Thus, in their view, the former is correct, although the latter is the position of many logicians, despite their contradictory statements on the matter. On this foundation they have built errors born of ignorance that none but Allah Most High can enumerate, as has been explained at length elsewhere. Accordingly, if He is taken to be the absolute existent without qualification, and the absolute is said to be an inseparable part of the particular, then necessary existence would be a part of contingent beings.

If, on the other hand, it is said that no absolute exists in external reality distinct from existing particulars—which is correct, since this human being does not contain as many substances as the descriptions applied to him; describing him as a body that senses, subsists, moves by volition, and reasons does not mean that this particular human being contains independently subsisting substances other than that particular individual, something known self-evidently—then, on this basis, if the Real is said to be absolute existence without qualification, necessary existence would be the very existence of contingent beings. There would therefore not be two existents, one necessary and the other contingent. This is the position of the adherents of the unity of existence. It explicitly denies the Necessary Existent who brings contingent beings into existence, and explicitly declares that necessary existence is subject to nonexistence and coming into being, as we observe things coming into being and ceasing to exist. Besides being explicit unbelief, this is among the gravest forms of reprehensible ignorance.

Anyone who says that the Lord is absolute existence is bound by these and similar implications, which amount to denying His existence. Likewise, affirming an essence stripped of all attributes is something the mind can conceive, but its existence in external reality is impossible. The very word dhāt (essence) implies this: dhāt is originally the feminine form of dhū (possessor), and the original expression is dhāt al-sifāt (possessing attributes), meaning the self that possesses attributes. Thus, the word dhāt means that which possesses and necessarily entails attributes. This is from the standpoint of language.