If it is said:

“If you maintain that He has always spoken by His will, this entails the existence of speech without a beginning. And if He has always spoken, He must continue to do so forever; thus, He speaks with speech that has no end. This entails the existence of an infinite number of temporal events, for every word preceded by another comes into existence in time. Yet the existence of an infinite number is impossible.”

The reply is:

“This implication is correct.” Indeed, they affirm that Allah’s words have no end, as He, the Most High, says:

“Say, ‘If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought the like of it as a supplement.’”

As for their assertion that the existence of an infinite number of temporal events is impossible, this rests on their proof that the world and bodies came into existence: bodies are never free of temporal events, and whatever is never free of temporal events must itself have come into existence. This proof is invalid according to both reason and revelation. It is the foundation of the speculative theology condemned by the early generations and the imams, and the foundation of the position of the Jahmiyyah, who deny the divine attributes. Its invalidity has been demonstrated elsewhere. Nevertheless, we shall explain, if Allah wills, that once the truth in this proof is distinguished from its falsehood, it demonstrates that everything other than Allah came into existence and supports the position of the early generations.

Their error lay in their assertion: “Everything that is never free of temporal events—that is, contingent things dependent on another—must itself have come into existence.” They adopted this as a “universal proposition” and used it to draw a false analogy between the Creator and created beings. Likewise, those others asserted, “Whatever is receptive to something cannot be devoid of both it and its opposite,” adopting this as a “universal proposition.”

Error in “analogical reasoning” arises from likening something to what differs from it, and from formulating a universal proposition on the basis of a shared feature without distinguishing between its two categories. This, then, is “false analogical reasoning”