The proof establishes only that contingent beings have an Originator who is necessary in Himself and distinct from them. As for that Originator’s entailing His attributes, or His existing only while characterized by attributes of perfection, no argument has ever negated this (1). Nor does this necessary connection—whether or not it is called dependence—preclude the whole from being necessary, pre-eternal, and beginningless, admitting of no nonexistence whatsoever.

Moreover, calling the attributes that subsist in the subject they qualify “parts” of it is not recognized linguistic usage; rather, (2) it is merely their own terminology, just as they have called (3) the subject “composite” (4 unlike calling a part an attribute, for this usage is found in the words of many imams and speculative thinkers, such as Imam Ahmad, Ibn Kullāb, and others 4) (4). The reality of the matter, however, is that an essence which entails an attribute exists only while characterized by that attribute, and this is true. If, for argument’s sake, one adopts their newly introduced terminology and calls this a part, then the whole exists only through the existence of its part, which constitutes some of it.

If it is said:

“It depends upon a part of itself,”

this would be a lesser form of dependence than saying:

“It depends upon itself, which is the whole.”

If the latter entails nothing objectionable, then the former is even less objectionable.

If it is said:

“Its part (5) is other than it, while the Necessary Existent does not depend upon anything other than itself,”

the response is:

“If you mean that its part is separate from it and that either could in any respect be separated from the other, this is false. Its part is not other than it (6) in this sense. But if you mean