everything that comes into existence makes it dependent on an originator. Since bodies have come into existence, they therefore require an originator.”

He said:

“The proof that our actions require an originator is that, if they came into existence by themselves without an originator, they would occur even when we disliked them and were prevented from performing them. Since they occur in accordance with our intention and do not occur when we dislike them, we know that they depend on us.

“The proof that they depend on us because they come into existence is that they must depend on us either for their coming into existence, for their continued existence, or for their nonexistence. If they depended on us for their continued existence, a building would necessarily cease to exist when its builder died. Nor can they depend on us for their nonexistence, for our actions were nonexistent before we existed and before we possessed the power to perform them. It is therefore established that they depend on us to come into existence. Moreover, it is their coming into existence that occurs anew in accordance with our intention and will, and does not occur when we dislike them. We thus know that they depend on us precisely because they come into existence.”

[Ibn Taymiyyah’s commentary]

I say:

The approach of the Muʿtazilī masters to whom he referred is to infer that whatever comes into existence requires an originator by analogy with our actions, which require an originator because they come into existence.

Others besides the Muʿtazila, including followers of al-Asharī and others—even Abū al-Qāsim al-Qushayrī and Abū al-Wafā ibn Aqīl—also followed this approach and based their argument upon it.

As for the approach he himself presented, which he based on the division he mentioned, namely that