knowledge of it arises when the intellect reaches maturity. This is neither our position nor that of this objector. Some rational people may indeed doubt the necessity of this dependence if they turn away from the methods of reasoning and inference that lead to knowledge that an act necessarily depends upon an agent. This being so, there is nothing objectionable in our shaykh’s approach—may Allah be pleased with him—of presenting evidence that a human being does not bring himself into existence, but has an originator other than himself, and that a created thing must depend upon a creator. Since this is known only through inference, it appears that he merely intended to acquaint the learner with the reasoning that led those who agreed on this matter to affirm that an act necessarily depends upon an agent, and with the grounds for their agreement. What fault could anyone find with this, were it not for extreme ignorance and thinking ill of the shaykhs?!

“Moreover, this objector’s criticism is plainly mistaken, for he demanded that the man establish proof of the temporal origination of bodies before establishing the existence of their originator.

“By my life, this order must be followed by someone who intends to demonstrate both matters. But someone who intends to establish only one of them—namely, that an originated thing depends upon the existence of an originator—is not obliged to do so, since he intended to discuss one of the two questions, not the other.”

He said:

“He may indeed discuss what this objector demanded of him concerning the existence of accidents and the temporal origination of bodies in more than one book, in a manner that would not escape anyone who