I said:

Our companion, Shaykh Abū al-‘Abbās al-Wāsitī, explained his words, saying:

“The meaning is that, were it not for Zayd’s existence, ‘Amr would not be known. Through Zayd’s existence, ignorance of ‘Amr is removed. Zayd thus becomes dependent upon ‘Amr’s existence and name, since ignorance of him is removed through ‘Amr and his name. The meaning is that a created being depends upon a cause through which it is known, unlike the One who has no equal. He does not depend upon a cause through which He is known and by which He subsists. Rather, His servants depend upon Him and upon knowing Him.”

He said:

“This points to innate knowledge, through which He, glorified is He, is not known by means of another. Rather, through it He Himself is known to His creation.”

Shaykh Abū Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd said:

“Our Lord is too exalted to subsist through causes and thus become a proof after having been the object of proof.”

This is how I saw it in the book. What he intended, however, was:

“Thus become the object of proof after having been a proof.”

He said:

“A report states that Allah Most High says in one of the earlier scriptures: ‘I am the One who points to Myself, and no proof points to Me more clearly than I do.’

It has also been related: ‘I was a treasure, unknown, and I loved to be known. So I brought forth creatures and made Myself known to them through Myself, and they knew Me.’

This explicitly rules out causes, for anyone whose existence is affirmed through another and negated through another would have