them into profound ignorance and an inability to establish by argument that which is most firmly established and most certain in existence, supported by the most numerous and compelling proofs, more deserving of being known than anything else, and most entitled to be firmly rooted in the innate disposition, perpetually present in the hearts, and known through the most perfect means by which knowledge can be acquired.

The purpose here is to discuss the method mentioned by Abū al-Hasan: it is more direct and sounder than the method followed by certain Muʿtazilites and those who agreed with them, such as al-Qādī Abū Bakr and others like him. It is a sound method whose validity no well-known group has disputed, provided that it confines itself to the coming into being of things known to have come into being, such as human beings, plants, and other originated things.

But if this method requires establishing that all bodies have come into being through the argument from accidents, or if it is claimed that the coming into being of human beings and the like can only be established through such a method, then the majority of rational thinkers among both the religious communities and the philosophers dispute its validity. This is then among the speculative theology condemned by the early generations and the imams.

The further those who oppose the sound, direct paths grounded in innate disposition, reason, and revelation depart from them, the more they praise those who agree with them in that departure. Thus, these people reversed their treatment of the two premises: they agreed with Abū al-Hasan on the innovated, false premise, while censuring him—or making excuses for him—over the self-evident, sound premise supported by revelation.

[Continuation of al-Ashʿarī’s discussion in al-Lumaʿ]

Abū al-Hasan said:
“If someone says, ‘What grounds have you for denying that the drop of semen