the second approach is their saying knowledge and power in us are not included in the essence of our self but are accidental. and if these attributes were affirmed for the first then they would not also be included in the essence of his self but would be accidental in relation to it even if it is always for him. and there may be an accidental that does not separate or is necessary for an essence and does not thereby become a component of his self. and if it is accidental then it is subordinate to the self and the self is a cause of it so it is an effect. so how can it be necessary existence?
المسلك الثاني قولهم إن العلم والقدرة فينا ليس داخلا في ماهية ذاتنا بل هو عارض. وإذا أثبت هذه الصفات للأول لم يكن أيضا داخلا في ماهية ذاته بل كان عارضا بالإضافة إليه وإن كان دائما له. ورب عارض لا يفارق أو يكون لازما لماهية ولا يصير بذلك مقوما لذاته. وإذا كان عارضا كان تابعا للذات وكان الذات سببا فيه فكان معلولا، فكيف يكون واجب الوجود؟