the path of Aristotle and his followers, who argued from motion that the motion of the celestial sphere is voluntary and that it moves in order to resemble an unmoving substance.

Those speculative theologians, however, say that Abraham argued from motion because whatever moves must be originated, since an infinite succession of motions is impossible.

Each group refutes the other’s method and demonstrates its inconsistency through rational proofs.

The truth is that Abraham followed neither path, nor did he argue from motion. Rather, he argued from setting—that is, disappearing and becoming hidden—as has been explained at length elsewhere. Whatever sets does not deserve to be worshipped. Hence he said:

“Indeed, I am free of what you worship * except the One who created me.”

And he said:

“Indeed, I have turned my face toward the One who created the heavens and the earth, in pure devotion, and I am not one of the polytheists.”

His people acknowledged the Lord, Most High, but associated partners with Him. Thus, his argument established the blameworthiness of associating partners with Allah, not the existence of the Maker.

Had the purpose been to establish the existence of the Maker, Abraham’s account would have been evidence against them, not for them. For from the time the star, the sun, and the moon rose until they set, they were