or, if they say that the Lord cannot be devoid of both speech and will and their opposite, that opposite must be either beginningless or newly arising. If the former, the beginningless existent would necessarily cease to exist when its opposite arises. This is impossible, both by agreement and by the proof to be presented below. If the latter, the same argument applies to that opposite as to the first occurrence. This would entail a succession of newly arising occurrences in the Lord, Exalted is He, such that He could never be devoid of one of them. Yet successive newly arising occurrences must be finite, as established earlier in proving the existence of the Necessary Existent; and whatever is never devoid of newly arising occurrences must necessarily itself have originated.

[Ibn Taymiyya’s Commentary]

The response is:

One might say: In their view, the counterpart of the newly arising occurrence and newly arising will is newly arising hearing and seeing.

For they say that when audible and visible things exist, what they call acts of hearing and seeing arise anew. This newly arising occurrence corresponds to that newly arising occurrence. They hold that He can be devoid of both such an occurrence and its general opposite, unlike hearing and sight themselves. In their view, these correspond to the attributes of being a speaker and possessing will, and they hold that He is never devoid of being a speaker