In brief, it has been remarked that most intellectual disputes arise from the ambiguity of shared terms, and this has been discussed at length elsewhere.

As for the approach of those who base their denial (of the divine attributes) on the premise that every body is originated, the leading scholars of the religious communities—as well as the foremost philosophers—contested their claim that an eternal series of events is impossible. They argued that such a claim contradicts both reason and revelation. “You maintain,” they said, “that by this line of argument you establish the world’s origination and thereby prove the existence of the Maker. Yet in fact it undercuts your very goal, for it can succeed only by positing an essence utterly devoid of action, acting without any cause whatsoever. This would entail preferring one of two identical possibilities without a determinant, thereby blocking the proof of a Creator altogether.”

They went on: “The evidences you cite to show that an endless succession of acts and events in the past is impossible rebound against you with respect to the future, and there is no rational distinction between the two. Every past moment was once future, and every future moment must inevitably become past. The difference between past and future is merely relative to the moment that is ‘present’ and to the observer situated in that moment: what has elapsed is past for him, and what is yet to come is future for him. There is no doubt that the past is now nonexistent and the future has not yet come into existence; the one came to be and then ceased, the other will come to be and will then cease. Both therefore belong to the class of contingent existents, and neither enjoys everlasting existence.”

They added: “For this reason, when the leading figures of your own school recognized the futility of distinguishing between past and future, they treated the two alike—namely, Jahm ibn Ṣafwān, the head of the Jahmiyyah, and Abū al-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf, the…"