The Muʿtazila, such as Abū al-Husayn and others, said:

“The Messenger’s truthfulness is known through the miracle. The miracle is recognized as such because Allah, Most High, does not manifest it at the hands of a liar. This is known because manifesting it at the hands of a liar would be morally reprehensible, and Allah is exalted above doing anything reprehensible. His freedom from reprehensible acts is known because He has no need of them and knows their reprehensible nature; whoever has no need of something and knows it to be reprehensible does not do it. His self-sufficiency is known because He is not a body, and His not being a body is known through the negation of attributes. Thus, if attributes subsisted in Him, He would be a body; if He were a body, He would not be self-sufficient. If He were not self-sufficient, doing something reprehensible would not be impossible for Him. We could therefore have no assurance that He would not manifest a miracle at the hands of a liar, and we would be left with no way of knowing the Messenger’s truthfulness.”

This reasoning and others like it form the foundation of the religion of the Muʿtazila and those among the Shia who agree with them.

Likewise, Abū ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Khatīb and others like him established the existence of the Maker through four approaches, three of which rest on two foundational principles. Sometimes they spoke of six approaches, five of which rest on the two principles previously discussed concerning the philosophers’ conception of divine oneness and that of the Muʿtazila.

For he said: “The argument for the existence of the Maker proceeds either from contingency or from temporal origination.” Each of these concerns either the essence or the attributes; sometimes they added: “Or both.”

The first approach establishes the contingency of the body on the basis of the argument from composition, which is the foundational argument of the philosophers.

The second demonstrates its temporal origination on the basis of the argument from the temporal origination of movements and accidents, which is the foundational argument of the Muʿtazila.

The third argues from the contingency of attributes, on the basis that bodies are alike in their essential nature.

The fourth argues from the contingency of both together.

The fifth argues from the temporal origination of attributes. This is the approach mentioned in the Quran.

The sixth argues from the temporal origination of bodies and their attributes, and rests on what has already been discussed.

All six approaches are based on the body, except the approach he called the temporal origination of attributes, by which he means what Allah brings into being in the world: animals, plants, minerals, clouds