the revealed Law. Indeed, the early generations of the Muslim community and its imams condemned speaking of their negation as much as—or more than—speaking of their affirmation, and regarded this as an innovation. Thus, no one may employ these two terms, which have no basis in any scriptural text, consensus, or transmitted report, to make a denial without independent evidence beyond the wording itself. For arguments that rely on particular wording must employ wording transmitted from a binding authority: the Book, the Sunnah, or consensus. How, then, can one rely on wording not transmitted from any imam of the religion or anyone among the community’s early generations?

As for the meanings intended by these two terms, they must be explained. People disagree over the meanings they intend by such expressions, whether some of those meanings necessarily entail others, and other related matters. Accordingly, if someone explains “substance” and “accident” in terms whose inapplicability to Allah Most High has not been established, that would be a consistent application of the proof, not a counterexample invalidating it. The proof cannot be invalidated until it is shown that this classification can apply in some sense that must be denied of Allah Most High. He has not done so.

This becomes clear through the second reply: his statement, “They do not accept this,” is an argument from his opponents’ own commitments. Yet, as noted earlier, he has said that this proof is valid neither in rational inquiry nor in disputation. For if this proof entails affirming what the terms “body” and “accident” designate, it would constitute an argument against them in this