the indwelling of Knowledge in him because of his specificity to sciences in which no one else shares," we say: First, we do not grant that. It is narrated by the Christians that he, peace be upon him, was asked about the Hour and did not answer, saying: "No one knows it except Allah alone." Second, we grant it, but he is specific among you with reviving the dead, healing the blind and the leper, and matters which, according to your claim, no other created being can perform. Power, according to you, is in the rule of Life—either meaning it is identical to it or necessary to it—so it should have been said that Life dwells in him, but you did not say that.

As for the Melkites' statement regarding the Trinity in gods and that each person is a god, they must either say that each is described with the attributes of the God, the Exalted, of Existence, Life, Knowledge, Power, etc., or they do not. If they say it, it is contrary to their foundation and is also impossible because of the evidence for the impossibility of two gods. Moreover, they must either say that the Ancient Substance is also a god or not. If the first, they have invalidated their school, for they are agreed on the Trinity, and by this statement, it would result in a "Quaternity." If the second, they found no way to differentiate, while the Ancient Substance is the foundation and the persons are subordinate attributes, so it would be more fitting to be a god. If they say the second, the result returns to a verbal dispute, the reference for which is the arrival of the Law allowing such an application. As for their statement that the Word merged with the body of the Messiah, it is invalidated by the impossibility of the attributes of the Ancient dwelling in anything other than the Essence of Allah, the Exalted. Their claim of union is impossible from the side of indication and implication. As for the first, at the time of union, one must either say they remain, or they are non-existent, or one remains and the other does not. As for the first assumption, they are two as we were. If the second, the one existent is other than them. If the third, there is no union for the duality and non-existence of one of them. As for the second assumption, it is from four aspects: First, if it is permissible for the person of the Ancient Substance to unite with the temporal, what prevents the attribute of the temporal from uniting with the Ancient Substance? If they say: "The prevention is that the union of the attribute of the temporal with the Ancient Substance necessitates its deficiency, which is impossible, whereas the union of the attribute of the Ancient with the temporal necessitates its honor, and the honor of the temporal by the Ancient is not impossible," we say: Just as the Essence of the Ancient is deficient by the union of the attribute of the temporal with it, the Ancient person is deficient by its union with the temporal humanity; let that be impossible. Second, it is agreed upon that the Ancient Substance cannot unite with anything other than the humanity of the Messiah, so what is the difference between one humanity and another? If they say: "It only united with the universal humanity, not the specific," we refuted that by what you will know shortly, God willing. Third, their school is that the persons are additional to the Essence of the Ancient Substance while being specific to it, and their subsisting in it did not necessitate union. Then the union of the person with the humanity would not be more primary. Fourth, the consensus is held that the person of the Ancient Substance is different from the humanity, just as the attribute of the Essence of the substance is different from the Essence of the accident, and the attribute of the Essence of the accident is different from the substance. If they say: "The attribute of the substance may unite with the accident, or the attribute of the accident with the substance, so that the substance becomes in the ruling of the accident and the accident in the ruling of the substance," they have committed themselves to a field contrary to their foundations. If they say it is impossible for the attribute of the substance to unite with the accident and vice-versa, even though the accident and substance are more susceptible to change and alteration, then it is more primary that it be impossible in the Ancient and the temporal.

Their statement that the Messiah is a universal human is void from four aspects: First, the universal human has no specificity to one individual of mankind over another, and the Christians agreed that the Messiah was born of Maryam, peace be upon them. Thus, one must either say that the human of Maryam is also universal, as told by some of them, or specific. If it were universal, it must either be identical to the human [of the Messiah] or other than it. If it were identical, it follows that the thing is born from itself, which is impossible. Then it follows that the Messiah is Maryam and Maryam is the Messiah, and no one has said that. If it were other than it, the universal human is what is general and shared between all, and its nature is a part of the meaning of every human. It follows that the human of the Messiah by his nature is a part of the concept of the human of Maryam, and vice-versa, and that is impossible. If the human of Maryam were specific, it is a necessity of the Messiah being born from her that the universal capable of sharing by the many is limited to the specific which is not capable of it in itself, and that is impossible. Second, the Christians are agreed that the Messiah was visible and could be pointed to, and the universal is not such. Third, they say: "The Word dwelt in the Messiah, either by way of union or not." If the Messiah were a universal human, he would not be specific to some persons of mankind over others, and the one born of Maryam would not be specific to the indwelling of the Word over others—but they did not say that. Fourth, the Melkites are agreed that the killing befell the divinity and humanity. If the humanity of the Messiah were universal, it would not be conceivable for the specific to befall it.

As for what Nestorius held regarding the three persons, the discourse with him on the limitation is in the same style as what preceded. His saying: "They are not the Essence itself, nor other than the Essence," if he means by that what al-Ash'ari meant in his saying: "The attributes are not the Essence, nor other than the Essence," it is true. If he means other than that, it is not understood. As for his interpretation of Knowledge as the Word, the dispute with him on this application is verbal. Moreover, he must either mean by "Word" the internal speech or the spoken speech, and the discourse on that is known. His saying: "The Word united with the Messiah in the sense that it illuminated him" has no basis, because he must either mean by the illumination of the Word onto him, peace be upon him, what is understood from his example—which is that he is a subject of its radiation—or that it relates to him like the relationship of Ancient Knowledge to the knowns, or he means something else. If the first, it necessitates that it has radiation and is in a direction from where its radiation falls, which necessitates that it is a body and not an attribute of the Ancient Substance, and that is impossible. If the second, it is true, except that the connection of the person to the Messiah by this interpretation would not be a property. If the third, it must be depicted in order to speak about it.

As for the statement of some Nestorians that "each of the three persons is a living, speaking, existing god," it is void by the arguments refuting the Trinity. As for those who affirmed other attributes for Allah, the Exalted, like Power, Will, etc., they have hit the mark, except that saying they are not "persons" while they share with them in being attributes is pure arbitrary judgment, and the difference they rely on is void, as you have known. As for their statement: "The Messiah is a perfect human and a perfect god, and they are two substances: ancient and temporal," the way to refute it is from two aspects: First, the objection to invalidating that the person united with the body of the Messiah is a god, by saying: they must either say that what united with the body of the Messiah is god only, or that every person is a god, as the Melkites held. If the first, it is impossible due to the lack of priority. If the second, it is also impossible due to what has passed. Second, if the Messiah comprises the person and the temporal humanity, they must either say: "by union," or "by the indwelling of the person in the humanity," or "the indwelling of the humanity in the person," or "there is no indwelling of one in the other." If the first, it is void by what preceded in the refutation of union. If the second, it is void by what invalidates the indwelling of an ancient attribute in other than the Essence of Allah, the Exalted, and the indwelling of the temporal in the Ancient. If the third, they must either say: "by their adjacency and connection or not." If it is said: "by the first," they must either say: "by the separation of the ancient person from the temporal substance or not." If it is said: "by separation," it is impossible for two reasons: First, what points to the invalidation of the transfer of an attribute from the described. Second, it necessitates that an attribute, while being adjacent to the humanity, subsists by itself, which is impossible. If it is not said that the person is separated from the Ancient Substance, it necessitates that the Essence of the Ancient Substance is connected to the body of the Messiah, by necessity of the connection of its person to it. And at that point, the union of the person with the humanity is not more primary than the union of the Ancient Substance with it—and they did not say that. If it is not said by their adjacency and connection, then there is no meaning to the union with the body of the Messiah, and saying "union" without connection to the body of the Messiah is not more primary than the reverse. As for the statement of one who said: "The God is one, and the Messiah was born of Maryam, and he is a righteous created servant, except that Allah, the Exalted, honored him by naming him a son," this is as the Unitarians say, and there is no dispute with them except in the application of the name "Son."

As for the statement of some Jacobites: "The Word turned into flesh and blood and the God became the Messiah," it is more clearly void than what preceded. Its clarification is from two aspects: First, if it were permissible for the person to turn into flesh and blood despite the difference in their realities, it would be permissible for the impossible to become possible, the possible to become impossible, the necessary to become possible or impossible, and the possible or impossible to become necessary—and no one would have trust in any of the self-evident propositions. It would be permissible for the substance to turn into an accident and the accident into a substance, the flesh and blood into a person and the person into an essence, the essence into a person, and the ancient into temporal and the temporal into ancient—and no one of the rational has said that. Second, if the person turned into flesh and blood, it must either be identical to the blood and flesh that belonged to the Messiah or additional to it and joined to it. The first is clearly corrupt, and the second they did not say.

As for what is narrated from Yuhanna of his saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Allah, and Allah is the Word," it is what he uniquely held and is not found in any of the Gospels. It is apparently a lie, for it is equivalent to the saying of one: "The Dinar is with the money-changer, and the money-changer is the Dinar," and no rational person would utter that. Likewise, his saying: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" is not accepted as established. And assuming it is granted, it allows for transposition: "The flesh that became, by naming, a Word, dwelt among us," meaning by that the flesh of 'Isa, peace be upon him. It is also possible that he pointed by that to Peter, the chief of the disciples and the executor of the Messiah, for he stood after him, peace be upon him, to manage his religion, and the Christians would turn to him, as their books testify. It is as if he says: "If the Word—meaning 'Isa, whom Allah, the Exalted, named by that—has departed from among us, it has not departed until it became flesh and dwelt among us," meaning that its management is present in a flesh among us, which is Peter.

Some people interpret his speech by dropping the interrogative hamza when translating from the Hebrew to the Arabic tongue, the meaning being: "Has it become?"—which is weak. Among the strange wonders is that Yuhanna mentioned that the Messiah said to his disciples: "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life after me, for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink, and whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him." When his disciples heard this word, they said: "How difficult it is! Who can bear to hear it?" And many of them turned away from his company. This, along with his saying: "Allah, the Exalted, is the Word, and the Word became flesh," is in the utmost confusion, for it contains an order for the temporal to eat and drink the Ancient, Eternal God. The truth is that neither of the two statements is established, so we do not bear the burden of interpretation.

As for their statement: "The divinity appeared in the humanity, so it became the same thing," they must either mean that the divinity became identical to the humanity, as their saying "It became the same thing" suggests—which returns to the permissibility of the changing of realities, which is impossible, as you have known—or they mean that the divinity was described by the humanity, which is also impossible due to what has been established regarding the impossibility of the indwelling of the temporal in the Ancient, or that the humanity was described by the divinity, which is also impossible due to the impossibility of the indwelling of the Ancient in the temporal. As for those among them who said: "The ancient substance of the God and the newly-arrived substance of the man combined and became one substance, which is the Messiah," it is void from two aspects: First, what was mentioned regarding the invalidation of union. Second, making the humanity a divinity by its combination with the divinity is not more primary than making the divinity a humanity by its combination with the humanity—and they did not say that. As for the substance of the charcoal when thrown into the fire, we do not grant that it became the very substance of the fire, but rather it became adjacent to the substance of the fire; the most that can be said is that some attributes and accidents of the substance of the charcoal were changed by the proximity of the substance of the fire; as for the substance of one becoming the substance of the other, no. As for their statement that the union is with the specific humanity not the universal, it is impossible due to the arguments invalidating union and the indwelling of the Ancient in the temporal. By that, their saying that "Maryam gave birth to a god" and "the killing befell the divinity and humanity together" is invalidated, in addition to the fact that it necessitates the death of the God, which is self-evidently void. As for the statement of one who said: "The Messiah, despite the union of his substance, is ancient in one respect and temporal in another," it is void because if the substance of the Messiah is united and has no multiplicity in it, then the temporality must either be for the very thing said to be ancient or for another. If the first, it is impossible; otherwise, the one thing would be ancient with no beginning and temporal with a beginning, which is contradictory. If the second, it is contrary to the assumption. As for the statement of one who said: "The Word passed through Maryam like water through a gutter," it necessitates the transfer of the Word, which is as you know. By that, their saying that "the Word was entering the body of the Messiah and then departing" is invalidated. And their saying: "What appeared of the image of the Messiah in the humanity was not a body, but an illusion, like the image seen in a mirror," is void because it is one of their foundations that the Messiah only revived the dead and healed the blind and leper by what was in him of divinity. If what appeared in him of divinity had no reality, but was a mere illusion, it would not be fit for the occurrence of what occurred from the God through him. The statement that "the person of Life is created and temporal" is not like that, due to the existence of arguments for the antiquity of the attributes; so it is ancient and eternal. How, indeed, if it were temporal, the God before it would not be living, and whoever is not living cannot be knowing or speaking. The statement of one who said: "The Messiah was created before the world and is the creator of all things" is void due to the arguments that Allah, the Exalted, existed and nothing else with Him.

As for the Creed by which they draw near and by which they worship, the clarification of its agitation, contradiction, and incoherence is from several aspects: First, their saying: "We believe in the One Father, the maker of all things," contradicts their saying: "And in the one Lord, the Messiah, etc.," in a contradiction that is hardly hidden. Second, their saying: "Indeed, Yesu the Messiah is the Son of Allah, the Exalted, the first of all creation," suggests the temporality of the Messiah, for there is no meaning to his being His Son except his being later than Him, for the parent and the child cannot be together in existence, and their being together is impossible by the self-evident reason, because the Father is either a son that never was not, or he was not. If they say: "He begat a son that never was not," we say: Then he begat nothing, for the son never was not. If he begat something that was not, then the son is temporal and created, and that belies their saying: "True God of true God, of the substance of his Father, and that he perfected the worlds by his hand and created everything." Third, their saying: "True God of true God, of the substance of his Father," is contradicted by the saying of the Messiah in the Gospel: He was asked about the Day of Resurrection and said: "I do not know it, and no one knows it except the Father alone." If he were of the substance of the Father, he would know what the Father knows. Furthermore, if it were permissible for a second god to be from a first god, it would be permissible for a third god to be from a second, and the matter would not stop at a limit, which is impossible. Fourth, their saying: "Yesu perfected the worlds by his hand and created everything" is void and belies what is in the Gospel, for Matthew says: "This is the lineage of Yesu the Messiah, son of Dawud." Also, the creator of the worlds must be prior to them; and how could the Messiah be prior when Maryam bore him? Also, in the Gospel, the Devil said to the Messiah: "Bow to me and I will give you all the world and make you possessor of everything," and he kept dragging him from place to place, interfering with his desire, and coveting his worship. How could the creator of the world be limited in the hand of some of the world? We seek refuge in Allah from misguidance.

Fifth, their saying: "The Messiah is the true God who came down from heaven for the salvation of mankind, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and became man, and was conceived and born," contains several corruptions: Among them is that the Messiah does not specifically mean the Word alone, nor the body alone, but is a name specific to this body that Maryam, peace be upon her, bore, and the Word was not the Messiah in eternity; so it is void that he is the one who came down from heaven. Among them is that the one who came down from heaven must either be the Word or the humanity. If they claim the one who came down is the humanity, it is a blatant lie, for his humanity is from Maryam. If they claim it is the divinity, it must either be the Essence or the Knowledge expressed as the Word. If the first, it necessitates the attachment of deficiencies to the Creator, Mighty is His name. If the second, it necessitates the transfer of the attribute and the remaining of the Creator without knowledge, which is void.

Among them is that their saying: "He only came down for the salvation of mankind"—meaning by that Adam, peace be upon him, when he disobeyed, he shackled all his descendants in the snares of the Devil and made eternal fire incumbent upon them; so their salvation was by the killing of the Messiah, his crucifixion, and his persecution—is a claim for which there is no evidence. Even if we granted it to them, it is said: Tell us, from what is this salvation that you mean the Eternal God for, and He did what He did to His own self for its sake? And why did He save you, and from whom did He save you, and how did He act independently in your salvation without the Father and the Spirit, while Lordship is among them? And how was He degraded and humiliated in your salvation without the Father and the Spirit? If they claim that the salvation is from the burdens of the world and its worries, their senses belie them. If it is from the burdens of the Law, and that He removed from them prayer and fasting, for example, the Messiah and the Apostles belie them by what they placed upon them of burdens. If they claim that they were saved from the judgments of the Afterlife, and that whoever among them commits a sin is not taken to task, the Gospel and the Prophecies belie them, for the Messiah says in the Gospel: "I will stand people on the Day of Resurrection on my right and my left, and I will say to those on the right: 'You did such and such, so go to the bliss prepared for you before the foundation of the world,' and I will say to those on the left: 'You did such and such, so go to the torment prepared for you before the foundation of the world.'" Sixth, their saying: "And was incarnate by the Holy Spirit" is void by the text of the Gospel, for Matthew says in the second chapter of it: "When Yuhanna the Baptist baptized the Messiah, the Holy Spirit came to him from heaven in the form of a dove," and that was after thirty years of his life.

Seventh, their saying: "The Messiah came down from heaven and Maryam was conceived with him and he dwelt in her womb" is belied by the saying of Luke the Evangelist, for he says in the Acts of the Apostles in the fourteenth chapter: "Allah, the Exalted, is the creator of the world and what is in it, and He is the Lord of heaven and earth; He does not dwell in temples, nor are the hands of men able to reach Him, nor does He need anything, for He is the one who gave life to people, and our existence is by Him, and our life and movements are from Him." Luke has testified that the Creator and His attributes do not dwell in temples, nor do the hands of men reach Him, and this contradicts the Word dwelling in the temple of Maryam and transferring to the temple of the Messiah. Eighth, their saying: "After he was killed and crucified, he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand of his Father" is a blatant lie necessitating temporality. Ninth, their saying: "This Yesu, the Lord who was crucified and killed, is ready to come another time to judge between the dead and the living" is equivalent to the saying of one: "I will find you after death mourning for me, yet in my life you gave me no provision," for they claimed that in the first time he was unable to save his own self until his enemies did to him what they did, so how can he be capable of saving all of them in the second time? Tenth, their saying: "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" contains a contradiction to their foundations. That is, the belief of the Christians is that their sins were not forgiven without the killing of the Messiah, and for that reason, they called him the "Sacrificial Lamb of Allah" upon whom sins are placed, and they called him the "Saviour of the world from sin." So, if they believe that the one baptism is what forgives their sins and saves them, they have explicitly stated that there is no need for the killing of the Messiah, because baptism is sufficient for salvation and forgiveness. If baptism were sufficient for forgiveness, they have confessed that the killing was a futile act. And if it is only obtained by his killing, what is the benefit of baptism, and what kind of belief is this? These are ten complete aspects in refuting that creed and exposing the treachery they have in it, and whoever deepens his view will refute it with many more. Abu al-Fadl al-Maliki said after a discourse: "Their creed is void, and from its content, its treachery appeared through its lines. They began with the unity of the God and associated 'Isa with Him, so the contradiction is in its expression. They said: 'Our God is 'Isa who scattered existence upon all creation; He created his mother before He dwelt in her womb.' How self-sufficient was His Essence from such! Was He in need of drinking her milk, or being raised in the places of her lap? They made Him a Lord, a substance from a substance; they went to what the people of reason do not accept. They said: 'It came from heaven as care for the salvation of Adam from the blaze and its heat.' Adam had repented a repentance that was accepted; their grace made the ransom by something else. If He had come in the shadows of the clouds, and around Him were the honorable angels of heaven in their entirety, and He ransomed the one by whose hands He perfected his clay by pardoning all affairs and covering them, then He chose him as beloved and preferred, and protected him from the misguidance of souls and their evil. You made the God dwell in the place of what your souls see of its polytheism, without Him needing in His salvation of all creatures to bear their harm, and the enemies disgraced Him with what is not accepted of their scheming and what befell Him of their plotting. This is their creed, and this is its explanation; Allah is greater than the meanings of their disbelief."

Know that there is no argument for the Christians who hold the Trinity by what is narrated from Matthew the disciple, that he said: "When the Messiah bade them farewell, he said: 'Go and baptize the nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.'" From here, the openers of the Gospel made this the start, just as the start of the Qur'an is "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful." The speech of some of us suggests that this naming descended from heaven like the Basmalah with us. We say—assuming the report is authentic, though it is far from it: it is possible that the "Father" means the Principle, for the ancients used to call principles "fathers." And the "Son" means the messenger, and he was named that for honor and exaltation, just as Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was named "Khalil" (Friend), or because they call effects "sons." They have narrated from the Messiah, peace be upon him, that he said: "I am going to my Father and your Father," and "Do not give your charities before people to be seen by them, for you have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." It might be said: the "Son" means the beloved or the like, and this is pointed to by what they narrated that he, peace be upon him, said after a command he gave to the Apostles: "So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven and be perfect as your Father who is in heaven is perfect." And the "Holy Spirit" means Jibril, peace be upon him. The meaning is: "Baptize with the blessing of Allah, the Exalted, and His messenger (peace be upon him) and the Angel who supports the prophets, peace be upon them, in conveying the commands of their Lord." In Kashf al-Ghayn ‘an al-Farq bayn al-Basmalatayn by Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, may his secret be sanctified, the Basmalah of the Christians points to three stations of the one, single Divine Command: the Absolute Unseen. The "Father" is an indication of the Spirit which is the first creature of Allah, the Exalted, as in the report, and it is what is named the Intellect, the Pen, and the Muhammadian Reality. It is attributed to Allah, the Exalted, so it is said: "The Spirit of Allah, the Exalted," for honor and magnification, like "The She-Camel of Allah." And the "Holy Spirit" is an indication of it also in terms of its appearance in the form of a well-proportioned human who blew into the garment of Maryam, peace be upon her. The "Son" is an indication of 'Isa, peace be upon him, and he is a son of that Spirit in terms that his being came about by his breath. The Father is the Son, and the Son is the Holy Spirit in reality. The Absolute Unseen is exalted and holy above the three, for He, the Exalted, in terms of His being, has nothing with Him, and it is impossible for anything to be with Him. So the Basmalah of the Gospel is from the station of the divine attributes and the lordly names, not from the station of the Most Holy Essence.

Let no one imagine that the words of our masters, the Sufis (may Allah sanctify their secrets), revolve around the words of the Christians, as claimed by those who have no knowledge of the investigation of their speech nor any taste for their drink. That is because the people—may Allah benefit us by them—are exonerated from the belief in embodiment, identity, union, and indwelling, which the veiled have attributed to them. As for their not saying "embodiment," it is because it is established with them that the Truth, the Exalted, is the Pure Existence, existing by His Essence, self-subsistent, determined by His Essence. Every body is an image in the Existence spread upon realities—expressed as the ‘ama (cloud)—determined according to the requirement of the استعداد (isti'dad—preparedness) of the non-existent essence. And nothing of the Existence abstracted from essence, determined by His Essence, is by the image determined in the Existence spread by the requirement of the non-existent essence. So nothing of the body is by the Existence abstracted from essence, determined by His Essence. And it is inverted to: Nothing of the Existence abstracted from essence, determined by His Essence, is it—and that is the desired conclusion. As for their not saying "identity," it is because the Truth, the Exalted, is what you have known of the Pure Existence, etc., and the created is the image appearing in the Existence spread upon the realities, determined according to its non-existent essence. And nothing of the abstracted from essence, determined by His Essence, is the conjoined with essence, determined according to it. What testifies to this is the saying of the Greatest Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) in the 558th chapter of the Futuhat regarding the station of the Originator after a long discourse: "This points you to the fact that the world is not identical to the Truth, but rather appeared in the True Existence; for if it were identical to the Truth, its being 'originated' would not be valid." And his saying in this chapter also regarding His saying, the Exalted: "And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him," He became singular, the Exalted, with their knowledge and negated knowledge from all other than Him; so He affirmed you in this verse and taught you that you are not Him. For if you were Him, you would have known the keys of the unseen by your Essence, and what you do not know except by a stance, you are not the stance. And likewise, many others have said. Shaykh Sharaf al-Din Isma'il ibn Sudakin said in the commentary on al-Tajalliyat, narrating from the Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) also: "When the possible beings appeared by Allah’s making them appear, and this was realized with a realization that the possible could never remove this reality, it remained humble to the greatness of Allah, the Exalted, reverent to Him; and this is the prostration of eternity, which is an expression of the servant’s knowledge of his reality." From here, the truth of His saying, the Exalted: "I became his hearing and his sight," in the Hadith is known. When some of the weak caught a glimpse of this vision, one said: "I am the Truth," so he became intoxicated and shouted, and he was not realized due to his absence from his reality. As for their not saying "union," it is because union is either the becoming of the Pure Existence, abstracted and determined by His Essence, an existence conjoined with the non-existent essence, determined according to it, or the reverse—and both are impossible because abstraction from essence is essential to the Truth, the Exalted, and conjunction with it is essential to the possible, and what is essential does not cease. In Kitab al-Ma'rifah by the Greatest Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified): "If union is the becoming of two essences one, it is impossible, because if the identity of each of them is existent at the time of union, they are two essences; and if one identity ceases and the other is established, it is not but one." And he said in Kitab al-Ya', which is the book of "He": "Union is impossible," and he led the discourse until he said: "So there is no union at all, neither from the way of meaning nor from the way of image." And he said in the fifth chapter of the Futuhat, an address from the Truth, the Exalted, to the Universal Spirit: "I have veiled you from knowing the manner of My supplying you with the divine secrets, for you have no capacity to bear the sight of them. For if you knew them, the inniyah (I-ness) would unite, and the union of the inniyah is impossible, so your witnessing of that is impossible. Does the inniyah of the composite return to the inniyah of the simple? There is no way to turn realities." As for their not saying "indwelling," it is because they interpreted indwelling sometimes as obtaining by way of subordination, and sometimes as the existence of an existent in a locus, subsisting in it. It is known that the Necessary, the Exalted—which is the Pure Existence, self-subsistent, determined as such—it is impossible for it to subsist in another. The Greatest Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) said in the 292nd chapter of the Futuhat: "The light of the sun, when it manifests in the full moon, gives of the judgment what it does not give of the judgment without the moon—there is no doubt in that. Likewise, the divine power, when it manifests in the servant, actions appear from the creation; so even if it is by the divine power, the judgment differs because it is through this locus of manifestation which was like a mirror for its manifestation. Just as it is known rationally that the moon in itself has nothing of the light of the sun, and that the sun did not transfer to it by its Essence, but it only had a locus of manifestation, likewise the servant has nothing of its creation in it, nor did it indwell in it, but it is only a locus of manifestation for it, and a display and an appearance for it." This is a text in the negation of indwelling. The source of the error of the veiled who deny it is the lack of understanding of the speech of these masters—may Allah benefit us by them—in its proper way, and the lack of distinction between indwelling and manifestation. They did not know that the existence of something as a locus of manifestation for something is not its being a container for it, for the appearing in the mirror is outside the mirror by its Essence definitively, unlike the one dwelling in a container, for it is obtained in it. So appearance is not indwelling. The appearance in the appearances for the Vast, the Holy, is consistent with transcendence, unlike indwelling. Yes, expression by "indwelling" occurred in their speech, and they intended by it "appearance." Among that is his saying: "O my Qiblah, face me with prostration, for I have seen a person for a person in a [garment/substance] prostrating; its divinity indwelled in my humanity, so sanctify me, for I am astonished at the likes of me, how he did not worship!" It would have been more appropriate, in appearance, not to express with the likes of that, but the people have states and stations that our understandings do not reach. Perhaps their excuse is clear to the fair-minded. Once you have known this and realized the disagreement of the Christians in their creeds, know that He, the Exalted, only recounted in some verses the saying of some of them, and in others the saying of others. The account of their claim of the divinity of Maryam, peace be upon her, like their claim of the divinity of 'Isa, peace be upon him, is something the Qur'an spoke of, and this did not become common about them explicitly, but it is necessitated for them based on what the Imam al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, investigated. The Christians today deny it, and Allah, the Exalted, is the most truthful of speakers. It is possible to say: the ones who claimed her divinity explicitly are a sect among them that perished long ago, like the Jewish sect that says "'Uzayr is the Son of Allah," as it is said. Then He, the Exalted, exaggerated in restraining those who say it, so He followed the prohibition with His saying, Mighty is His word: "Desist" from the statement of the Trinity, "it is better for you." The discourse on the facets of its accusative case has passed. "Indeed, Allah is one God"—that is, by Essence, exalted above multiplicity in any way whatsoever. "Exalted is He above having a son"—that is, I exalt Him with an exaltation from or because of His having a son, or you should exalt Him from or because of that, because the son resembles the father and is like him, and Allah, the Exalted, is exalted above resemblance and likeness. Also, a son is only sought to stand in the place of his father if he ceases to exist, and that is why procreation exists. Allah, the Exalted, is the Everlasting, and cessation does not approach His Exalted Court, so He does not need a son, and no wisdom necessitates it. You have known what caused the Christians to be in their belief that 'Isa, peace be upon him, is the Son of Allah.

Among the strange coincidences is what our master Raghib Pasha, may Allah have mercy on him, summarized from the Definitions of Abu al-Baqa'. He said: The Imam, the scholar Muhammad ibn Sa'id, famous as al-Busiri (may Allah enlighten his tomb), said: "Some Christians campaigned for their religion and extracted from the noble Basmalah proof for strengthening their belief in the Messiah, peace be upon him, and the correctness of their certainty in him. He inverted its letters, denied its familiar, separated its customary, put forward in it what should be delayed, and delayed what should be put forward. He thought and estimated, then he was killed, how he estimated! Then he frowned and looked stern, then turned away and was arrogant. He said: 'From the Basmalah is formed the Son of Allah the Liberated.' I said to him: 'Since you have accepted the Basmalah as a judge between us and you, and have harvested from it judgments and wisdom, the Basmalah shall surely aid the good among us against the evil, and shall prefer the people of Paradise over the people of Fire, for the Basmalah has said to you with its tongue of state: 'Indeed, Allah is the Lord of the Messiah, the Most Merciful of the slaughter—there is no Messiah for it, and the Lord of what is, Allah is the Most Merciful of the Muslims. Ask the son of Maryam: did He allow for him the forbidden? No, the Messiah is not the Son of Allah the Liberated, nor the Merciful to the wicked sons of the sorcerers. Merciful, free, Muslim, I turned in repentance to Allah; for Allah is a Prophet, a Muslim, who forbade the slaughter. The profit of the capital of faith is faith.' If you say: 'He is a messenger,' I believed you. And it said: 'God sent mercy with meat,' and 'God' is from the names of Allah in the tongue of their books, and 'meat' is Bayt Lahm (Bethlehem), which is the place where 'Isa was born," and other things that indicate the invalidation of the Christian school. "Then look at the Basmalah; it may inform you that behind its solution are horses and lions, and beneath its demand are floods and clouds. Do not think that I approved of your cold word, so I wove on its loom and matched the one with ten examples of it. Rather, I brought you what suffices you, then confounds you, and makes you hear what deafens you to the answer, so you become silent. So you will know that this Basmalah is the resting place for all sciences and arts and a repository for the essence of its hidden secret. Do you not see that when the Basmalah is totaled, its number is seven hundred and eighty-six, and its total agrees with 'Indeed, the example of 'Isa is like Adam,' and 'There is no partner to Allah' by the count of the Alif that follows the two Lams of the Majesty, and 'I do not associate anyone with my Lord,' and 'Allah guides to His light whom He wills' by dropping the Alif of the Majesty. The Basmalah has answered you with what you did not encompass with knowledge, and what you could not bear patiently has come to you." This is finished.

A counterpart to this has passed in what remains after dropping the repeated letters of the alphabet at the beginning of the Surahs, where the Shi'i arranged from it what he thought strengthened what he is upon—namely, "The path of 'Ali is truth, we hold to it"—and we countered it with what confounds him, arranged from these letters also. So remember. Al-Hasan recited: "That there should be" (an yakuna) with a kasra under the hamza and a rafa' of the nun—meaning: "Exalted is He above that He should have a son." The saying: "To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth" is an incipit, provided for the reasoning of the Exalted-ness, and the clarification of that is that He, the Exalted, is the owner of all existents, their upper and lower ones; nothing leaves His kingdom. If He had a son, he would be like Him in ownership, so He would not be the owner of all of them. And His saying, the Exalted: "And sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."

(171) "And sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of affairs" is an indication of another proof, because the Disposer of affairs (wakil) means the Preserver. Since He, the Exalted, is independent in preservation, He does not need a son, for the son helps his father in his life and stands in his place after his death, and Allah, the Exalted, is exalted above all this. Thus, a son for Him is not conceivable rationally, and claiming it is foolishness and ignorance.