eternal, this would entail that the created thing was eternal; and if it were originated, it would necessarily require another act of creation, thereby entailing an infinite regress and the subsistence of temporal events.”
People have given him several replies, each proceeding from its own principles.
One group held that the act of creation is eternal, though the created thing is not. They countered his argument by citing the divine will, for he maintains that it is eternal even though what is willed is originated. They said, “The same applies to the act of creation.” This is the reply given by many Hanafis, Hanbalis, Sufis, adherents of hadith, and others.
Another group said, “Rather, the act of creation does not require another act of creation, just as, according to him, created things as a whole do not require an act of creation. If, in his view, none of the temporal events requires an act of creation, then (1) the act of creation by which the created thing was created is all the more entitled not to require another act of creation.” This is the reply given by many of the Muʿtazila, the Karrāmiyya, adherents of hadith, Sufis, and others.
Among these are some who say that the act of creation subsists in Him; others say that it subsists in the created thing; and still others say that it subsists in no substrate, just as the Basran Muʿtazilites say concerning the will.
Another group accepted the infinite regress. They are themselves of two kinds: some held that infinitely many attributes exist at a single instant. This is the view of Ibn Abbād (2) and his followers.
(1) A reads: “for indeed it…”
(2) He was Muʿammar ibn ʿAbbād al-Sulamī, an extremist Muʿtazilite from Basra. He settled in Baghdad and debated al-Nazzām. He was the most extreme of the Qadarites, and a sect known as the Muʿammariyya is attributed to him. He died in 215 AH, though it is also said that he died around 220 AH.
Concerning his doctrine of *maʿānī* (meanings), Abu al-Qāsim al-Balkhī wrote in *Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn*, included in *Fadl al-Iʿtizāl wa Tabaqāt al-Muʿtazila*, p. [0–9]1, ed. Fuʾād Sayyid, Tunis edition, 1393/1974:
“What was unique to him was the doctrine of *maʿānī*. Its meaning is that motion differs from rest only because of a *maʿnā* distinct from motion itself; likewise, rest differs from motion only because of a *maʿnā* distinct from rest itself. Those two *maʿānī* also differ because of another *maʿnā* distinct from them both. In the same way, every two differing *maʿānī* differ by two further *maʿānī* distinct from them, and so on without end.”
On Muʿammar ibn ʿAbbād and his views, see *Fadl al-Iʿtizāl*, pp. [0–9]66–267; *al-Farq bayn al-Firaq*, pp. [0–9]1–94; *al-Milal wa al-Nihal*, 1/65–67; *al-Intisār* by al-Khayyāt, pp. [0–9]5–48 (Beirut ed., 1957); *Lisān al-Mīzān*, 6/71, which states that his name is pronounced with gemination; *Khitat al-Maqrīzī*, 2/347; *al-Lubāb*, 3/161; and *al-Aʿlām*, 8/190.
On his doctrine of *maʿānī*, see *Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn* by al-Ashʿarī, 1/228–229, 2; *al-Tabsīr fī al-Dīn*, p. 45; *al-Fisal* by Ibn Hazm, 5/161–163; *al-Intisār* by al-Khayyāt, pp. [0–9]6–47; *Falsafat al-Muʿtazila* by Dr. Albīr Nasrī Nādir, 1/221–224; and *al-Muʿtazila* by Zuhdī Jār Allāh, pp. [0–9]7, 67–69.