and a particular description, such as the composite of genus and differentia; 3) composition of an essence and its attributes; 4) composition of a body out of matter and form; and 5) composition out of discrete substances.

We have shown that their claim of a composition of existence and quiddity, or of genus and differentia, is groundless. As for the body’s being compounded in any of these ways, most rational people maintain that a body is composed neither of matter and form, nor of discrete substances. What therefore remains is simply an essence that possesses attributes.

We have also clarified that the term “composite” is used for (a) what has been assembled by another, (b) what had dispersed parts that were subsequently gathered, and (c) what admits the separation of its parts from one another. All three meanings are, by unanimous agreement of the Muslims, inapplicable to the Lord of the Worlds.

They, however, regard anything described by attributes as a “composite.” This is merely their own terminology. In reality we are dealing with a subject that has multiple attributes; calling such a thing “composite” is only their convention. What truly matters are the intelligible meanings. As for words, if an expression is transmitted from the infallible Lawgiver it enjoys sanctity; otherwise, no heed is paid to anyone who renders sound notions—established by reason and revelation—into an ambiguous phrase that suggests erroneous ideas. They are told: the discussion concerns meanings, not mere words, as has been elaborated elsewhere.

Second Point: the particular object whose knowledge is sought through universal propositions is known prior to, and independently of, those propositions.

Second Point, again: It may be said that if every syllogism must contain a universal premise, then that very premise