Ibn Rushd presented their method as clearly and effectively as he could. Yet, as you can see, it establishes at most that moving bodies need a commander to move them. What is meant by his commanding them to move is that he is beloved to them: they love to resemble him, not that they love his essence, as stated by his philosophical predecessors whose method he expounded. He likened him to a king issuing orders to his deputies beneath him in his kingdom. Each in turn commands those beneath him, and all their commands ultimately derive from the first commander.

It is well known that a commander has brought into being neither the beings he commands, nor their attributes, nor their acts. Moreover, a king who commands is conscious of his command and makes a demand of the one commanded. By contrast, something’s being loved and longed for, or loved for the sake of resembling it, involves no command being issued by a commander, no awareness of the one who loves and longs, and no demand that he perform an act.

Ibn Rushd argued that their commander is also their creator on the grounds that, if they existed by virtue of themselves—that is, if they were eternal, without a cause or anything bringing them into existence—it would be possible for them not to comply with anyone commanding them and subjecting them to his control, and not to obey him. The same would apply to the commanders in relation to the first commander. Since this is not possible for them, there must be a relationship between them and him that requires them to hear and obey. This amounts to nothing more than their belonging to him in their very existence, not in one of their accidents.