deliberately, as he stated in his Epistle to al-Thaghr, and he condemned and criticized this approach.

The transformation and change of the seminal drop that he described are directly witnessed and perceived by the senses; no person of sound reason disputes them. This holds whether or not that transformation is called an accident, and whether that accident is said to be distinct from the body or not. The transformation is directly observed to come into being; establishing this does not require disproving the latency or transference of accidents.

The argument, however, ultimately rests on a single premise: whatever originated events subsist in is itself originated. This rests on the claim that whatever they subsist in has never been free of them, and that whatever does not precede originated events is itself originated.

These premises are famously disputed. Most people among the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Magians, Sabians, and polytheists reject them. Even most philosophers, ancient and later, whether they hold the world to be eternal or originated, reject them.

The majority, who hold that God created the heavens and the earth after they had not existed as created things, do not regard establishing this as dependent on that premise. Indeed, they say that their creation can only be established by affirming the contrary of that premise.

The same applies to the position that God is the Creator of all things, that He alone is eternal, and that everything besides Him is originated and preceded by nonexistence, as maintained by the religious communities. The leading authorities among the majority of rational people say that this does not require that premise; rather, it can only be established by affirming its contrary and declaring it invalid.

They say that