This is what is understood by human will. The Creator, glorified be He, is far above having any attribute caused by something else. Thus, will can only be understood as action proceeding in conjunction with knowledge. As we have said, knowledge encompasses both opposites. Eternal knowledge therefore includes, in a certain respect, knowledge of both opposites. His bringing about one of the two opposites indicates that there is another attribute, namely that which is called will.”

I say:

Ibn Rushd is partisan towards the philosophers. His report that they affirm His will is like his report that they affirm His knowledge of created things. There is no doubt that both views are held by some of them. But attributing these views to all of them, or to the Peripatetics as a whole, is an obvious error.

It was Abū al-Barakāt and others like him who clearly defended the affirmation of both attributes. Ibn Rushd falls short of him in affirming them, and Ibn Sīnā falls short of both.

There is no doubt that Aristotle’s discussion of metaphysics is limited and contains many errors, whereas his discussion of natural philosophy is extensive and much of it is correct. These later philosophers discussed metaphysics more extensively, and they were more often correct in it than their predecessors, because they had gained access to the teachings of the adherents of revealed religions and the followers of the messengers, and to their reasoning and reflections on metaphysics. For there is a great disparity between the metaphysical discussions of these thinkers and those of Aristotle and his like.