“Rest is the opposite of motion, so whatever can receive either cannot be devoid of both.”

These others say:

“Rest is not a positively existing opposite; rather, it is a privative state. What positively exists is origination and annihilation. Were He capable of having origination and annihilation subsist in Him, He would be capable of having positively existing opposites subsist in Him; and whatever can receive something cannot be devoid of both it and its opposite.”

When their opponents sought to refute their position, their principal argument was to demonstrate the inconsistencies in their statements, as Abū al-Ma'ālī and his followers did. Al-Āmidī likewise identified numerous inconsistencies in their position, which have been discussed elsewhere. At most, the arguments of these two demonstrate their inconsistency, not the soundness of their opponents’ position.

There is also a large group who say that temporal events subsist in Him and cease to exist, and that He spoke to Moses with a voice which subsequently ceased to exist. This is the position of the leading scholars of the Sunnah and hadith, among the early generations and others. I believe the Karrāmiyyah hold two views on this. Otherwise, the claim that the voice with which He spoke to Moses ceases to exist is of the same kind as the claim that it is beginningless. The latter is maintained by some theologians, hadith scholars, and jurists among the Sālimiyyah and others, including some Hanbalīs, Shāfi'īs, and Mālikīs. They say that He spoke to Moses with a voice that Moses heard, and that this voice is beginningless.

The falsity of this view is immediately evident to reason. The same applies to the view that He spoke to him with a voice that came into being, and that this voice remains forever, as do all the other temporal events that subsist in Him. These are views whose falsity is self-evident.