Could Not Answer

enter an object. If God were an object He would enter another
object. When something enters an object it will become an object
and the components of the two objects will be mixed with each
other. And this, in its turn, will mean God’s being broken. If God
were an attribute, then He would need a space, a place, which
would mean God’s needing something. And he who needs
something cannot be a god. [What was the reason for God’s
entering Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’? His entering Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’
without any reason to do so would mean terjîh-i-bi-lâ murej-jih,
which, as we have explained while proving the unity of Allâhu
ta’âlâ, is out of the question.]
3 — You say that he is not a god but a part of God has entered
him and settled in him. If the part which (is supposed to have)
entered him were a component part of God, then God should have
completely lost His capacity of being God with the departure of
that component part. If that part did not have any function in
God’s being God, then it should not have been a part from God.
Hence, God has not entered him.
Now, what is your other evidence to prove that Îsâ ‘alaihissalâm’
was a god?
The priest — He is a god because he resuscitated the dead,
opened the eyes of people who were blind from birth, and cured
the disease called leprosy resulting in itchy patches on the skin.
Only God could make such things.
Fakhr-ur-dîn Râzî — Could it be asserted that when there is
no evidence for the existence of something it must be
nonexistent? If you say that absence of evidence proves nonexistence
of the thing whose existence would otherwise be
inferred from the evidence, it will mean to say that the Creator of
the universe did not exist before creating the universe, that is, in
the eternal past. And this inference, in its turn, is quite wrong.
For the universe [all creatures] is an evidence for the existence of
the Creator.
If you say that absence of evidence does not necessarily mean
nonexistence of the thing whose existence were to be inferred
from the evidence, you will have accepted the existence of the
Creator in eternity, when creatures did not exist yet. On the other
hand, if you say that God entered Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ in eternity,
when he was nonexistent, you will need evidence to prove it.
Otherwise, you will have accepted it without evidence. For Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’ was created afterwards. His nonexistence in
eternity shows nonexistence of evidence. Since you believe
– 377 –