and existent, with its action depending on nothing external to it, why have diverse things proceeded from it? Why have newly occurring things come after it? Whatever answer you give to this would serve, with even greater force, as their answer concerning newly occurring things.

As for those who say that acts connected with the power and will of the Necessary Existent in Himself subsist in Him, they say:

The coming into being of whatever comes into being depends upon those acts, which depend upon what precedes them, since you allow an infinite regress.

Then it is said:

Either an infinite regress is possible or it is not. If it is possible, the acts upon which the existence of those effects depends may form an infinite regress. If it is not possible, it follows that originated things must have a beginning as a class. The claim that there are newly occurring things with no first member is then invalidated—which contradicts your position.

Furthermore, concerning his statement, “If something can remain in the same state,” there are only two possibilities: either diverse, newly occurring things can proceed from it, with or without an intermediary, or they cannot.

If they cannot, it follows that these newly occurring things do not proceed from a simple cause, either with or without an intermediary. This invalidates their position.

In that case, either it must be said that these newly occurring things have no originator—which is necessarily known to be false—or it must be said that their originator is not devoid of attributes and acts. Rather, He has attributes and acts, as the Muslims maintain, and this is the truth.

If diverse and newly originated things can proceed from something simple, then something that had not previously proceeded from it may come into being through it. In that case, it need not be an effect inseparably accompanying it.

[Al-Rāzī’s discussion in his Commentary on al-Ishārāt]

Al-Rāzī said in his commentary on this passage:

“Know that the purpose of this