a body is never devoid of motion and rest throughout eternity.”

[Ibn Taymiyya’s Comment]

I say:

Rather, on the assumption that it is eternal, it cannot be devoid of motion and rest, since it must then either remain in a region or move out of it. The former is rest, and the latter is motion.

Al-Āmidī’s suggestion that it may be devoid of both under one of the two assumptions applies only on the assumption that it is temporally originated. It is clear that if, on the assumption of its eternity, it cannot be devoid of either, and both are impossible, then that assumption entails an impossibility: the conjunction of two contradictories. For if the two premises are sound, it follows that the body is temporally originated on the assumption that it is eternal. That is, if it were eternal, it would never be devoid of something temporally originated; and whatever is never devoid of temporally originated things is itself temporally originated.

What al-Āmidī has said applies only if it is asserted, without qualification, that a body is never devoid of motion and rest. In that case, it either is devoid of both or is not. If it is devoid of both, this can only occur when it first comes into existence, so it is temporally originated. If it is not devoid of both, it necessarily follows that it is temporally originated. Thus, its temporal origination follows under either assumption.

Elsewhere, we set out the objections that al-Āmidī and others like him raise against the arguments they have advanced, even though some of those objections are unsound. Nevertheless, everyone must be given his due, by speaking the truth and adhering to justice.