I say:

Establishing spatial states on the basis of a body’s capacity for motion and rest is irrefutable, for a body that continues to exist must be either in motion or at rest. Coming together and separation, however, rest upon affirming the existence of the indivisible atom, a matter of extensive and well-known dispute. Those who deny its existence do not say that a body is composed of such atoms, nor that substances were separate and then came together. Those who affirm its existence likewise cannot establish that substances were separate and then came together, for there is no evidence that the heavens consisted of separate substances that were subsequently brought together.

For this reason, he said in presenting his argument:

“By the immediate intuition of reason, we know that substances capable of coming together and separating cannot be conceived as neither touching nor separate.”

This statement is correct. The issue, however, is establishing the existence of substances capable of coming together and separating. The argument he presents rests on the supposition that they were separate and then came together. This supposition is not known to be true; indeed, most rational people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, hold that it does not obtain in reality.

Abū al-Ma‘ālī then said:

“If we seek to refute the Mu‘tazilah concerning the matters on which they disagree with us, we rely on two points. The first is to invoke the consensus that substances cannot be devoid of accidents after having received them.

“We therefore say: Every enduring accident ceases to exist in its substrate when its opposite arises. The opposite, however, arises only when the accident it eliminates is nonexistent