in kind for a created being—subject to lordship, causation, and governance—has been acquired only from its Creator, Lord, and Governor, who is therefore more entitled to it than that being; and that, if any intrinsic deficiency or defect—which entails the absence of this perfection—must be denied of the Lord, blessed and exalted is He, this is so a fortiori. He has a greater claim to what pertains to existence than any other existent being, whereas what pertains to nonexistence is more fitting for a contingent, originated being; and so forth.

Such methods were employed by the early generations and the leading scholars in inquiries of this kind. Similar methods were used by Imam Ahmad and the leading scholars of Islam before and after him. Likewise, the Quran employs such reasoning to establish the foundations of religion concerning divine oneness, the divine attributes, resurrection, and similar matters.

For example, when He, glorified is He, announced the resurrection—knowledge of which depends upon knowing that it is possible, since what is impossible cannot occur—He explained its possibility with the utmost clarity. He did not follow the approach adopted by certain groups of speculative theologians, who establish possibility in external reality merely on the basis of mental possibility. They say:

“This is possible because, if its existence were supposed, no impossibility would follow from that supposition.”

Yet this very premise is the point at issue: how is it known that no impossibility would follow from supposing its existence? This is a universal negative proposition, so the universality of that negation must be known.