and its existing through it. This argument is thus an instance of what Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said of such people: “They cling to ambiguous language and deceive ignorant people by obscuring matters for them.”

The third response is to say: We choose the second alternative, namely, that a thing’s existence does not depend on the existence of something resembling it; rather, it can exist without it. But why do you say that, if its existence does not depend on a counterpart, it need not have a counterpart, even though its existence does not depend on it? This is like two effects of a single cause: neither depends on the other, while the existence of one entails the existence of the other.

Moreover, when the opponent you mentioned says, “We cannot conceive the existence of a being that is neither connected to the world nor separate from it unless we find a counterpart for it,” he is only denying his own ability to conceive it. Why, then, do you say that, if such a being can exist, our minds can conceive it? This follows only if it is established that everything that can exist can be conceived, yet you have offered no proof of this.

Then he said: “The third argument is that the individuation of each thing, insofar as it is