He said (1): The proof that their assertion is false is this: were the divine Essence to admit temporal events, it would not be free of them. This follows from what has already been established concerning substances, namely our conclusion that it is impossible for them to be stripped of accidents. Now, whatever is not free of events cannot precede them (2); and that inevitably leads to judging the Maker Himself to be temporal (3).

He said (4): This line of argument, however, cannot be maintained on Muʿtazilite principles. They allow—as we have already indicated in detail—that substances may exist without accidents, and they posit ever-renewing determinations for the very Essence of the Lord, exalted is He, consisting of temporal volitions that, according to them, subsist in no loci (5). What also prevents them (6) from carrying the argument through in this question is that, if the renewal of determinations pertaining to the Essence (7) is not precluded and does not (8) imply temporality (9), then there is no reason to deny that the very accidents themselves might befall the Essence.

He said (10): The Karrāmiyyah maintain: Your position—that you affirm a created utterance while denying that the Lord (11) is qualified by it—is self-contradictory, for if it were permissible for a meaning to subsist in a locus that is absent (12)