is not an effect of the essence, it follows that it confers God's attributes upon Him and is therefore more entitled to divinity.

They may be told: Although this is false according to Muslims and the adherents of other religions, your principles do not preclude its falsity. For this does not contradict His necessary existence in Himself, in the sense that He has no agent that brings Him into being. If something has no such agent, that fact alone does not preclude something from subsisting in it through causation from itself and from something distinct from it. This can only be ruled out by denying the existence of a being that is necessary in itself and distinct from Him, which rests upon denying the existence of two beings that are necessary in themselves.

You have asserted this and included the denial of the attributes within that assertion, just as the Jahmiyyah asserted that there is only one beginningless being and included the denial of the attributes within their assertion. You said, “If He had attributes, there would be more than one being necessary in itself,” just as they said, “If He had attributes, there would be more than one beginningless being.” Your argument for this is exceedingly weak—so weak, indeed, that some of you have affirmed that the celestial spheres are beginningless and necessarily existent in themselves.

This is the actual position of Aristotle and his followers concerning the celestial spheres. It is also the position that the proponents of the unity of existence hold concerning every existent thing—those who professed Sufism and true understanding. In reality, their position is that of these eternalist negators.

We therefore address them all with an argument encompassing every group, saying: Either the celestial spheres necessarily exist in themselves, or they do not.