Section

We have already mentioned two principles:

First: The scriptural and rational arguments they cite in support of their doctrines actually support the position of the early generations and what the Quran and Sunnah teach. They do not support the innovations through which they have contradicted the Quran and Sunnah.

Second: The arguments they cite establish the opposite of what they intend and demonstrate the falsity of their position. This is a distinct matter: an argument supporting a position they do not hold is one thing; its establishing the opposite of their position and demonstrating its falsity is another.

This occurs in the arguments of both the philosophers and the speculative theologians. Examples among the philosophers include their arguments for the beginninglessness of the world or some part of it. They have argued from the four kinds of causes: efficient, final, material, and formal. Their principal argument concerns the efficient cause: it is impossible for Him to become an agent after not having been one; therefore, He must always have been acting. This is the chief argument relied upon by their later thinkers, such as Ibn Sīnā and others like him. I believe it was transmitted from Proclus.

Aristotle and his followers, however, do not employ this argument, since, in their view, He is not an agent. Rather,