If he belongs to the first category, he acknowledges that the will of everyone who wrongs him or someone else (1) was created toward wrongdoing, whereupon he committed that wrong (2); yet he does not excuse the wrongdoer on that account.

He is told: “You acknowledge that such a plea is no valid argument (3) for anyone who contravenes what he was commanded to do, whatever it may be. You therefore may not invoke it. If, however, he is (4) one who denies predestination, he is precluded from invoking this argument. It is thus established that invoking predestination to confound the messengers is inadmissible (5)—under neither (6) the view of the former group nor that of the latter.”

If someone says, “The claimant holds no doctrine in which he believes; rather, he is merely unsophisticated,” he is told: “Suppose that this is so. In reality, (the truth) (7) must be either the position of the former group or that of the latter. On either possibility, invoking predestination is invalid.”

Thus, the invalidity of invoking it is established by the agreement of both groups: those who affirm predestination and those who deny it.

The ninth line of argument:

It may be said: The purpose of the prophetic message is to proclaim the punishment awaiting those who deny and disobey, as Moses and Aaron, peace be upon them, said to Pharaoh:

“Indeed, it has been revealed to us that the punishment will be upon whoever denies and turns away.”

[Surah Tā Hā: 48]

Accordingly, if he says, “He created unbelief in me and did not create in me the will to believe.”