Third: One may say that calling a thing “past” or “future” is only a relative designation made by the one who is speaking. Whatever took place before his speech is labelled “past,” and whatever occurs after it is labelled “future.” Similarly, when each is viewed in relation to the other, the past is past with respect to what is to come, and the future is future with respect to what has elapsed. Every past event was once future, and every future event will in time be past. Therefore, the distinction does not arise from any intrinsic property of the two classes such that one could be judged possible and the other impossible. This past event was once future, and this future event will become past; thus all occurrences possess both pastness and futurity, and nothing essential to the two classes necessitates drawing a distinction between them. A fuller discussion of this point belongs elsewhere (1).

What concerns us here is that this doctrine—the doctrine that Paradise and Hell will ultimately cease to exist—was unknown among the early generations: the Companions, the Successors who followed them in excellence, and the leading scholars of the Muslims. Those who advanced it did not do so on the basis of the Messenger’s words, his instruction and clarification, or any rational analogy he indicated. Rather, they articulated it by means of an analogy fashioned by their own intellects, and in reality it is erroneous (2). Yet the matter became confused for many scholastic theologians, who deemed it correct and on its basis concluded that whatever is not devoid of events must be originated, indeed that anything in which events occur must of necessity be originated ⦗13/b⦘.

For that very reason they asserted that the Qur’an is created—as is every other utterance of God—and that it is impossible for God to have been eternally speaking whenever He wills. Upon the same foundation they went on to deny the divine attributes, claiming that such attributes are merely accidents.