This line of reasoning constitutes an independent proof that everything in the universe is originated. It proceeds from the fact that each thing is contingent, brought about by something other than itself, and therefore not necessary in its own essence. The earlier proof was based on the contingency of a thing inasmuch as it is inseparably linked to temporal events. Once it is recognized that a thing stands in need of its Originator—Who alone is necessary in Himself—it becomes certain that the thing is created; for the act of an Agent can be nothing but something temporally produced, whether in its particular instance or in its very kind. Moreover, whatever is inextricably connected to temporal events cannot be brought forth by the Agent apart from those events; and an Agent who produces temporal events cannot be one who acts by the sheer necessity of His essence such that His effect is inseparable from Him. Whatever effect is not inseparable from its particular producer cannot be eternal. Consequently, nothing in the cosmos is eternal.

Anyone who reflects on the statements of the naturalists who claim the eternity of the celestial spheres among the so-called “divine philosophers”—Aristotle, his followers, and others—will find that they have no proof whatsoever for the pre-eternity of any part of the universe, whether the spheres or anything else. All they offer are arguments that at most point to the perpetual agency of the Agent, and the like.

Those who debated these philosophers from among the dialecticians—whose speculative theology the early generations condemned—based their position on the notion that the Lord had always been devoid of speech and action, unable to speak or to act, and that, without anything new occurring in Him, He subsequently became able to speak and to act although previously unable.

This premise lies at the root of the doctrines of the Jahmites, the Muʿtazilites, and the Karramites; it is likewise the foundation adopted by the Kullābiyya and the Ashʿarites. Yet, with respect to the Divine Speech and the attributes of God Most High, these latter two groups forged a path unique to themselves—one followed neither by the Salaf, the leading Imams, and the people of Hadith, nor by the Muʿtazilites, as their own statements make clear.

For this reason, among the points for which people censured the Kullābiyya was their claim that the Lord had not been