the author of al-Madnūn al-Kabīr (The Greater Withheld) (1)—is that they define the Necessary Existent as that which has no inseparable concomitant, thereby denying His attributes that necessarily belong to Him. They say, “If we were to affirm that He possesses attributes inseparable from Him, He would not be the Necessary Existent.” Yet they then maintain that the celestial spheres and other things have been inseparable from Him from eternity and will remain so forever, while saying that this does not conflict with His being the Necessary Existent. What contradiction could be greater than this?
The third response:
It may be said: A unitary entity entirely divested of attributes cannot exist, as has been explained at length elsewhere (2). It has also been demonstrated (3) that positive meanings must be affirmed, such as His being living, knowing, and powerful (4); that it is impossible for each such meaning to be identical to every other, or for those meanings to be the essence itself; and that whatever cannot exist cannot be the Necessary Existent. Thus, if such an entity is alleged to be the Necessary Existent, it is nevertheless impossible in existence—let alone that He should be said to produce His attributes just as He produces His creatures, or that He is an efficient cause,
(1) The author of the “withheld works” to whom Ibn Taymiyya refers is al-Ghazālī. Works attributed to him include *al-Madnūn bihi ʿalā Ghayr Ahlihi* (That Which Is Withheld from Those Unqualified for It), also known as *Kitāb al-Madnūn al-Kabīr* (The Greater Withheld Work), and *al-Madnūn al-Saghīr* (The Lesser Withheld Work), entitled *al-Ajwiba al-Ghazāliyya fī al-Masāʾil al-Ukhrawiyya* (al-Ghazālī’s Answers on Questions of the Hereafter). Both have been printed more than once, including in the margins of volume two of al-Jīlī’s *al-Insān al-Kāmil* (The Perfect Man), 2nd ed., al-Azhar Press, Cairo, 1328 AH. Scholars have differed over the true nature of these works and the authenticity of their attribution to al-Ghazālī. Two studies on the subject may be noted: first, Sulaymān Dunyā’s discussion in *al-Haqīqa fī Nazar al-Ghazālī* (Truth in al-Ghazālī’s View), pp. 7[0–9] ff., especially pp. 128–134, Cairo, 1947; and second, Watt’s article, “The Authenticity of the Works Attributed to al-Ghazali,” in the *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society*, London, 1952, pp. 24–25.
(2) N and M read: “as has already been explained at length in its proper place.”
(3) A and B read: *wa-yumkinu* (“and it is possible”), which is an error.
(4) N and M read: *hayyan ʿāliman qādiran* (“living, knowing, and powerful”).