this premise entails that every existing thing is originated and that nothing eternal exists, although the falsity of this is self-evident.

As for the claim that whatever admits originated events has never been free of them, this is famously disputed among the theologians.

Then there is his statement, “Whatever does not precede originated events is itself originated.” The disagreements over this among the scholars of hadith, theologians, and philosophers are well known.

Some who dispute the first premise, such as the Karrāmiyya and others, may concede this one. Conversely, some scholars of hadith, philosophers, theologians, and others who do not dispute the first may dispute this one.

This is the premise that the Jahmiyya, the Muʿtazila, and those who agreed with them among the Ashʿariyya, the Karrāmiyya, and the followers of the four imams—Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Ahmad—made the foundation of religion.

Their early authorities took it for granted, considering it self-evident. They did not distinguish between what does not precede a particular originated event, or a bounded series of originated events with a beginning, and what does not precede originated events as a class.

Whatever does not precede a particular originated event, or a bounded series of originated events with a beginning, is necessarily originated. No rational person disputes this.

For if a particular thing is originated, whatever did not exist before it is necessarily originated like it, as he explained. For it is either subsequent to it. Whatever exists alongside an originated event or after it is