after they come into existence: according to some, through additional knowledge; according to others, through that original knowledge.

This man, however, affirms only the knowledge that causes the two to exist, as his words below will show. In their view, this principle applies to both the necessary existent and the eternal. He, however, says that it applies specifically to what is temporally originated. Yet he offers no proof for this distinction beyond mere assertion.

He explained this in a separate discussion devoted to the question of knowledge, seeking thereby to defend the philosophers, of whom it has been said that they maintain that He knows universals but knows particulars only in a universal manner. He explained that they do hold that He knows particulars, but in this manner.

[Ibn Rushd’s Discussion in an Appendix on the Question of Eternal Knowledge, and Ibn Taymiyyah’s Response]

He said to his correspondent:

“Since, through your keen intellect and noble disposition, you have surpassed many who pursue these sciences, and your sound inquiry has led you to recognize the difficulty arising concerning eternal knowledge in its relation to temporally originated things, we are obliged, for the sake of truth and to remove your doubt and uncertainty, to see that this difficulty is resolved, after first setting it out. For unless one understands how the knot is tied, one cannot