 if you mean by the necessity of existence a fixed description of the necessary existence other than that it exists without a cause for its existence then it is not understood in itself. what is attributed to you from its wording is the denial of the cause for its existence which is a pure negation in which it cannot be said it is in itself or for a cause so that a purpose can be built upon establishing this division so it is evidence that this is a proof from a fool without a basis. rather we say the meaning of its being necessary existence is that it has no cause for its existence nor a cause for its being without a cause and its being without a cause is not also caused by itself rather there is no cause for its existence nor for its being without a cause at all.
وإن عنيتم بوجوب الوجود وصفا ثابتا لواجب الوجود سوى أنه موجود لا علة لوجوده، فهو غير مفهوم في نفسه. والذي ينسبك من لفظه نفى العلة لوجوده، وهو سلب محض لا يقال فيه إنه لذاته أو لعلة، حتى يبنى على وضع هذا التقسيم غرض، فدل أن هذا برهان من خرف لا أصل له. بل نقول معنى أنه واجب الوجود أنه لا علة لوجوده ولا علة لكونه بلا علة، وليس كونه بلا علة معللا أيضا بذاته بل لا علة لوجوده ولا لكونه بلا علة أصلا.