How would you respond to the Muslim claim that God becoming flesh and entering creation is contradictory even according to St. Aquinas' views on God's omnipotence?

EDIT: Let's just cut out the fact they accused it as contradictory to Saint Aquinas' views. I feel that's a point that's not important and I shouldn't have included it in the title. I rename the thread

"How would you respond to the Muslim claim that God becoming flesh and entering creation is contradictory to His omnipotence?"

St. Aquinas says in the Summa Theoligica:

"It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey."

So, I think both us Christians could agree with Muslims that God can not do things which are contradictory towards His omnipotence. For example God can not get rid of Himself, nor can He create another God, nor can he make a rock so heavy that He can't lift... God's omnipotence, St. Aquinas says in another part of this section, is always relative to something.

Now, how would you argue against a Muslim claim that God becoming flesh and blood, similarly, would fall under those categories of things that contradict Gods omnipotence? Their argument seems to primarily be based on the premise that since God is the Creator, and we are His creation, it would not fall under His omnipotence that He has the ability to enter into said creation, because then the Creator and the creation are conflated.

Perhaps I got their argument wrong, but that seems to be the general gist of it.

How would you counter this line of argumentation?

God bless.