among the philosophers that this was not temporally impossible, since, in their view, the world is temporally eternal even though it is the act of Allah Most High.”

In reply, it may be said:

His report concerning the theologians is correct, and this is the position of the great majority of rational people from every school. As for his report concerning the philosophers, it is the position of only a faction among them, such as Avicenna, and not that of the majority: neither those who affirmed the eternity of the world, such as Aristotle and his followers, nor those who affirmed that its form came into being—and these constitute the majority of the philosophers. Those who affirmed its eternity did not posit a creative agent for it, as Avicenna did. Indeed, some of them did not posit any efficient cause for it. Aristotle posited a final cause that the celestial sphere seeks to resemble; he did not posit an efficient cause, as Avicenna and others like him did. Those before Aristotle, however, held that the heavens came into being, as do the adherents of the revealed religions.

Al-Rāzī then said:

“In my view, the disagreement on this issue is merely verbal. The theologians refrain from regarding an eternal entity(1) as dependent on a cause that produces its effect necessarily by virtue of its essence. The proponents of states(2) likewise made this claim, on the basis that Allah’s state of being knowing and His knowledge(3) are both eternal(4), even though the states of being knowing and being powerful are caused by knowledge and power. In al-Muhassal: ‘Even though the state of being knowing is caused by knowledge.’ Abū Hāshim claimed that the states of being knowing, powerful, living, and existent(5) are caused by a fifth state(6), even though all of them