he sees of craftsmanship in them to chance and spontaneous occurrence.”

I said:

Although this man is a leading philosopher who holds their method in high esteem and pays particular attention to the approach of the Peripatetic philosophers, such as Aristotle and his followers, he explains that the rational proofs establishing the Maker have no need of the methods introduced by the Muʿtazilites and those who agreed with them among the Ashʿarites and others, such as the argument from accidents. He also explains that the methods of revelation brought by the Quran are demonstrative methods that yield certain knowledge for both ordinary people and the learned elite—and he includes philosophers among the latter. By contrast, the methods employed by those others, despite their length and difficulty, yield certain knowledge for neither ordinary people nor the learned elite.

Even though he recognizes the Quran’s worth, he has not comprehensively surveyed the kinds of argument it contains. The Quran explains matters pertaining to God through various methods, employing the most perfect methods of argument, as has been discussed at length elsewhere.

His statement that the Messenger was not sent to call people to these Muʿtazilite methods—such as the argument from accidents, which rests on the impossibility of a beginningless succession of events—and that the early generations of this community did not use them to attain knowledge of Allah is immediately evident to anyone familiar with the circumstances of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, his Companions, and the early generations, and to anyone who reflects upon the Quran and hadith.

Every accomplished theologian, such as al-Ashʿarī and others, knows this, as the words of al-Ashʿarī quoted earlier demonstrate.

As for whether these Muʿtazilite methods—such as the arguments from accidents, composition, and particularization—are demonstrative or not, and whether they yield certain knowledge or do not