It may be said in reply:

We have already pointed out that the term “composition” is equivocal. If by it one means something put together by another, or something once disunited and then joined, or something whose parts can be detached from one another, all of this is impossible with respect to God, and none of it follows from affirming His attributes and actions.

But this is not what they intend. What they really object to is the multiplicity of meanings predicated of Him—and there is no proof for denying that; on the contrary, the very proofs require that it be affirmed. We have told you that your statement “He cannot be composite” must therefore signify that He cannot be characterized by attributes and cannot be inseparably linked to them, while you yourselves hold that He is inseparably linked to His effects. You even maintain that the celestial sphere is necessary because He is necessary and eternal because He is eternal, yet you still ascribe such qualities to it.

When you say, “This (the sphere) is necessary through another, whereas that (God) is necessary in Himself,” the answer is: the distinction you have drawn merely implies that one of them has a cause that produced it, while the other has no cause at all. This has nothing to do with attributes, parts, or anything of the sort. For when you argue, “If He were qualified by attributes He would be dependent on something else, and the Necessary Being cannot depend on anything else,” then if by “something else” you mean an efficient cause, such qualification entails no efficient cause whatsoever. And if you mean that He would be inseparable from His attributes, parts, and so forth, nothing you have mentioned provides any basis for distinguishing in that respect between what has an originator and what has none. Indeed, many among you hold that the sphere is necessary in and of itself; therefore, the argument you wield against them is invalid, as has been explained in detail elsewhere.

As for the predecessors and the leading Imams—may God be pleased with them—they said none of these things, nor did they build on any of those shaky premises; rather, their discourse