such that it would entail what it signifies—namely, the Messenger’s truthfulness—and indicate this to anyone who reflects upon it (1). If He willed its creation and willed this entailment, the intended result of its indicating truthfulness would be attained, even if He did not will either of the two for the sake of the other (2), since the intended result is attained by His willing them both (3).

If it is said:

“A miracle does not indicate anything by itself; rather, it does so only when there is knowledge (4) that the one who brought it about intended it as an attestation.”

The response is:

This is precisely the point in dispute. Our purpose is not to defend the position of those who say that He acts for no wise purpose. Rather, this view is the weaker one (5) in our judgment. Our purpose (6) is merely to explain the argument of those who hold the other position—and the proponents of this position are better than the Mu'tazilah and the Shī'ah.

As for his statement:

“If He were a doer of evil, it would be possible for Him to attest a liar as truthful,”

this is a second argument (7). The answer is that no Muslim says that Allah does anything that is evil on His part. Those who say that He creates the servants’ acts maintain that such an act is evil (8) on their part, not His, just as it is harmful to them (9), not to Him.

Some of them then say that He is the doer of that act, whereas the majority say: