and the composition of a body from its sensible parts, according to those who say that it is composed of indivisible atoms (1), or its composition from two intelligible components, according to those who say that it is composed of matter and form.
As for the “first” and “second” kinds of composition, the majority of rational thinkers dispute their existence in external reality, saying that no composition of this sort exists there. The “fourth” and “fifth” kinds are the subject of a well-known dispute among rational thinkers: some affirm one of these two kinds of composition in a body, while others say that it is composed in neither way.
As for the “fourth,” the great majority of rational thinkers agree with them in affirming it; I know of no one who disputes it in substance (*). However, a group of speculative thinkers, such as ʿAbd al-Rahmān ibn Kaysān al-Asamm and others, are reported to have denied accidents: they did not affirm accidents as something additional to the body, and denied that motion was something additional to the body. Most thinkers disagreed with them on this.
This—and Allah knows best—is a verbal dispute: does the term “body” encompass the body together with its accidents, or are accidents additional to what the term “body” designates? Otherwise, no rational person denies the existence of taste, colour, smell, motion, and other attributes inhering in the things they qualify.
(1) A word in the original is unclear.
(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 51):
“I draw attention here to two points:
First: The ‘fourth type’ of composition is the composition of a body from its sensible parts, according to those who maintain that it is composed of indivisible atoms.
The ‘fifth type’ is its composition from two intelligible components, according to those who maintain that it is composed of matter and form.
Both were mentioned above, but they were not distinguished from one another. The Shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—mentioned these types in several places in his books and treatises, including his statement in al-Safadiyya, 1:105: ‘Fourth: composition in quantity, namely, the composition of a body from its constituent parts: either from indivisible atoms, which is sensible composition, or from matter and form, which is intelligible composition. These two types are the fourth and fifth.’
Second: His statement, ‘As for the “fourth,” the great majority of scholars agree with them in affirming it…,’ may contain a copyist’s error. The correct reading is ‘third,’ namely, composition from ‘essence’ and ‘attributes,’ which is the subject of the ensuing discussion.
This occurs again on the following page, p. 338, where he says: ‘As for the fourth type: if someone disputes whether attributes are additional to the essence or not, this is a verbal dispute…’ What is meant is the ‘third type,’ not the ‘fourth.’”