As for the “first” aspect, when a reality comprises several elements—whether concrete entities or accidents—the loss of some of those elements may or may not entail the loss of the rest. The loss of some elements gathered together does not necessarily entail the loss of the others. Whether this whole is called composite, compound, or something else, the loss of some of its parts does not necessarily entail the loss of the rest.
Their examples of ten and oxymel (a honey-and-vinegar mixture) bear this out. If one is removed from ten, the remaining nine need not disappear; the nine may remain. Likewise, if one of a compound’s two components is lost, the other need not disappear. The most they can say, however, is that the combined form has ceased to exist, its configuration as a whole has disappeared, and it has lost the name it deserved by virtue of that combination and composition—just as the names “ten” and “oxymel” no longer apply.
The response is this: no reasonable person disputes that this composite whole no longer retains its original composition. Nor does any reasonable person claim that, when some elements of faith, prayer, Hajj, or other acts of worship comprising several elements are lost, that composite whole remains just as it was before those elements were lost. No one says that a tree or a house, after losing some of its parts, remains intact as before; nor that a human being or any other animal, if it loses some of