If, then, one excludes from the essence anything—whether necessary or unnecessary to it—as some have done when speaking of indication by correspondence, inclusion, or implication, that may be correct in itself, yet it brings no benefit whatsoever to the sciences, to the realities they study, or to discerning their essential and accidental attributes. All it amounts to is picturing whatever the speaker intends, whether that intention be true or false.

As for the Muslim dialecticians, a definition in their view is given by an inseparable attribute, and a single such attribute is sufficient. They never append to it any shared feature—neither a genus nor a common accident—and they censure anyone who does so. Regarding the use of division in a definition, they have two opinions. Attributes, they say, fall into two classes: those that necessarily accompany the subject and those that do not. The position held by the Sunni scholars and by all who affirm the divine attributes and the decree is that the existence of every entity in the external world is identical to its very reality; therefore, whatever necessarily accompanies the external existent necessarily accompanies that external reality. No unverified claim is accepted from anyone without evidence. Where, then, is this logic—this upright and just balance—when compared with the balance of those others, oppressive and destructive, in which there is neither truth nor justice?

“And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice; none can alter His words.” (Qur’an 6:115)

Fifth Consideration
Among the syllogisms are those whose two premises and conclusion are self-evident.

Fifth Consideration
One may say that this syllogism is a syllogism of inclusion, meaning the knowledge that the ruling holds for every single individual.

We therefore say: it is already known—and they themselves concede—that one must have knowledge of the attribution of some rulings to some