then none of them is independent—none of them is independent of the other—nor is it necessary in itself in this respect. The proof establishes something necessary in itself, independent of an agent and an efficient cause; it does not establish that something independent of an agent cannot entail necessary concomitants.

The expression “necessary in itself” is ambiguous and liable to confusion, which has occasioned much error. What has been demonstrated concerning the existence of something necessary in itself is not what these deniers have postulated. For the contingent is that which exists only through something that brings it into existence, whereas the necessary exists in itself, not through something that brings it into existence. Its existing in itself while entailing necessary concomitants does not preclude its being an essence endowed with attributes of perfection. The essence and the attributes are inseparable from one another; each attribute is inseparable from the others; and whatever is called a part is inseparable from the other.

If it is said, “This entails a plurality of necessary beings,”

the reply is: If you mean a plurality of deities that exist in themselves and create contingent beings, that is not the case. If you mean a plurality of meanings and attributes belonging to Him, or a plurality of what you have called His parts, then why do you say that, if each of these is necessary in itself ن—that is, it exists in itself, that is, it exists in itself, not through something that brings it into existence, although its existence entails the existence of