the distinction—then the argument must be invalid. Thus, either a premise of the argument is false or the argument is refuted by a counterexample; either invalidates it. This is clear.

Al-Rāzī said:
“Third: Abraham’s statement, ‘I do not love those that set’ (al-An‘ām: 67), indicates that whatever undergoes change cannot be a god.”

One may reply: If Abraham, peace and blessings be upon him, used setting as evidence that it was not the Lord of the worlds, it follows that he was not denying its being subject to originated events. For setting means disappearing and becoming hidden, according to the consensus of scholars of Quranic exegesis and language; this meaning is self-evident from the language. When it rose, he said:

“This is my Lord.”

If he did not deny its lordship from the time it rose until it set, this shows that he did not regard its motion as incompatible with lordship; rather, he regarded its setting as incompatible with it. If, however, Abraham, peace and blessings be upon him, used setting only as evidence that it was unfit to be taken as a lord, associated with Allah and invoked besides Him, then this does not address Allah’s actions at all. Thus, Abraham’s account is either evidence against them or evidence neither for nor against them.

Al-Rāzī said:
“They argued that the proof that speech and hearing