Furthermore, what is incapable of either existence or nonexistence is a greater impossibility than what is capable of either—indeed, even greater than combining existence and nonexistence or denying both together. What you declare incapable of either existence or nonexistence is therefore more impossible than what you describe as neither existent nor nonexistent. If the latter is impossible according to the clear dictates of reason, the former is still more impossible. You have thus made necessary existence, which cannot admit nonexistence, the greatest of all impossibilities. This is the utmost contradiction and invalidity.

Among these Bātiniyyah (esotericists), some explicitly deny both contradictories: existence and nonexistence. Denying both is like affirming both together. As for someone who says, ‘I affirm neither,’ his refusal to affirm either as an actual reality does not prevent one of them from being an actual reality. It is merely like the ignorance of an ignorant person, or the silence of someone who says nothing and does not express the facts.

If what is incapable of either existence or nonexistence is a greater impossibility than what is supposed capable of either—even while both are denied of it—then what is supposed incapable of life or death, knowledge or ignorance, power or incapacity, speech or muteness, blindness or sight, hearing or deafness is closer to what is nonexistent and impossible than what is supposed capable of either member of these pairs—even while both are denied of it. Accordingly, denying both while allowing the capacity for either is closer to existence and possibility.

Whatever is possible for the Necessary Existent—given His capacity for it—is necessary for Him, because His attributes do not depend on anything other than Him. Thus, if that capacity is possible, it is necessary; and if the existence of that capacity is possible, it is necessary. This has been explained at length elsewhere, and it has been shown that He must possess attributes of perfection that involve no deficiency whatsoever.”

He is also told:

“Two named entities sharing some names and attributes does not constitute