in a spatial direction, is impossible. This would imply that the Lord is in a spatial direction when intending to create accidents, which is impossible.

The claim that, if He may create some temporal events within His essence, He may create every temporal event is a mere assertion and an analogy without a shared basis. It is invalid, as we explained earlier when examining the proof.

As for the second objection, it ultimately amounts to requiring that purpose and wisdom be observed in Allah’s actions, which is inconsistent with our principles. If it is intended to bind the opponent by his own premises, he may not accept it. Even if he does, declaring him mistaken in holding that temporal events subsist in the essence of the Lord, exalted is He, on the grounds that his view concerning the observance of wisdom must be deemed correct, is no more justified than the reverse.

I say: The substance of this argument comes from eternalist philosophers such as Ibn Sīnā and others like him, who maintain that nothing comes into being from the Lord after not having existed. Hence this argument is used to deny temporal events separate from Him, just as it is used to deny temporal events connected with Him. The argument is that whatever necessitates the coming into being of