and calling what another has brought into being “created” is better and clearer than calling it “possible,” if, in ordinary usage, “possible” describes only something nonexistent that may or may not come to exist. As for what has come to exist, it has passed from possibility to necessity through another. People naturally understand that anything whose existence or nonexistence belongs to the past is not called “possible.” Rather, they call something “possible” when it may either exist or not exist in the future.

Once it is understood that everything other than that which exists through itself is something made and produced by it, it is understood that whatever is made and produced must have come into being after nonexistence, as has been explained at length in its proper place. These objections do not challenge the affirmation of the Necessary Existent, for that is true. Rather, they challenge the particular approach he adopted, whereby he affirmed a possible essence while holding it to be eternal and without beginning. Affirming the Necessary Existent by this approach does not require this.

Rather, if it is said that every existent either exists through itself or exists through another, and that what exists through another can exist only through that which exists through itself, then the existence of that which exists through itself is established. Calling the former “necessary” and the latter “possible” would be a matter of terminology. 0 But the point is that the Necessary Existent cannot be established by appealing to what is claimed to be an essence admitting both existence and nonexistence, while nevertheless being eternal, without beginning, and necessary. What is necessary cannot admit nonexistence under any circumstances. And Allah knows best.