Critique of One Explanation of the Beginning of the Verse

Fakhr Rāzī,(28) under the verse in question, quotes from Wāḥidī that if someone says “God is the third of three” (inna llāha thālith thalātha) and does not mean by this that they are three gods and deities, but rather intends, for example, that they are three beings, this is not disbelief (kufr); like what is mentioned in the verse “There is no secret conversation among three but He is their fourth, nor among five but He is their sixth.”(29)

This statement, which apparently accepts Wāḥidī’s words, according to the explanation of the previous exegetical discussions, is incomplete, because no being exists in opposition to God such that it could be said that God is one and he is the second. Rather, God is the First who is identical to the Last, and He is One who admits no second. Yes, if His unity (waḥda) were numerical, another being would be placed alongside Him; but God is One without number (wāḥid lā bi-ʿadad)(30) who cannot be counted.

Explanation: The unlimited light that has presence and manifestation in all celestial bodies, the sun, the moon, the earth and others, and in the spaces between them - one cannot suppose another light alongside it such that it could be said that light is first and this light is second. Rather, we must necessarily know the first light as “He is the First and the Last and the Manifest and the Hidden”,(31) because wherever we go, He is there: “He is with you wherever you are.”(32)

The conclusion is that the content of “God is the third of three” (inna llāha thālith thalātha) is false, whether the divinity of others is intended or whether there is no consideration of another divinity at all. The speaker has been heedless of God’s absolute unity (waḥdat) and has designated Him with numerical unity (waḥdat ʿadadī), whereas God does not fall under number at all. Consequently, He is not the third of three (thālith thalātha), but rather the third of two (thālith ithnayn) and the fourth of three (rābiʿ thalātha). Thus, neither Wāḥidī’s statement is correct nor Fakhr Rāzī’s endorsement of it. Moreover, the subtle point in the difference between “third of three” (thālith thalātha) and “fourth of three” (rābiʿ thalātha) remained hidden both from Wāḥidī’s view and from Fakhr Rāzī’s. Indeed, at the beginning of the discussion regarding the grammatical parsing (iʿrāb) of “third of three” (thālith thalātha) and “fourth of three” (rābiʿ thalātha), which is a non-profound matter, he made some remarks.(33)