this, either affirmatively or negatively. Rather, this depends on one’s knowledge of the premises contained in the proof. Their syllogism does not establish the truth or falsity of any premise. They address this only when discussing the matter of the syllogism—that is, the premises considered in terms of the grounds for assenting to them. Their discussion of this contains many errors, as noted elsewhere.

The point here is that the essential consideration in every demonstration and proof in the world is entailment. Whoever knows that one thing necessarily follows from another can infer the former from the latter, even without mentioning the word “entailment” or conceiving the meaning of that word. Indeed, whoever knows that one thing cannot be without another, or that if one thing is the case, another must also be the case, and so forth, has understood entailment.

Likewise, one knows that everything in existence is a sign pointing to Allah, for it depends on Him, needs Him, and must have one who brought it into being. As the Most High says:

“Or were they created by nothing, or are they themselves the creators?”

Jubayr ibn Mut‘im said: “When I heard this verse, I felt my heart split open.”

This sets out an exhaustive division of the possibilities: were they created without a creator who created them? This is impossible according to the self-evident principles of reason. Or did they create themselves? This is even more impossible. It is thus known that they have a Creator who created them. He—glory be to Him—presented the proof as a rhetorical question rejecting these possibilities, to show that the proposition on which His argument rests is innate, self-evident, and firmly established in human souls, such that no one can deny it.

No one whose natural disposition is sound can claim that something came into being without someone bringing it into being. Nor can he say: “This brought itself into being.”