among the meanings affirmed by the Book and the Sunnah—can only be so described if it is a [body] (1) composed of indivisible atoms (2), or of matter and form; and that is impossible.”

It is said in reply:

The majority of rational thinkers do not hold that these observable bodies—such as the heaven and the stars—are composed either of indivisible atoms (3) or of matter and form. How, then, can they be required to hold that such composition necessarily applies to the Lord of the worlds?!

Elsewhere, the invalidity of the arguments advanced by both groups has been demonstrated, as has the invalidity (4) of their arguments for denying these two notions. It has also been shown that (5) each group refutes the argument advanced by the other, even though they agree on the conclusion, while the other group likewise refutes its argument. Thus, they have not agreed on the soundness of a single argument for denying what they characterize as composite. One group argues that anything composite depends upon its constituent parts, but the other group invalidates this argument. The latter argues that anything of this kind cannot be free of newly occurring accidents, and that whatever cannot be free of originated events must itself have originated. The former group invalidates this argument and, indeed, rejects both of its premises. These matters have been treated extensively elsewhere; we have merely drawn attention [here] (6) to this issue.

The fundamental principle [incumbent] upon Muslims (7) is that whatever has been established from the Messenger must—