the case that any of the parts—whether the combination or anything else—was necessary in itself in the sense of being able to exist without the remaining parts. Rather, none exists without the other. Thus, no part is independent of the composite; each depends upon it.

This cannot be compared to one in relation to ten, since one can exist without ten. The parts of ten are not mutually inseparable. Our discussion concerns things that are mutually inseparable, none of which can exist without the others, such as the attributes inseparable from the Lord, Most High.

As for what those who deny the divine attributes call “parts,” none of these attributes can exist without the essence, or even without the other attribute. Likewise, what they call a “part” cannot exist without the whole, nor without another part. It is therefore impossible to say that each part is independent of the composite whole while the composite whole depends upon it. Rather, if this mutual inseparability is called dependence, then the dependence of the attribute—and of what they call a “part”—upon the whole is greater than the dependence of the essence that is necessary in itself, or of what they call “the composite whole that is necessary in itself,” upon the attribute or part. For the whole is necessary in itself and cannot admit nonexistence at all, while no part can conceivably exist without the other.

This is like their assertion that animality and rationality are parts of humanity: even so, a part cannot exist without this composite essence. Likewise, they say that a body is composed of matter and form