the daily motion would depend on the completion of an infinite succession. Completing an infinite succession is impossible, and whatever depends on the impossible is itself impossible.

Furthermore, if it were in motion, every motion would be preceded by another, with no first motion; this is impossible.

Furthermore, the motions extending from the daily motion back into beginningless eternity form one series, while those extending from the motion preceding the daily motion back into beginningless eternity form another. The two series are then matched term for term: the first term of the second series is paired with the first term of the first series, the second with the second, and so on. Either they correspond indefinitely or they do not. If they correspond, the larger series would equal the smaller. If they do not, the second series must terminate. If the second series terminates, the first must also terminate, since the first exceeds the second by only one term.”

He then discussed the supposition that it was at rest. This is the argument mentioned earlier in al-Rāzī’s discussion.

Anyone who carefully studies the books of the theologians, whether Muʿtazilites or others, on the temporal origination of bodies will know that this is their principal argument.

[Al-Abharī’s remarks and Ibn Taymiyyah’s commentary on them]

Al-Abharī said:

“The objection to his statement, ‘This entails both being preceded by something else and not being preceded by anything else,’ is as follows.

We say: We do not concede this. Both would hold together only if the same thing were both preceded by something else and not preceded by anything else. But that is not the case: only motion is preceded by something else, whereas the body is what is not preceded by anything else. Thus, being preceded and not being preceded need not hold together in the same thing.”

I say:

This objection is open to question. However, the earlier objection—namely,