one.

Nevertheless, the weakness of your argument for refuting their position has already been shown. The distinction between the two groups, however, is that one posits more than one Maker, thus affirming a plurality of makers. The other, when affirming an uncaused underlying basis and material, does not regard it as an agent or maker, but as receptive to the agent’s action. They maintain that the agent responsible for the world is necessary in Himself.

This group includes those who shared their position, such as Ibn Zakariyyā the medical practitioner, who held: “The eternal entities are five, and the world came into being because of the soul’s love for prime matter.” These thinkers affirm the eternity of the world’s matter, its space, its time, and the soul.

Ibn Sīnā had mentioned this position, as well as that of the Magians, who affirm the eternity of light and darkness. These two positions resemble one another in certain respects: according to one, the world came into being through the mingling of light and darkness; according to the other, it arose from the soul’s love for prime matter. He then mentioned the position of the speculative theologians and that of his own associates, thus mentioning only these four positions.

As for the position of the leading philosophers and their ancient masters, he did not mention it, just as he did not mention the position of the prophets and the early generations of the Muslim community.

It may therefore be said: The position of the majority of philosophers is that the world’s underlying basis is caused by the Necessary Existent Himself, while the world’s form nevertheless came into being. Thus, they do not posit multiple necessary existents, nor do they affirm the eternity of the world, nor do they maintain that its material is not