Furthermore, those who needed only to rule out infinite regress, without ruling out circular dependence, are nearer the mark than those who needed to rule out both, as al-Rāzī and others did, believing that the proof could not be completed otherwise.

Those who ruled out infinite regress are, in turn, better than those who acknowledged their inability to do so, as al-Āmidī did.

Moreover, although Abū al-Husayn’s approach is sounder, clearer, and nearer the mark than theirs, the approach of Judge Abū Bakr ibn al-Tayyib, Judge Abū Yaʿlā, Abū al-Maʿālī al-Juwaynī, Ibn ʿAqīl, Abū al-Hasan ibn al-Zāghūnī, and others like them is better than his.

[Abū al-Hasan al-Basrī’s discussion of establishing an originator for the world]

For he said:

“Once it has been established that the world came into existence, the proof that it has an originator is as follows: either it came into existence while it was possible for it not to do so, or it necessarily came into existence.

“If it came into existence necessarily, there would have been no reason for it to come into existence at that time rather than earlier. Its coming into existence could therefore be assigned to no particular time, since it was necessary in itself. If, however, it came into existence while it was possible for it not to do so, there would have been no reason for it to come into existence rather than not, were it not for something that necessitated its coming into existence.

“We shall demonstrate that He possesses knowledge and power; thus our contention is established.”

He said:

“Our masters—may Allah have mercy on them—argued that bodies require an originator on the grounds that our actions require an originator because they come into existence. Thus, the coming into existence of