Third: As for his statement:

“For creation means that something did not exist and then came into existence. How, then, can something that did not exist and then came into existence have always existed?”

The reply is: Every created thing comes into being, preceded by its own nonexistence. Allah alone is eternal and beginningless. When it is said, “He has always been a creator,” this entails only that creation as a kind is beginningless. “His unceasing activity as Creator” does not entail that any particular created thing is beginningless. A distinction must therefore be drawn concerning individual created things that come into being after not having existed: no rational person says that any of these is beginningless. Whoever holds that something in the world—such as the celestial sphere or its matter—is beginningless regards it as created in the sense that it came into being after not having existed, but on the grounds that the Eternal brought it into existence. Yet He has always been acting and creating, and His unceasing activity as Creator is a necessary consequence of His existence. This does not affirm the beginninglessness of any created thing; rather, it entails that everything other than Him came into being. This is what the question put to him implies.

The fourth response is to say: The Throne came into being after not having existed, and He has remained established above it since it came into existence. As for creation, the discussion concerns creation as a kind. His argument that events without a first are impossible has already been shown to be weak. And Allah knows best.

In addressing the sultan, Ibn Fūrak intended to demonstrate his opposition to the Karrāmiyyah, just as in Nīshāpūr he sought to take action against the Mu'tazilah by demanding their repentance, and just as he declared them unbelievers in the presence of