And its existence indicates that the One who created it had not been one, the existence of the world would not have been valid. This is evidence of the truth in it regarding its oneness and it matches the rational evidence in that. If other evidence had been more indicative of it, it would have been modified and brought to it, and we would not have known about this nor the way to it in indicating it. Some people took the trouble to point to it in another way and criticized this meaning, so they combined ignorance of what the truth has established as evidence of its uniqueness with bad manners. As for their ignorance, the fact that they did not know is the clear evidence of its unification in this verse, until they criticized it. As for bad manners, it was their opposition to what they entered into with slanderous matters, so they focused their consideration on His monotheism is more complete in its meaning than what the Truth has indicated of its oneness, and only the later theolo

And know that talking about the monotheism of God based on His being a god is a branch of proving His existence, and this is the subject of monotheism. We have no need to prove existence, for it is established by the one who disputed with us regarding His monotheism. As for proving His existence, it is understood by the necessity of reason, due to the existence of the preference for the possible according to one of the two rulings .

We have two ways of unifying it. The one way is to say to the polytheist, “We have gathered together in knowledge that then it is specified, and the same has been proven. The least that is one should indicate it. So you must provide proof of the proof of the additional thing that you made a partner, so let the adversary be the one who undertakes to prove that.” The other way is to say it. God Almighty, if there were in them any gods other than God, they would have been corrupted. This is one premise, and the other premise is the heaven and the earth, and by them I mean everything other than God, they would not have been corrupted. This is the other premise, and what combines the two premisses is the link between corruption. So we produced the oneness of the specific, which is what is required. But we said that because if there were then a God in addition to the one, it would not be void. This addition is either that they agree in their will or they differ, and if they agree, it is