(1) In the original: *fī al-tabī'iyyāt* (“in natural philosophy”). (2) In the original: *Harnānīn*. (3) In the margin of manuscript (ع), Mustajī Zāda summarized Ibn Taymiyya’s discussion of Muhammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Rāzī up to this point, then wrote the following comment: “I said: I have examined a work by Ibn al-Khatīb, widely known as Imam al-Rāzī, entitled *al-Matālib al-'Āliya*. In it, he stated that the Quran contains no proof explicitly establishing *hudūth al-'ālam* (the temporal origination of the universe). He then began enumerating Quranic passages that might be thought to indicate it—that is, the origination of the universe—and went to every possible length to deny that those passages carried such an indication. He then said: ‘Nor does the Torah contain any proof explicitly establishing it.’ Throughout this discussion, he adopted the doctrine of Democritus, affirming eternal particles, which are the constituent parts of the universe. Thus, the universe is eternal in respect of the essences of those parts but originated in respect of their attributes. “There is no doubt that affirming the eternity of the universe’s constituent parts contradicts the fundamental certainties of religion. No one among the adherents of Islam, including its seventy-three sects, has adopted this position. Only three groups adopted (it): the *Bātiniyya* (esotericists), those Peripatetic philosophers who claim affiliation with Islam, and those Democriteans who claim affiliation with Islam. They do not belong to the *ahl al-qibla* (people of the qibla). “I have written a treatise on this subject in which I demonstrated the invalidity of Ibn al-Khatīb’s position and showed that it conflicts with the positions of the Muslim sects. Zakariyyā al-Rāzī was formerly the person affiliated with Islam best known for this doctrine. I later discovered that Ibn al-Khatīb had also adopted it, going so far as to claim that anyone who denied it—that is, the origination of the universe—or hesitated and wavered regarding it was excused. “Perhaps the commentator Ibn Taymiyya—may his secret be sanctified—had not become acquainted (with) this position of Ibn al-Khatīb. It appears that, had he known of it, he would not have confined (the original reads: *yaqtasir*) advocacy of Democritus’s doctrine to Muhammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Rāzī. He would also have mentioned Ibn al-Khatīb, whom people came to know as Imam Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and who composed a commentary entitled *al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr*. That work contains more than one passage that one fears may amount to unbelief. Yet his people, the inhabitants of Rayy, held him in the highest regard (the passage beginning ‘Yet his people …’ is unclear in the original), and consequently treated all his statements as though Gabriel had revealed them to him, so greatly did they esteem the man. “Yet he was far removed from the discipline of hadith and its principles and rules, even though Quranic exegesis is valid only through hadith, not philosophy. Philosophy and philosophical speculation had come to dominate him, and so he sought to make the Quran conform to philosophical principles, even though the Quran and the revealed scriptures in general were sent down to invalidate the foundations of philosophy—especially the philosophy of the Greeks (who) are called the Peripatetics, (for their doctrine) is founded on denying the origination of the universe and affirming its eternity. Most of their early predecessors disagreed with them on this matter, since the fundamental principles of most of them do not preclude the universe’s origination.”