as a hypothetical assumption, that the essence necessarily possessing the attributes is what is described in this way, nothing here entails its dependence on anything else.

[A statement by Ibn Rushd that is invalid in several respects]

As for his statement, “especially according to those who say that every accident comes into being, since composition would then be an eternal accident,” this is invalid in several respects:

The first point

The Ashʿarīs and those who agree with them in saying that every accident comes into being do not call Allah’s attributes accidents. When they say that He is knowing, possesses knowledge, and is characterized by knowledge, they do not say that His knowledge and His being characterized by knowledge constitute an accident. Those who call His attributes accidents, such as the Karrāmīs and others like them, are not thereby obliged to say that every accident comes into being 0. I know of no Muslim speculative thinker who says both that every accident comes into being and that Allah’s eternal attributes are accidents, for this is an obvious contradiction. Thus, the consequence he mentions does not follow for any Muslim ن; no one has said that every accident comes into being while also saying that Allah’s inseparable attributes are accidents.

[The second point]

One may argue hypothetically that whoever says that every accident comes into being maintains that apparently enduring accidents come into being one after another. If, then, one supposes an eternal bearer of attributes, calls those attributes accidents, and holds that an accident does not persist for two moments, one must say that these attributes come into being one after another. Accordingly, if one supposes a combination, conjunction, or multiplicity among the attributes, or anything similar that you have called “composition”