according to this newly introduced convention of theirs. Even if the Lawgiver had used the word “contrary”—whereas He used only the word “veil,” and a veil entails that meaning—what they have done would be a fallacy arising from equivocation. For they said: “A veil prevents, and whatever prevents something is contrary to it.” All this is correct in Arabic and is conceded according to that usage.

Then they said: “Contrariety is possible only between two accidents that succeed one another. A body cannot constitute prevention or prevent an accident at all, because there can be no mutual exclusion or contrariety between an accident and a body.” This is a fallacy, for one may ask: “The contrariety, prevention, and mutual exclusion that