And as for the term “dependence” here: if it means an effect’s dependence on its cause, it is false. If it means something conditional depending on its condition, then this is mutual inseparability, which is not impossible. That which necessarily exists in itself cannot depend on anything external to itself. But when an attribute is inseparable from its essence and included in what its name denotes, saying that it depends on that attribute is like saying that it depends on itself.

When someone says, “I called upon Allah” or “I worshipped Allah,” the name Allah denotes the essence possessing its attributes. It is not a name for an essence stripped of its inseparable attributes.

[The position of those who deny the attributes, and its refutation]

The reality of the matter is that it can be itself only through itself; its essence can be what it is only with its attributes; and it can be itself only with what is included in what its name denotes. This is true. But saying that this constitutes dependence on something other than itself is misleading, because it suggests dependence on something separate from it, which is false.

As already explained, the word “other” can mean something separate from it in existence, time, or place; it can also mean something that can be known without it being known. An attribute is not called “other than it” in this sense. In the second sense, however, there is nothing impossible about its existence being conditional upon attributes, or about its necessarily possessing attributes. Even if those attributes are called “other,” using this expression does not invalidate these rational meanings, whether or not using the expression is permissible.