argument, we have already shown its weakness in the discussion of divine unity.” Thus, when they used this argument to establish that the world came into being, he mentioned its weakness and referred to what he had said in the discussion of divine unity. How, then, can he use that very same argument to establish precisely the same conclusion here—namely, that bodies are contingent because they are composite—and refer to what he said concerning divine unity?

It is clear that, had he rejected this argument where it conflicts with the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, and relied upon it where it does not contradict them, this—despite the inconsistency involved—would have been closer to reason and religion than using it to deny what necessarily follows from the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, while rejecting it where it does not conflict with the texts conveyed by the prophets.

[The second argument]

It may be said:

You yourself have also demonstrated, in your discussion of establishing Allah’s oneness, the invalidity of this method pursued by Avicenna and other philosophers—the very method to which you refer here.

For he said:

“Chapter Two: On the Impossibility of Two Gods Existing, Each Possessing the Same Divine Attributes as the Other.

Those who deny that God has a partner have advanced weak lines of argument.

The first line of argument is that presented by the philosophers. They said:

‘If two necessarily existent beings were supposed to exist, each