16
this is impossible for any existent, whether necessary or contingent? Yet your opponent maintains that the very feature you have denied and called composition is inseparable from every existent.
They say: “But we have assumed it to be a single entity.”
The reply is: “Granted that you have assumed it to be so. But your mere assumption does not establish that it is a single entity in the sense you claim, unless there is evidence to support that claim.”
هَذَا مُمْتَنِعٌ عَلَى مَوْجُودٍ مِنْ الْمَوْجُودَاتِ وَاجِبًا كَانَ أَوْ مُمْكِنًا؟ مَعَ أَنَّ الْمُنَازِعَ يَقُولُ هَذَا الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي نَفَيْتُمُوهُ وَسَمَّيْتُمُوهُ تَرْكِيبًا هُوَ لَازِمٌ لِكُلِّ مَوْجُودٍ.
قَوْلُهُمْ:
وَقَدْ فَرَضْنَاهُ فَرْدًا.
قِيلَ:
هَبْ أَنَّكُمْ فَرَضْتُمُوهُ كَذَلِكَ؛ لَكِنَّ مُجَرَّدَ فَرْضِكُمْ لَا يَقْتَضِي أَنْ يَكُونَ فَرْدًا بِالْمَعْنَى الَّذِي ادَّعَيْتُمُوهُ إنْ لَمْ يَقُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكَ دَلِيلٌ.