and those who espouse them oppose both reason and revelation, like the people of the Fire who said:

“If only we had been listening or reasoning, we would not have been among the companions of the Blaze.”
[al-Mulk: 10]

Such is the case with all religious innovations that contradict the texts of the prophets: they contradict both revelation and reason. How much more so, then, the innovations of the Jahmiyyah, who deny the divine attributes, which originate in the discourse of those who reject the messengers.

A detailed refutation of these arguments, showing that revelation cannot be established without refuting them, is set out elsewhere. Here, however, we shall touch upon this as we complete our discussion. We say:

[The Invalidity of the Argument from the Temporal Origination of Motions and Accidents. The Nineteenth Argument]

The Invalidity of the Argument from the Temporal Origination of Motions and Accidents

The Nineteenth Argument

These objections rest on the notion of composition, whose invalidity has already been indicated. As for the argument from the temporal origination of motions and accidents, we say:

The philosophers have raised their well-known objection against them. Most rational people regard their answer to it, based on their own premises, as self-evidently invalid.

For either it proceeded from its source through a newly occurring cause necessitating its occurrence, or it did not. If no newly occurring cause necessitating its occurrence proceeded from that source, this would entail a contingent possibility being actualized without a determining factor, which is self-evidently impossible. If a cause did arise from that source, then the question of how that cause originated is the same as the question of how anything else originated. This entails the infinite regress that all rational people agree is impossible, unlike the regress over which there is disagreement,