And Allah created you and what you do. This means He created you and created what you do of the idols, as His saying: "Rather, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Who created them." That is, He created the idols. If you say: How can one thing be created by Allah and at the same time be something they do, since He caused their creation and their actions upon all of them?

I say: This is like saying: The carpenter made the door. [Mahamud said: "This means He created you and what you do of the idols, as His saying: 'Rather, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Who created them.' If you say: How can one thing be created by Allah, the Exalted, and be something they do? He answered that this is like saying: The carpenter made the door... until he said: ... and in that is a breaking of the structure and a division as if you made it a source."] Ahmad said: When the flood of Allah comes, the flood of Ma'kil goes away. We say: It must be taken as a source, since they did not worship these idols as stones that are not shaped. If that were the case, they would not have collaborated in shaping them, nor would they have singled out the worship of one stone over another. This indicates that they only worship them in consideration of their shapes and forms, which are the effects of their work. In truth, they worshipped their work, and the proof against them is that they are like it, while the object of worship is the earnings of the worshipper and his work. It has become clear that the proof is established against them on the condition that it is a source, which is clearer and more eloquent. If that is established, let his words be followed in refutation.

As for his saying that it is a relative pronoun, and that what is meant by their work for it is the work of its shapes, this contradicts the apparent meaning. It is dependent on the omission of an addition in the place of despair, which would be understood as: And Allah created you and what you do, its shape and form. Unlike the direction of the people of the Sunnah, which does not depend on any omission at all. Then, if the object of worship is the essence itself, how does it match the reproach against them by clarifying that the object of worship is from the work of the worshipper, while agreeing that the essences of the idols are not from their work? What is from their work, which is the shape, is not worshipped by them according to this interpretation, and what is their object of worship, which is the essence of the idol, is not from their work. Thus, it has not settled for him that the object of worship, according to his interpretation, is from the work of the worshipper, and what we have established becomes clear.

As for his saying that the correspondence breaks down according to the interpretation of the people of the Sunnah between what they carve and what they do, this is not correct. For we can take the first as a source, and that they, in truth, only worshipped their carving, because these idols, which are stones before carving, they did not worship. So when they worked on them with carving, they worshipped them. In truth, they did not worship anything other than their carving, which is their work. Therefore, the correspondence is established, and the obligation upon this is more eloquent and stronger. If it were as he said, they would have established proof against them, and they would have said, as Al-Zamakhshari claims, countering His saying: "And Allah created you and what you do" by saying: No, and no honor, and Allah does not create what we do, for we only made the shaping and the imaging, and this was not created by Allah. They would find a means to evade the proof, and Allah wills that the proof be established for us and for them the empty lies. This is an obligation, but it is a restraint for those who oppose the Sunnah, and it has tightened around their necks, and struck their hands, until they return to the truth, repenting and acknowledging their error.

And the chair, and the work of the goldsmith is the bracelet and the anklet, and what is meant is the work of the shapes of these things and their forms, not their essences. The idols have essences and shapes, so the Creator of their essences is Allah, and those who work on their shapes are those who shape them by their carving and removing some of their parts, until the shaping they desire is achieved. If you say: What do you deny? [His saying: "If you say, what do you deny?" Perhaps it means: Did I not deny.]

And Allah created you and your actions. As the Jabriyyah say, "As the people of the Sunnah say, there is no creator except Allah. He is the creator of the servant's actions," while the Mu'tazilah say that the servant is the creator of his own actions. They made the servant a partner with Allah in creation, even though they called themselves the people of justice and monotheism. They said, "If Allah is the creator of the servant's actions, then His punishment of the servant for sins would be injustice, not justice." The people of the Sunnah said: "He punishes him for it just as He rewards him for obedience, due to what he has in both of them of earning and choice. So there is no injustice." However, the Mu'tazilah did not look at monotheism with complete consideration, nor did they reflect on its proofs with full insight. (A) I said: The closest thing to refute this question, after its refutation by rational arguments and the Book, is that the meaning of the verse clearly rejects it and is evidently contrary to it. This is because Allah, the Exalted, has argued against them by saying that both the worshiper and the worshiped are creations of Allah. So how can a created being worship another created being, given that the worshiper among them is the one who created the image and form of the worshiped? Without him, he would not be able to shape himself or form it. If you say: "And Allah created you and created your actions," and it was not an argument against them, nor would your words be consistent. Another thing is that His saying, "What you do" is a translation of His saying, "What you carve out," and what is in "What you carve out" is a relative clause, with no discussion in it. It cannot be shifted from its counterpart except by someone who is obstinately biased towards his doctrine, without consideration of the science of rhetoric or insight into the arrangement of the Qur'an. If you say: "Make it a relative clause so that I am not burdened with what you have burdened me with, and I mean: 'And what you do of your actions.'" I say: Rather, the burdens are upon you, and only the acknowledgment of the truth can relieve them. This is because even if you make it a relative clause, in your intention with it of action, you are not arguing against the polytheists, just as you would be if you made it a gerund. Furthermore, you sever the connection between what you do and what you carve out, as you differentiate between the intended meanings of both. You intend by "what you carve out": the entities which are the idols, and by "what you do": the meanings which are the actions. In that is a disruption of the arrangement and its disintegration, just as if you made it a gerund.