so too is its existence exclusive to it. The error arose from [taking] (1) existence in an unqualified sense while taking reality in a particular sense, even though each may be considered either unqualifiedly or particularly. The unqualified is equivalent to the unqualified, and the particular is equivalent to the particular. Thus, unqualified existence corresponds to unqualified reality, while its existence (2) in its particular sense corresponds to its particular reality. The referent of both expressions is one and the same, even though the aspects under which it is named are multiple. It is like saying:

“This is that.”

The thing indicated is one, but it is considered from two different aspects.

[Moreover, if the two share in what is denoted by universal existence, each is distinguished from the other by the existence exclusive to it. Likewise, when any two animals share in what is denoted by animality, or any two human beings share in what is denoted by humanity, each is distinguished from the other by the animality or humanity exclusive to it. Even if universal existence were assumed to subsist in external reality, distinction would still be achieved through a particular existence, without any need to say:

“It is composed of existence and quiddity.”

How much more is this so when the actual state of affairs is otherwise?

Whoever says:

“He is unqualified existence, subject to the condition that every positive determination be negated,”

advances a view more corrupt than all these views.] (3)

These matters are discussed at length elsewhere.

The point is that affirming Allah’s Names and Attributes does not entail that He—glorified is He—resembles or is comparable to His creation.

[Commentary on the statement that Allah alone possesses beginninglessness and pre-eternity]

As for his statement:

“They believed that Allah alone possesses beginninglessness and pre-eternity” (4).