Moreover, there is another question here: Is rest an existing state opposed to motion, or is it the absence of motion in something capable of moving? There are two well-known views on this. If it is merely an absence, it requires no cause.
He said:
“As for his method of establishing that the Creator acts by choice, it consists of two arguments:
“First: If He necessitated His effects by His very essence, the world could not be separate from Him. This would entail either that the world has existed from eternity or that the Creator—exalted is He—came into being.
“Second: If He necessitated His effects by His very essence, no change would occur in the world, since His enduring existence would entail the enduring existence of His effect. Otherwise, one alternative would prevail over another without a determining factor. The enduring existence of His effect would, in turn, entail the enduring existence of that effect’s effect, and so on, until the enduring existence of all effects necessarily followed.”
Al-Abharī said:
“Objection: As for the first argument, we do not concede that beginninglessness has been ruled out. The weakness of the proof he cited has already been discussed.
“As for the second, we do not concede that, if He necessitated His effects by His very essence, His effects would necessarily endure. That would follow only if all His effects were capable of enduring, for motion is among His effects, and motion cannot persist.”
One might reply:
Al-Abharī’s objection here is weak.
Regarding the first argument, it may be said: Grant that the argument he presented to rule out beginninglessness is weak. The weakness of a particular proof, however, does not entail the falsity of what it seeks to establish. You yourself have demonstrated the weakness of the philosophers’ proof that the world has existed from eternity. If their claim that He necessitates His effects by His very essence entails that the world has existed from eternity, and they have no proof of the latter, then their claim likewise has no proof.