then how do you deny that his honor lies in the existence of all things following his essence and not in his knowledge? the proof for this is that perhaps someone else knows things other than himself and sees and hears while he neither sees nor hears. if someone were to say the existent is divided into the sighted and the blind the knowledgeable and the ignorant then let the sighted be older and let the first be sighted and knowledgeable of things. but you deny that and say honor does not lie in sight and knowledge of things but in being independent of sight and knowledge and the essence being such that all things exist from him in him the knowledgeable and the sighted. likewise there is no honor in knowing the essence but in his being the beginning of the entities of knowledge and this is an honor specific to him.
ثم بم تنكرون أن شرفه في أن وجود الكل تابع لذاته لا في علمه؟ الدليل عليه أن غيره ربما عرف أشياء سوى ذاته ويرى ويسمع وهو لا يرى ولا يسمع. ولو قال قائل الموجود ينقسم إلى البصير والأعمى والعالم والجاهل، فليكن البصير أقدم وليكن الأول بصيرا وعالما بالأشياء. لكنكم تنكرون ذلك وتقولون ليس الشرف في البصر والعلم بالأشياء بل في الاستغناء عن البصر والعلم وكون الذات بحيث يوجد منه الكل فيه العلماء وذوو الأبصار. فكذلك لا شرف في معرفة الذات بل في كونه مبدأ لذوات المعرفة وهذا شرف مخصوص به.