He was not previously so characterized, by unanimous agreement. For when a newly arising thing exists, it is correct to say that the Lord Most High exists together with that existent. If that newly arising thing is assumed not to exist, this togetherness ceases, and thus a negative attribute arises for Him that did not previously apply.”

[Ibn Taymiyyah’s commentary]

I say: He has mentioned that by “newly arising” they mean something that exists after not existing, whether it subsists in itself, like a substance, or is an attribute of something else, like accidents ن. He calls things that have no existence, such as states, negations, and relative attributes, “newly occurring.” This distinction is merely terminological; otherwise, there is no difference in meaning between “newly occurring” and “newly arising.”

Moreover, some of those who affirm states hold that they exist. They say that states can be known in dependence on something else, and that their existence can likewise depend on something else.

They disagree with Abū Hāshim’s statement that states are neither known nor unknown, neither existent nor nonexistent.

Furthermore, according to the philosophers, relations and relative attributes may have actual existence. As for the doctrines, it may be said that, in the Arabic language, the terms “newly arising things” and “newly occurring things” encompass many things, and in ordinary usage they may convey, or misleadingly suggest