the eight conditions. Yet he has conceded in his answer that vision necessarily occurs when these conditions are met. These two arguments thus indicate that vision is not impossible when some of the eight conditions are absent. Since he has offered no evidence whatsoever that this requirement does not apply, his opponents’ appeal to necessary knowledge, and their argument that the object seen must face either the observer or the observer’s visual organ, remain unchallenged. Their conclusion must therefore be accepted. This is plain and clear.

Since his debate with those who deny the vision of Allah was so weak, their arguments on this issue were stronger than his. This is his habitual approach: he is unable to debate those who uphold falsehood, so he takes their arguments and uses them against those who uphold the truth. He neither does justice to those who uphold the truth and follows them, nor refutes and counters those who uphold falsehood. Instead, he merely engages in disputation and argument, mingling truth with falsehood in his dealings with both groups. Such being the case, he has no answer to the point on which the Muʿtazilah and the Karrāmiyyah agree, as discussed above.

The eighth point is to say that what the Muʿtazilah have stated regarding the conditions of vision