Existent must not be composed of a condition and that which is conditioned.

He may be answered as follows:

It has already been explained that you yourselves have called this “composition,” although it is not called composition in any of the known languages of humankind. Only your later thinkers, such as Ibn Sīnā and others like him, gave it this name. As for your earlier thinkers, you have reported that, according to Aristotle, every composite is subject to generation and corruption, whereas heaven is not. He therefore does not call the heavens and the celestial bodies within them composite, although they are bodies that occupy space, move, and have accidents inhering in them. How, then, could he call a being that is alive, knowing, and possessed of power composite?

When we address you using your newly invented terminology to put an end to your contentious objections, we engage with you in a rational inquiry. You claim that these matters are known through reason, not through revelation, and you yourselves do not adhere to the revealed Law when affirming or denying terms. According to your own principles, therefore, one must follow whatever reason establishes or rules out, without regard to the wording.

We demonstrate, through sound reason, the falsity of the meaning you have asserted, while addressing you in your own terminology. He may thus be asked: Why do you say that something composed of a condition cannot be the Necessary Existent?

As for his statement, “Because, if its composition is necessary, it is necessary by virtue of another, not in itself, since it is difficult to conceive of an eternal composite without someone who composes it,” he may be answered: This is precisely the question of terminology for which we raised this point.