His Throne; it does not follow that He has always been established above His Throne. What we have said is analogous to this. If it is said, ‘His establishment above the Throne is an act of His, and it is impossible for an act to have existed eternally,’ he said: The reply is, ‘Creation is also an act of His, and it is impossible for creation to have existed eternally.’”

This discussion merely sets out the position of those who say that He became established above the Throne after not having been so, yet affirm that the attribute of bringing into being and creating is eternal and that He has always been a creator. He therefore pressed them with the following argument:

“We say concerning creation what both we and you say concerning establishment above the Throne.”

This is a weak answer for several reasons:

First: In reality, he does not hold that He became established above the Throne after not having been so—as he discussed with the sultan. Rather, He is now as He was. Thus, the analogy with this is invalid.

Second: He has conceded that He has always had the power to create creation. This entails that the object of His power could exist in beginningless eternity. For if the object of that power were impossible, there would be no power to bring it about. How, then, can he affirm that He has always had power while deeming it impossible for the object of His power to have always been possible? Rather, according to him, the object of His power was impossible and then became possible without any newly arising cause necessitating that change.