the two attributes (1) is essential and constitutive of the thing described, such that the thing cannot be realized without it either in external reality or in the mind, while the other is accidental and the thing described is constituted without it, even though it is equally necessarily concomitant—is to distinguish between two identical cases.
They cite three distinctions between the essential and the accidental that is inseparable from the quiddity. Yet these distinctions are all refuted by counterexamples, and they themselves acknowledge this, as do Avicenna and his followers who comment on al-Ishārāt, and as stated by the author of al-Muʿtabar (2) and others. This matter is discussed at length elsewhere (3).
Likewise, the discussion of their position and that of (4 those who agreed with them among 4) (4) the proponents of the unity of existence, concerning the existence of the Necessary Existent, is set out fully elsewhere. The purpose here is to give a general account of what the Messengers brought—Allah’s blessings [and peace] (5) be upon them all. All of this is discussed fully in its appropriate places.
(1) N reads: “one of the two categories,” which is a textual corruption.
(2) This is Abū al-Barakāt Hibat Allāh ibn Malkā, who was discussed above at 1/178.
(3) When listing Ibn Taymiyya’s works in *al-Uqūd al-Durriyya*, p. [0–9] 6, Ibn Abd al-Hādī said: “He wrote a large volume refuting logic. He also wrote two other works refuting logic, together amounting to approximately one volume.” Ibn Taymiyya himself stated in *al-Safadiyya* (folio 193b) that he had written two books refuting logic, one large and the other small. He also stated that he had written a book refuting the logic of Ibn Sīnā’s *al-Ishārāt*, just as he had criticized logic in his refutation of al-Rāzī’s *al-Muhassal*. Ibn Taymiyya summarized the three distinctions between the essential and the accidental in *al-Radd ala al-Mantiqiyyīn*, pp. [0–9] 2–64. At the end of that discussion, he stated that he had treated these distinctions at length elsewhere, in a passage discussing Ibn Sīnā’s *al-Ishārāt*. This indicates that he elaborated this refutation in his book refuting the logic of *al-Ishārāt*, which is not available to us.
(4) The passage marked (4–4) is absent from A and B.
(5) “And His peace” is an addition in A and B.