the language of those who embellish speeches and panegyrics with fanciful imagery. Otherwise, what does ‘in every respect’ mean? For His being a first principle—indeed, His being a principle at all—entails the very consequence alleged here: either His essence is constituted by His being a first principle, or this is accidental to Him, so that He is not necessarily existent in every respect. That is, He is not necessarily existent in His being a first principle for Zayd, ʿAmr, and other existing things.

“What demonstration compels us to affirm is that He is necessarily existent in Himself. As for this expression, ‘in every respect’: if it concerns the respects in which He exists, then that is so; but not if it concerns His relations and connections, for that has been refuted by what has been said.”

I say: What Abū al-Barakāt said here in reply to Ibn Sīnā was explicitly stated by Ibn Sīnā himself elsewhere, contradicting what he said here. In his book entitled al-Shifāʾ, in the discussion of knowledge, he said:

“You need not be concerned that His essence, considered together with some relation, should be contingent in existence. For insofar as it is the cause of Zayd’s existence, it is not necessarily existent; rather, it is necessarily existent only in itself.”

This accords with what Abū al-Barakāt said.