through the separate mover, which is an object of love and desire. At most, this establishes that an object of love and desire must exist, and that the moving body cannot exist without it. Yet the mere existence of a separate object of love does not suffice to account for the existence of a contingent body that is not necessary in itself, the existence of its nature, or its need for an originator to bring this about. Nor does it provide evidence for the existence of an originator of all this. Rather, they contented themselves with the existence of a separate object of desire.

Here the ignorance and misguidance of these people become evident to anyone who reflects upon the actual statements found in their books and transmitted by their followers. We ourselves do not know Greek, nor have their statements been transmitted through a chain whose transmitters are known. Rather, this is the account transmitted by the leading authorities among their followers, who revere them and defend them by every means.

They have transmitted this to us and translated it into Arabic, stating that they have explained and clarified it, formulated it, and made it accessible so that reason would accept rather than reject it. What, then, if those men’s words were taken as they stand? They would reveal an ignorance of Allah far greater than what appears in the words of those who embellish their teachings.

There is no doubt that the philosophers who follow Aristotle become less ignorant and more knowledgeable in proportion to the means available to them for setting their reason and inquiry aright. The more knowledgeable a person is about the teachings of the prophets, and the closer he is to them, the sounder his reason and inquiry.

Thus, some of Ibn Sīnā’s statements are better than those of Thābit ibn Qurra, and some statements of Abū al-Barakāt, the author of al-Mu'tabar, are better than those of Ibn Sīnā.

Aristotle’s own statements on divine matters are inferior to those of all these men.