the purpose was to draw an analogy between those who say that He is everywhere and those who say that He is concomitant with existence, and to show that both positions, in reality, entail His dependence on created things and preclude His being necessarily existent. Even if the proponents of these positions also say that He is distinct from the world and above it, or that He precedes the world and is prior to it, their assertions have no substance. Rather, their position explicitly carries the aforementioned implication and belies their assertion. Those among them who say that He is neither within the world nor outside it are like those who say that He is neither before the world nor coexistent with it.

All these groups dispute His being the Lord and Creator of the worlds, and His being the God of the world, to whom worship is due. They affirm neither the reality of His lordship nor the reality of His divinity. Rather, they associate partners with Him, deny Him, and strip Him of His attributes. Nevertheless, the Jahmīs among the philosophers are more deeply steeped in associating partners with Allah and denying Him than the Jahmīs among the speculative theologians, since the latter are closer to the religion of the messengers who brought the manifest truth:

“Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. {180}
And peace be upon the messengers. {181}
And praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.” {182}
[al-Sāffāt 180-182]

We have explained elsewhere that their doctrine of the world’s eternity entails the eternity of all temporal occurrences, which contradicts observation. We have also explained that if they say He is a complete cause, nothing can originate from Him, whether through an intermediary or without one. For if the intermediary is eternal, its effect must also be eternal; and if it is temporally originated, the same argument applies to its origination as applies to the origination of whatever proceeds from it.