His Imamite brethren said:

“You have assumed the very point at issue. This is precisely our position, for we say (1): He moves, and temporal events and accidents subsist in Him. What, then, is the proof that our position is false?”

The one who denies corporeality said:

“Because whatever temporal events subsist in has never been devoid of them, and whatever is never devoid of temporal events is itself temporally originated.”

His brethren replied:

“Your assertion that whatever temporal events subsist in has never been devoid of them—this (2) is neither the position of the Imamites nor that of the Mu'tazila; rather, it is the position of the Ash'aris. Al-Rāzī, al-Āmidī, and others have acknowledged its weakness and admitted that there is no proof for it. Both they and you concede to us that He originated things after there had been no temporal event, without a temporally originated cause. If temporal events came into being (3) without temporally originated causes, it is possible for them to subsist in Him after they had not been subsisting in Him.”

This position espoused by these Imamites—and also maintained (4) by those among the Karrāmiyya and others who hold it—namely, affirming that He is a pre-eternal body and that He acted after not acting, or moved (5) after not moving, cannot be refuted by these Imamites (6) and those among the Mu'tazila [and the Kullābiyya] (7) who agree with them, for the basis of their position is the impossibility of (* temporal events subsisting in Him,