This is comparable to the statement attributed to Ya‘qūb ibn Ishāq al-Kindī, as reported by al-Sīrāfī:

“This falls under the absence of nonexistence, and the absence of nonexistence is existence.”

How much more so, then, when, in discussing the contingent’s need for that which is necessary in itself—a clear and evident matter—they have presented, as we have explained elsewhere, statements that defeat the very purpose of instruction, clarification, and the rigorous formulation of arguments and proofs!

We have discussed the establishment of the points relevant to this matter elsewhere.

[The Second]

Al-Rāzī said:

“The second approach: inferring the existence of the Maker, glorified and exalted be He, from the contingency of bodies. This is the philosophers’ principal argument.

They say: ‘Bodies are contingent, and everything contingent must have a cause.’

Their contingency is demonstrated by the method mentioned in the discussion of temporal origination. The fact that everything contingent must have a cause is demonstrated by the method mentioned here.”

[Ibn Taymiyyah’s Commentary]

I say:

This method is that of Ibn Sīnā and other philosophical thinkers like him.