and proofs, introducing material unnecessary for definition and clarification. Their lengthy elaborations then become an obstacle to definition and clarification. They are like someone who intends to perform the pilgrimage from Syria but travels to India to undertake it from there, only to have his journey cut short and never reach Mecca.

[Arguments in Refutation of al-Āmidī]

First

It may be said:

The proof he presented for the impossibility of coexisting causes and effects applies to causes and effects without qualification, whether they are successive or not.

Since the proof of impossibility encompasses both cases, there is no need for this division. Introducing this additional case, however, is like the additional division he introduces later, when he says: “If the causes and effects exist together, considering the aggregate differs from considering each individual member. The aggregate must then be either necessary or contingent.” This, too, is unnecessary.

For he has already stated that the individual members are contingent and dependent on the Necessary Existent. Thus, on the assumption that the aggregate is nothing beyond its individual members, the matter is even more straightforward.