The Christian claim
Christians say that affirming Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not make them worship three gods. They argue by analogy with man and his speech and spirit, fire and its blaze, light, and heat, and the sun and its disk, light, and ray.
They say that their creed rests on clear testimonies from their scripture. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/477–478)
Their creed affirms plurality in clear words
Ibn Taymiyyah quotes their Nicene Creed. It says:
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων· φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί· δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον, τὸ Ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενο.
He says that “God true from God true” is two gods by plain language.
Calling the Spirit “Lord” and making him worshipped adds a third lord. Saying all three are one God is a contradiction, not tawhid. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/478–480)
“Son” is not apposition to “Father,” so a second essence is affirmed
If “Son” were only an appositive to “Father,” it would mean the Messiah is the very one God, which they reject elsewhere.
Their own wording shows difference, not identity.
The Father is the essence, and the Son is said to be born from the essence of the Father. This affirms another essence. None of the prophets ever called an attribute “son,” nor called any attribute “lord” or “god.” (Jawab al-Sahih 3/480–481)
“Equal in essence” entails two essences and two gods
They say the Son is equal to the Father in essence.
The equal is not the same as the one to whom he is equal.
This makes a second essence equal to the first.
That is two essences, therefore two gods.
If they make the Father a being stripped of attributes and the Son a self with knowledge, the Son becomes more complete and the Father becomes a part. Their doctrine collapses whichever way it is read. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/481–482)
Their view on the Holy Spirit implies a third god and universal indwelling
They say the Holy Spirit is a living Lord, proceeds from the Father, is worshipped, glorified, and speaks in the prophets. This affirms a third god. It also implies that a divine hypostasis indwelt every prophet. By their logic, every prophet becomes a compound of lahut and nasut, a perfect god and a perfect human.
No revealed text establishes this for the prophets, and their own phrases about “son” and “Holy Spirit” would force equal treatment if their reading were granted. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/482–484)
Equal cases must be treated equally, so the logic spreads divinity to others
They cannot restrict union to the Messiah by a private text. First, the texts they invoke do not prove union. Second, similar wording exists for others, such as “son” and “Holy Spirit.” Third, necessary implication applies to equals alike.
Fourth, if they say there is no proof for others, they must at least deem it possible for all prophets. Fifth, Allah’s power does not distinguish the Messiah from others in this respect on their premise, which yields the absurdity that any human could be both perfect god and perfect human. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/483–484)
The analogy with man, fire, and sun is unsound in form and result
Human speech is not a human from a human, nor equal in essence to the human. Fire’s heat and light are not a fire from a fire, nor equal in essence to fire. The sun’s light and ray are not suns or self-subsisting essences.
Yet their creed says “God true from God true,” calls each hypostasis “Lord,” and makes them creators. Their own terms exceed and break their analogies, and they end with plurality. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/485–486)
Detailed flaws in the sun example
If “light” means what subsists in the sun and “ray” means what separates from it, then the pair is not like two intrinsic attributes such as life and knowledge.
If both mean what subsists, or both mean what separates, they collapse into one thing, not two. Some claim the sun’s body has inherent heat, while many deny this and say celestial bodies are not hot or cold. The model never maps to three coequal hypostases. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/486–487)
The spirit example forces composition in Allah, which all deny
If by the human spirit they mean life, that is not the meaning of “spirit.” If they mean the rational soul that exits at death, that soul is a self-subsisting essence.
Parity would force them to make the “Spirit of Allah” a self-subsisting essence beside a divine “body.” This implies composition in Allah, which Muslims, Jews, and Christians all reject. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/486–487)
If “light” and “spirit” mean bestowed guidance, the Messiah is not unique
If what “indwelt” the Messiah is bestowed light and spirit, like the light Allah places in hearts and the spirit He reveals, then this belongs to all prophets and believers by degree.
This is created guidance and aid, not an attribute of Allah that subsists in Him. It removes any claim of a unique divine indwelling for the Messiah. (an-Nur 35; al-Shura 52; al-Mujadilah 22; al-Araf 157; al-Hadid 28; an-Nur 40; Jawab al-Sahih 3/487–489)
An attribute cannot “indwell” a second subject and become an agent
An attribute that subsists in a subject does not subsist, as itself, in another subject. When one conveys another’s words, we ascribe the content to the source, not the conveyor’s voice. Calling an attribute “the Creator” multiplies the error.
Christians go further and claim a hypostasis, a self with an attribute, indwelt and made the Messiah a creator. Ibn Taymiyyah calls this a triple error added to their triple trinity. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/489–490)
No prophet named Allah’s attributes “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”
Even if they try to recast those three as attributes, none of the prophets used these names for Allah’s attributes. In their books, “son” applies to honoured servants, and “Holy Spirit” refers to angelic or revealed support. These are distinct from Allah. What is distinct from Allah is not an attribute of Allah, let alone Creator. They first mis-assigned meanings, then deified those meanings, then claimed union with a man. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/489–491)
Their doctrine breaks every analogy about agency
Even if light, speech, and heat are attributes, they cannot migrate as attributes into another and become agents.
No sane person says what receives sunlight becomes the sun, or what receives speech becomes the speaker. Yet they make the Messiah the very Creator because Word and Life supposedly indwelt him. This breaks analogy and sense. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/491–492)
The rotating union analogies are mutually destructive
They liken union to water in a vessel. Water needs a container and is surrounded by it. Allah needs nothing and nothing surrounds Him. They liken it to fire in iron. That is transformation by a new fire in the iron, not indwelling of an eternal fire. If matched, crucifixion and hunger would befall the lahut. They liken it to soul and body. The soul feels bodily pains and acquires traits. If matched, the divine would suffer human pains, which is impossible. Every model fails. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/492–494)
Their appeal to “What we received” does not save the creed
Saying “we did not neglect what we received” mirrors the Jews’ claim regarding Moses. Ibn Taymiyyah answers in two points. They altered meanings and rulings, so what they now follow is not the Messiah’s law. They also denied the final Book and final Messenger. Denial of what Allah sent and whom He sent is kufr, even if one had once followed an unaltered law. (Jawab al-Sahih 3/493–494)
They said: We know that when we say this, it does not oblige us to be worshippers of three gods, rather of one God, just as it does not oblige us, when we say that the human being, his speech, and his spirit are three humans, rather it is one human being, nor when we say that the blaze of the fire, the light of the fire, and the heat of the fire are three fires, nor when we say that the disk of the sun, the light of the sun, and the ray of the sun are three suns. If this is our view regarding Allah, exalted are His names and magnified are His favours, then there is no blame on us and no sin upon us since we have not neglected what we have received, nor cast off what we have taken upon ourselves, to follow something else, especially since we have these clear testimonies and obvious proofs from the book that this man brought.
The reply has several angles:
One of them is that you have explicitly affirmed a plurality of gods and lords in your creed, in your proof, and elsewhere in your words. This is not something people forced upon you. Rather you yourselves state it plainly, as you said before: We believe in one God, the Father, the Ruler of all, the Creator of what is seen and what is unseen, and in one Lord Jesus the Messiah, the only Son of Allah, born of the Father before all ages, light from light, God true from God true, born from the essence [jawhar] of His Father, not created, equal to the Father in essence [jawhar], and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, proceeding from the Father, who with the Father is worshipped and glorified.
This is a clear statement of three lords, and that the Son is a God true from a God true. With your explicit words of three lords and your explicit words that this one is a God true from a God true, you then say this is one God. This is an explicit statement of multiple gods while also saying there is one God.
If you had not mentioned what requires that He is another essence [jawhar], it would have been possible to carry your words upon attributive apposition, but then your words would be greater disbelief, for you would have made the Messiah to be the very one God, the Father, the Creator of what is seen and what is unseen.
This is even greater than your disbelief, although this is the reality of your statement, for you say the Messiah is Allah and you say he is the Son of Allah, as Allah mentioned both statements about you in His speech and declared you disbelievers for that, and it is not that one faction says one of them and another faction says the other, as some people claim. Rather both statements are said by the Christian sects, such as the Nestorians, the Jacobites, the Melkites, and their likes.
This too is part of your contradiction, for if he is Allah then he is not the Son of Allah, whether one expresses son by meaning an attribute or otherwise, for the Father is the essence, and the essence is not the attribute. If by son they mean the essence together with the attribute of speech, as you interpret the hypostasis [uqnūm] to mean that, then that essence is also described with life, and speech whether they mean by it knowledge or expression together with knowledge stands in the Father.
The attribute is not the very same as the one described, nor is it expressed as being the son of the one described, and none of the prophets, peace be upon them, used such an expression.
The point is that they did not mean by their words, and in one Lord Jesus the Messiah, attributive apposition, and that this is the Father, as in the words, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
This is one God and the apposition is due to the variation of the attribute. If what is meant by the Son were the very same as the Father, this would be contrary to their doctrine, and they would have made him a god from himself and said there are two gods, rather three, and he is one.
If they intended that, it would be greater in disbelief. Rather they said, and in one Lord Jesus the Messiah, the only Son of Allah, born of the Father before all ages, light from light, God true from God true, from the jawhar of His Father, born not created. They explicitly stated that he is a lord and that he is a God true from a God true, and they explicitly affirmed a second god alongside the first God.
They also said that he is born of the Father before all ages and that he is born, not created, so it is impossible that they intended the human nature by that, for the human nature is created.
They say that the Word is the one generated from the Father. The Word is an attribute of the Speaker and subsists in Him. Speech is not a lord nor a god, rather it is the speech of the Lord God, just as the rest of the speech of Allah, like the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran, is not the Lord and God.
Then you said, equal to the Father in essence [jawhar], which entails that the one born who is the Word is an essence [jawhar] and that he is equal to the Father in essence. The one who is equal is not the very same as the one to whom he is equal.
This entails affirming a second essence equal to the first essence, which is a plain statement affirming two gods, while they also say that He is one God, one essence. One does not say that the essence along with the knowledge you call a hypostasis (uqnūm) is equal to the essence that is the self, for the essence is the self, and here there are not two essences, one stripped of knowledge and the other described by it, such that one could say that one is equal to the other.
Rather the Lord the Most High is the self described with knowledge. If the Father is the self stripped of attributes, then the Son is more complete than the Father, for he is the self together with knowledge, and the Father would be a part of the Son.
Likewise it follows for them that the Son is a part of the Holy Spirit, for they have placed in their creed that the Holy Spirit is the Lord, the Life-Giver. The Lord, the Life-Giver, is the self described with life, and the self stripped is part of that. If the Father is the self stripped, then the Son is part of the Holy Spirit.
Then you said regarding the hypostasis (uqnūm) of the Holy Spirit whom you made the Lord, the Life-Giver, that he proceeds from the Father, is worshipped and glorified, and speaks in the prophets. If the one proceeding is a living Lord, this is the affirmation of a third god. You have made the living self to proceed from the stripped self. Each of these contains a level of disbelief and contradiction that is manifest.
Then you made this third one to be worshipped. The one who is worshipped is the deity who is served. This is a plain statement that a third god is being prostrated to, together with what it contains of contradiction.
Then you made him one who speaks in the prophets. This is a plain statement that this third hypostasis indwelt in all the prophets. It follows that you must make every prophet a composite of divinity [lāhūt] and humanity [nāsūt], and that he is a perfect god and a perfect human, as you said regarding the Messiah, since there is no difference between the indwelling of the Word and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, both being hypostases.
It is also impossible that one of the two attributes indwells without the other, or that the attribute indwells without the self. It follows that the living, speaking God with His three hypostases indwells in every prophet, and that every prophet is the Lord of the worlds, while at the same time you say he is His son.
In this there is great disbelief and grave contradiction that is manifest. This is inescapable for the Christians, for what is established for one thing is established for its like, and it is not permissible to differentiate between two things that are alike. They cannot say that indwelling or union in the Messiah is established by text and there is no text for other than him, for several reasons.
First: the texts did not indicate any of that, as has been shown.
Second: in other than the Messiah there are texts that resemble the texts reported regarding him, such as the word son and the phrase that the Holy Spirit indwelt in him, and the like of that.
Third: a proof does not invert. From the absence of a particular proof it does not follow that the thing proved is absent. Not everything that Allah knew and with which He honoured His prophets did He make known to the creation by an explicit text. Among the types of indication is the indication of necessary implication.
If indwelling and union are established in one prophet by a meaning shared between him and another prophet, then equal things must be treated equally, just as when it is established that a prophet must be believed because he is a prophet, and that whoever denies him disbelieves because he is a prophet, it follows that every prophet must be believed and that whoever denies him disbelieves.
Fourth: suppose there is no proof for its establishment in others, then it follows that one must deem it possible in others, since there is no proof for its negation, as they say it was established in the Messiah before he showed the signs according to their claim.
It would then follow that they must deem it possible for every prophet that Allah made him a perfect god and a perfect human like the Messiah, even if that is not known.
Fifth: if it did not occur, still they deem it possible with respect to them, for there is no difference in the power of Allah between His union with the Messiah and His union with the rest of the children of Adam.
It follows that they must deem it possible that Allah would make every human a perfect god and a perfect human, and that every human be composed of divinity and humanity. Some have come close to this false consequence, those who said that the spirits of the children of Adam are from the essence of Allah and that they are an eternal pre-eternal divinity.
They make half of every human a divinity and half of him a humanity. For some of these people there follow impossibilities even more than what follows for the Christians in some respects, though the impossibilities that follow for the Christians are more in other respects.
The second angle: their saying that when we say this it does not oblige us to be worshippers of three gods, rather one God, just as it does not oblige us when we say the human being, his spirit, and his speech are three humans, nor when we say the fire and its heat and its light are three fires, nor when we say the sun and its light and its ray are three suns.
It is said: this analogy is false for several reasons.
One: the heat of the fire and its light that subsist in it is not a fire from a fire, nor a jawhar from an essence, nor is it equal to the fire and the sun in essence. Likewise the speech of the human being is not a human from a human, nor is it equal to the human in essence.
Likewise the sun and its light that subsists in it and its ray that subsists in it is not a sun, nor is it an essence subsisting by itself. You have said a God true from a God true.
You have said in the creed, we believe in one God, the Father, the Ruler of all, and in one Lord Jesus the Messiah, the only Son of Allah, born of the Father before all ages, light from light, God true from God true, from the jawhar of His Father, equal to the Father in essence. You said regarding the Holy Spirit, that he is a Lord who is glorified and worshipped. You have affirmed three lords.
Two: the light in the sun and the fire may mean the very light that subsists in them, and it may mean the ray that comes to rest upon the earth and the walls, which is separate from them and does not subsist in them. The word light is used for both, and both are attributes that subsist in something else and are accidents.
Sometimes the word light is used to mean the very fire and the very sun and the moon, in which case the light is an essence subsisting by itself. If so, then they have made the Father a lord, an essence subsisting by itself, and the Son likewise a lord, an essence subsisting by itself, and the Holy Spirit a lord, an essence subsisting by itself.
It is known that the light of the fire and the sun and their heat, each of them is not a sun and a fire subsisting by itself, nor an essence subsisting by itself. If they had affirmed the life of Allah and His knowledge or His speech as two attributes subsisting in Him, and had not made each of them a lord, an essence subsisting by itself, and a creator, then their statement would have been true and their analogy would match.
But they did not stop at merely making them attributes of Allah. Rather they made each of them a lord and an essence and a creator. They even stated plainly that the Messiah, with whom they claim one of them became united, is one god and creator. If he were the very Word of Allah and His knowledge, he would not be a creating god, for the speech of Allah and His knowledge is not a creating god. How then, when the Messiah is created by the Word of Allah and is not the very Word of Allah.
Three: their statement, the sun, its ray, and its light, if by light they mean what subsists in it, and by ray what separates from it, then this is not an example of the fire, its heat, and its blaze, for both of those subsist in it. In that case the sun has only one attribute subsisting in it, not two attributes, so the analogy would not match.
If by both the light and the ray they mean what subsists in it, or by both they mean what separates from it, then both are a single attribute, not two attributes like life and knowledge. It becomes clear that their analogy with the sun is mistaken. Some of them say, the sun, its heat, and its light, just as they say the like regarding the fire.
This analogy would be more correct if it were established that within the body of the sun there is a heat that subsists in it.
There is no proof for that. Many rational people deny it and claim that the bodies of the sun, the moon, and the stars are not described as hot or cold. This is the view of Aristotle and his followers.
As for their analogy with the spirit of the human being and his speech, if by spirit they mean his life, this is not the meaning of spirit. If they mean by spirit that which departs his body at death and is called the rational soul, this is an essence subsisting by itself, not an accident from his accidents.
In that case it follows that the Spirit of Allah would be an essence subsisting by itself together with another essence analogous to the human body, and that the Lord, exalted is He, would be composed of a body and a spirit like a human being. This is not the statement of any community of religion, neither Muslims, nor Jews, nor Christians. Rather it is disbelief according to them. It becomes clear that their analogy of the three is false.
The fourth angle: the analogy must be either with the attributes of the sun, fire, and human being, or with the soul that subsists in these essences, or with something separate from that, like the light that falls upon the earth, the walls, the air, and other bodies when they face the sun or the fire or the human being or the soul that subsists in these essences.
If this is intended, then this is a reflected ray and a transferred light, and it is not an attribute that subsists in the sun or the fire.
If what indwelt in the Messiah is intended to be of this kind, and this is called light and spirit and the light of Allah, as the Most High said:
اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا مِصْبَاحٌ الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِنْ شَجَرَةٍ مُبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَا شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ نُورٌ عَلَى نُورٍ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ
“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is in glass, the glass as if it were a pearly star lit from a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, its oil almost gives light even if fire does not touch it, light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills.” (al Nur 35)
And the Most High said:
وَكَذَلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِنْ أَمْرِنَا مَا كُنْتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ وَلَكِنْ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا نَهْدِي بِهِ مَنْ نَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا
“And thus We revealed to you a spirit from Our command. You did not know what the Book is nor faith, but We made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants.” (al Shura 52)
He informed us that He made the spirit which He revealed a light by which He guides whom He wills.
And the Most High said:
أُولَئِكَ كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الْإِيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُمْ بِرُوحٍ مِنْهُ
“Those are the ones in whose hearts He has written faith and He supported them with a spirit from Him.” (al Mujadilah 22)
And the Most High said:
فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنْزِلَ مَعَهُ
“So those who believe in him and honour him and support him and follow the light which has been sent down with him.” (al Araf 157)
And the Most High said:
وَيَجْعَلْ لَكُمْ نُورًا تَمْشُونَ بِهِ
“And He will make for you a light by which you will walk.” (al Hadid 28)
And the Most High said:
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَجْعَلِ اللَّهُ لَهُ نُورًا فَمَا لَهُ مِنْ نُورٍ
“And whoever Allah does not make for him a light, he has no light.” (al Nur 40)
If what indwelt in the Messiah of spirit and word is intended in this sense, then the Messiah has no exclusivity in that, for this indwells in all the prophets and the believers, even if they differ in their degrees. This which indwells in them is not the very attribute of Allah that subsists in Him, even if it proceeds from it and is caused by it.
It is not the very attribute of Allah. Some people say rather the attribute of the Lord that He is described with indwelt in the servant. This statement is mistaken, for the attribute of the one described that subsists in him cannot by itself subsist in someone else. When a person learns the knowledge of another and conveys the speech of another, it is said this is the knowledge of so and so and his speech, because the latter conveyed it from him.
The intended thing is the knowledge of the first and his speech, while we know that what subsists in the essence of the first is not the same as what subsists in the essence of the second, even if it may be similar to it. The first may be the one intended by the second, like one who conveys the speech of another, for the speech of the one conveyed from is the one intended by the conveying.
The attributes of the conveyor, like his movement and his voice by which conveyance occurs, are not the very thing intended. When it is said this is the speech of the one conveyed from, the reference is to the reality of the speech intended by conveyance, not to what is specific to the conveyor of his actions and attributes.
For this reason people likened those who say that an attribute of the Lord indwells in His servant to the Christians who say with indwelling, and he is similar to them in some respects.
However the Christians do not say with the indwelling of a bare attribute. Rather they say with the indwelling of a hypostasis which is a self described with the attribute. They say the Messiah is a creator and a provider. He is the creator of Adam and Mary, and he is the child of Adam and Mary. He is a creator of them by his divinity and a son to them by his humanity.
They say he is the Son of Allah and he is Allah by his divinity. They also say divinity and humanity due to union. Allah declared them disbelievers for their statement, “Indeed Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.” (al Maidah 17) and the like.
If by their analogy with the attributes of the sun, fire, and soul they mean to analogize with what subsists in the sun, fire, and soul of light, life, and speech, and they made what they affirm of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be attributes of Allah, just as these are attributes of these created things,
It is said to them first: none of the prophets, peace be upon them, expressed the attributes of Allah with the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So if you find in the speech of the Messiah, peace be upon him, or other prophets, mention of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you have no right to say that what is intended by that is the attribute of Allah that is the Word and the Knowledge, nor the Life of Allah, since they did not intend this meaning by this wording. Rather what is intended by the name Son and the name Holy Spirit is something separate from Allah, mighty and majestic.
What is separate from Allah is not an attribute of Allah, let alone being the Creator, let alone a human being united with it being a creator. You have gone astray upon straying. You first went astray when you made the intent of the Messiah and others by Son and Holy Spirit to be an attribute of the Lord. Then you went astray a second time when you made the attribute to be a creator and a lord.
Then you went astray a third time when you made the attribute unite with a human who is Jesus and called the Messiah and that he is the Creator, the Lord of the worlds. You went astray in indwelling with a triple straying after your triple straying in the trinity. You also have other strayings in that you affirmed three attributes to the exclusion of others and made them essences and lords, then you said one God. You went astray with a triple straying in the trinity and a triple straying in union.
It is said to you second: if you made that to be attributes of Allah, just as light, speech, and heat are attributes of what they subsist in, then it is impossible for them to indwell in other than Him, and impossible, together with indwelling, that they act as agents like the fire, the sun, and the soul. You made the Word and the Life to indwell in other than Allah, and you made what they indwell in to be a creating god.
Rather you made it the very creating God. It is known that none of the rational people makes that in which the light of the fire occurs to be a fire, nor that in which the ray of the sun occurs to be a sun, nor that in which the speech of Zayd and his knowledge occur to be the very same as Zayd. Your making the Messiah to be the creator of the universe contradicts your analogy.
It becomes clear by this that what you mentioned does not match any of the analogies, since it is wholly false and self-contradictory and impossible to be realized. There is no analogy for it in any of the existent, established, known things, except if it is an analogy that does not match.
For this reason they liken indwelling and union sometimes to the indwelling of water in a vessel, sometimes to the indwelling of fire in iron, sometimes to the soul and the body, and sometimes they say that the two are one essence that mixed like the mixing of water and milk. All of these examples they strike for Allah are false analogies.
Water in the vessel and other containers needs its container. If its container is pierced it spills out, and the container surrounds it. Nothing of the attributes of water belongs to the vessel. The Lord the Most High cannot need anything from His creation, not the Throne, nor anything else, nor can anything of the existents surround Him, for He is the Most High and nothing is above Him.
It has been established in the authentic report from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that he said, “You are the First, there is nothing before You. You are the Last, there is nothing after You. You are the Most High, there is nothing above You. You are the Most Near, there is nothing below You.”
He is rich beyond need of all besides Him, and everything besides Him is poor to Him. For this reason what Allah described Himself with is not similar to the attributes of the created beings, just as His self is not like the selves of the created beings. He is established over His Throne as He informed us about Himself while being rich beyond need of the Throne.
A created being that sits upon a couch or a ship or a riding animal, if what is beneath him goes away he falls due to his need for it. Allah is rich beyond need of all besides Him. By His power He carries the Throne and those who carry the Throne.
The three Christian factions affirm union. Their analogy with the indwelling of water in a vessel does not benefit them. If we suppose they spoke of bare indwelling while the Lord has no need of the humanity, does not encompass it, nor touches it, but rather as He addressed Moses from the tree, then this would necessitate that the humanity does not acquire anything of divinity, like the tree.
It is also known by necessity that the voice that was heard was the voice of the created thing. The analogy with the tree is also false, as has been detailed elsewhere.
As for iron and wood and other things when thrown in the fire, they are transformed into fire due to their contact with the fire, not that a preexistent fire which existed then indwelt in them. This is transformation without indwelling. The fire that came to be in the iron is a new thing from that fire, and it is not the very same as it.
Then when that piece of iron is hammered, the hammering strikes the fire. Likewise if it is cast into water. If this were a matching analogy then the beating, crucifixion, and humiliation would fall upon the divinity [lāhūt], and the divinity would be the one that bathes in water, and eats and drinks. This is among the greatest disbelief.
It is narrated from some of their faction, like the Jacobites, that they say this disbelief, even if many of them, like the Melkites and the Nestorians, deny it. It nevertheless follows from their doctrine. Likewise when they liken it to the soul and the body, the soul feels pain through the pain of the body and its attributes are transformed by being in the body. It acquires from the body traits and attributes.
If this were a matching analogy it would follow that the divinity feels pain through the pains of the body, and that it is pained by the hunger of the body, its thirst, its beating, and its crucifixion, and that it is transformed by what it has acquired from the attributes of the humanity which to them is like the body is to the soul.
As for their words, since we have not neglected what we received nor cast off what we took upon ourselves, their claim is like the statement of the Jews to the Messiah, we do not neglect what we received, nor cast off what we took upon ourselves from Moses, peace be upon him.
The reply to the two groups has two points.
One of them is that you altered and distorted the book that was sent down to you and the law that was legislated for you.
There is no doubt among all rational people that the alteration of meanings and rulings occurred. What the Jews followed after alteration was not the law that Moses, peace be upon him, legislated, and what the Christians followed after alteration was not the law that the Messiah, peace be upon him, legislated.
The second is that you denied the last Book and the last Messenger who was sent to you. Whoever denies what has been sent down to him from his Lord and the Messenger who was sent to him is a disbeliever who deserves the punishment of this worldly life and the Hereafter, even if he had before that been following the law of a messenger and a book that had not been altered. How much more so when what was altered from its rulings and meanings was altered.
Jawab Al Sahih (3/477-494)
