Him and depended upon by Him. Whatever depends upon another is contingent, not necessary in itself, whereas He has been said to be necessary in Himself.

[Ibn Taymiyyah’s commentary]

I say: One may reply that this is invalid on several grounds.

Its invalidity on several grounds

First

Most of those who say that He is a body do not say that He is composed of parts. Indeed, they do not even say that every body is composed of parts. A proof establishing only the impossibility of something composed of parts does not constitute an argument against someone who says that He is not composite. If, however, the argument rests on the premise that every body is composite, that premise is not conceded.

If it is said, “By parts we do not mean parts that existed apart from Him; we mean only that one thing in Him must be distinguishable from another,”

one may reply: In that case, it does not follow that what could become a part is something distinct on which the whole depends. For it is indispensable to the existence of the whole and does not exist apart from it. The whole cannot dispense with it, nor can it dispense with the whole. Thus, the argument is invalid.

[Second]

One may ask: What do you mean by saying that He would depend upon each of those parts? Do you mean that He would be produced by the part, or be the effect of an efficient cause, or do you mean that His existence would be conditional upon the existence of the part