so it follows that, if the existence of the first depends on the existence of the second, the existence of the second depends on the existence of the first. Indeed, each would depend on itself, which is impossible according to the self-evident principles of reason.”

In response, this argument is even more unsound than the preceding one, for several reasons.

First: This argument only rules out the necessity of similarity that entails sameness in all necessary concomitants. This is complete likeness. He has already reported a consensus that no rational person affirms that Allah has a counterpart sharing all His necessary concomitants. Undoubtedly, the impossibility of this is evident. Since no rational person has maintained this position, it does not help him refute the position he attributes to his opponent, who required similarity in one attribute, not in all necessary concomitants.

Second: He frequently employs arguments of this kind in his books, yet this argument is fallacious. He does not distinguish between circular dependence involving priority and posteriority