from the successors of the Successors. Nor does he have any verse or hadith supporting him in this, while the explicit statements of the imams renowned within the Muslim community contradict it. He therefore went on to report that the hadith scholars, whom he labelled as likening Allah to His creation, held this position. Although he mentioned this to disparage them, it shows that the followers of the prophets disagreed on the matter.

As for his claim that the world’s coming into existence cannot be established without refuting this position, his opponents say:

The reverse is true. Affirming what the messengers conveyed—that Allah Most High created the heavens, the earth, and everything between them in six days—is incompatible with this position and requires its opposite. For refuting this entails one of the two alternatives for something contingent being favoured without a determining factor, the totality of events coming into existence without a newly occurring cause, and the agent beginning to act after not having acted, without any cause that made him act. Indeed, what this position really entails is that he became capable after not having been capable, without any cause, and that action became possible without any cause. This is impossible according to the self-evident principles of reason.

It was on this basis that the Dahriyya assailed the speculative theologians who followed this path. When they saw that this position was untenable in the light of clear reason, and supposed it to be the position of the messengers and their followers, they believed that the messengers—may Allah’s blessings be upon them—had conveyed things contrary to clear reason.

Then those who thought well of them said: “They did this for the benefit of the masses, since they could not address them with the unvarnished truth; so they lied for the benefit of the masses.” Thus these people came to view what the prophets brought with suspicion, and it became impossible for them to