which, in their view, would entail His having parts.

One curious example of this is what they have said concerning this question: the dependence of what comes into being on one who brings it into being. When Abū al-Hasan asked:

“What is the proof that creation has a Maker who made it and a Governor who ordered its affairs?”

and argued from the human being’s coming into existence, as mentioned earlier, Judge Abū Bakr interpreted his statement in two ways.

The first is that by “creation” he means assigning a measure. Every body has a measure, so the meaning would be: “What is the proof that every body has a particular measure assigned to it by one who determines its measure?” But al-Ash'arī did not intend this interpretation, nor did he base his discussion upon it. Indeed, he offered no proof for it.

The second is that “creation” means bringing into existence and originating: making something an actual entity after it had not been such.

This is the meaning he intended. However, one of the Mu'tazila—I believe it was Judge Abd al-Jabbār—objected that everyone who acknowledges something originated and created thereby acknowledges a Creator, and everyone who acknowledges something acted upon thereby acknowledges an agent. If it were conceded that a body is created, there would be no need to undertake a proof establishing the Maker and Creator.

And the aim of