“Necessary in itself” may mean the Essence that is necessary in its own right and brings everything other than itself into being. There is only one such Essence.

It may also mean that which exists in its own right and cannot cease to exist. In this sense, both the Essence and the attributes are necessary. There is nothing objectionable about a plurality of necessary existents under this definition, just as there is nothing objectionable about a plurality of beginningless things if “beginningless” means that their existence has no beginning, whether they are an essence or an attribute of the Essence of the beginningless One. By contrast, if “the beginningless” means the Creator of all things, then He is One; there is no god but Him.

“Necessary” may also mean that which exists in its own right and subsists in itself. In this sense, the Essence is necessary, but the attributes are not.

Accordingly, if someone says, “The Essence causes the attributes, and the cause and its effect are two essences,” he is told:

“The term ‘causation’ is ambiguous. Do you mean here that He originated and produced the attributes, or that His Essence necessarily entails them? The former is rejected with regard to the attributes; the latter is conceded.”

Causation with respect to created things has the first meaning, not the second. Indeed, we have explained elsewhere that no created thing can be beginningless alongside Allah, as He is.

[The Fifth Proof]

Al-Rāzī said in the fifth proof:

“If a body were beginningless, its beginninglessness would either be identical with its being a body or distinct from its being a body. Both alternatives are false; hence the claim that a body is beginningless is false.