the major premise—namely, that no two contraries can coexist. Knowledge of this therefore does not require the syllogism to which they have reserved the name “demonstration.” Yet in the speech of Allah and His Messenger, and in the discourse of scholars of all kinds, demonstration is not restricted to what they call demonstration. Rather, they themselves have restricted the term to what is contained in a syllogism whose form and matter they have limited in the manner they describe.

For example, suppose one wishes to refute those who affirm states and say that they are neither existent nor nonexistent. One might argue: “These are two contradictories, and two contradictories can neither both be true nor both be false. This makes one and the same thing neither existent nor nonexistent, and the state of a single thing cannot be regarded as neither existent nor nonexistent.” It is nevertheless possible to know that this particular thing cannot be both existent and nonexistent without knowing this universal proposition. Knowledge of the conclusion therefore does not require demonstration.

Likewise, one might say: “This is contingent, and every contingent thing must have a factor determining its existence rather than its nonexistence, according to the sounder of the two views—or determining one of its two alternatives, according to some people.”

Or one might say: “This has come into existence, and whatever has come into existence must have an originator.” That universal proposition—namely, our statement that everything that has come into existence must have an originator, and that every contingent thing must have a determining factor—has particular instances which they seek to establish through demonstrative syllogism, although these can be known without knowledge of