say, “Scriptural evidence establishes this, and they have not produced a rational proof negating it that is free of an equally strong counterargument.” The affirmers therefore do not need a rational proof agreeing with the scriptural evidence; it suffices for them to invalidate whatever opposes it. If they establish a rational proof and are challenged with the deniers’ arguments, they need not invalidate those arguments; countering them is sufficient. If they do invalidate them, they have closed every avenue to the deniers.

Thus, what the deniers require—establishing a rational proof and invalidating whatever opposes it—is among the things the affirmers have needed. Rather, it suffices for the affirmers to contest the premises of the opposing argument; if they invalidate them, they have gone further. Countering with rational arguments is sufficient; if they demonstrate that their rational arguments are stronger, they have gone further. If they demonstrate the soundness of their own rational arguments and the invalidity of the deniers’ rational arguments, while also possessing scriptural proofs, they have established that both scripture and reason support them, whereas their opponent has neither scripture nor reason on his side.

As for the affirmers’ proofs, these consist of the scriptural and rational arguments they adduce. They have also challenged the deniers’ proofs, thereby completing their case.

As for infinite succession, the Karrāmiyya and those who agree with them do not allow it, just as many of the Mu‘tazila and those who agree with them do not allow it. As for those who allow an infinite succession of effects—among hadith scholars, speculative theologians, philosophers, and others—their criticisms of the deniers’ proofs are well known, as are the deniers’ criticisms of the proofs of some of them; even the theologians among the affirmers