Moreover, he raised an objection to the argument by which he sought to establish the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes in Daqā’iq al-Haqā’iq (The Subtleties of Realities), and admitted that he had no answer to it. If he has acknowledged that his argument against an infinite regress of causes faces an objection he cannot answer, what, then, of his argument against an infinite regress of newly occurring things?

It is well known that rational people agree in rejecting an infinite regress of causes, but disagree over rejecting an infinite regress of newly occurring things. If he has no rational proof against the former, then he is even less able to establish the latter.

The objection he raised applies to both kinds of regress. We have already mentioned it and given its answer. Its substance is:

“Why could the totality of an endless series of effects, although contingent in itself, not nevertheless be necessary by virtue of the necessity of its successive members, each of which is necessary by virtue of what precedes it?”

Although this is invalid, the point is to draw attention to how someone who departs from the Quran and Sunnah, claiming to defend the foundations of religion through rational argument, neglects an obligation of this kind concerning the most fundamental principles of religion. Meanwhile, he establishes matters that religion does not need, or matters that contradict what is established as belonging to religion.

Likewise, someone who makes statements of this kind and claims to discuss rational matters displays shortcomings, indecision, and perplexity concerning the most important matters accessible to reason. Yet he rigorously establishes rational matters for which there is little need, or which merely serve as a means to something else, while failing to establish the very objective those means are intended to achieve.