anything that would make it dependent on that locus, for accidental properties do not remove essential attributes.”

He said: “There are points in this line of argument that call for discussion. It is broader than the two preceding lines of argument, since they deny that Allah indwells a body, whereas this argument denies that He indwells any locus, whether a body or otherwise.”

I say: If this argument establishes anything, it establishes only that He does not indwell a locus by way of dependence upon it. It does not rule out indwelling without dependence. Yet how could it do so when the argument itself is unsound? His statement, “That locus would be independent of Him,” does not necessarily follow, for the existence of a contingent being will not entail a locus that depends upon it and is necessary through it rather than in itself. Thus, what he calls dependence upon that locus contains nothing incompatible with His being necessary in Himself, since dependence here means inseparability, as he himself says concerning His inseparable attributes.

Moreover, he has himself challenged the argument ruling out the existence of two necessary existents. This has already been discussed at length, along with the point that this statement admits of