Moreover, if whatever is possible for one is possible for the other, whatever is necessary for one is necessary for the other, and whatever is impossible for one is impossible for the other—even through an intermediary in which they are identical—then they must be identical. This entails that any two different things are identical, overturning and altering realities. This is among the gravest forms of sophistry.

The same conclusion also follows from his own premise in another way, since he holds that all bodies are identical. Thus, among things that have parts, none differ in any way. His statement, “Those parts must be either identical or different,” is therefore merely a hypothetical supposition. Otherwise, on his own premise, they can only be identical: according to him, no bodies are nonidentical. This entails manifest sophistry and defiance of sensory perception and reason, besides contradicting the Quranic texts establishing that bodies are not identical, such as the words of the Exalted:

“He will replace you with another people; then they will not be like you.” {38} [Muhammad 38]

Other such passages have already been mentioned. But if they need not be broken down into indivisible parts, then what you have stated is invalid.

The seventeenth point: It may be said: Your statement, “Every body composed of parts differing in essence must ultimately, when its composition is analyzed, resolve into parts that are not themselves composite; each of the two can touch with its right hand what it touches