one who says:

“One who has the power to do something is never devoid of either doing it or doing its opposite.”

Yet you say:

“He has always possessed power, although He was neither acting nor refraining from action, for in your view refraining is a real act within His power.”

You also say:

“In pre-eternity, He did not do anything within His power, despite possessing power.”

Indeed, you say:

“The existence in pre-eternity of that over which He has power is impossible, despite His having power over it.”

Since this is your position, it follows all the more readily that the thing received need not exist in pre-eternity. For this thing received is something within His power and can exist only through His power, yet you allow that one who possesses power may exist while the object of His power is impossible during the very state in which He possesses that power.] (1).

(2 We further say: If that which is receptive to a thing is never devoid of either it or its opposite 2) (2), an infinite succession of temporal events necessarily follows. If such an infinite succession is possible, then the correct position is that of Ahl al-Hadith, who say:

“He has never ceased to speak whenever He wills,”

as stated by Ibn al-Mubārak, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and other leading authorities of the Sunnah. If it is not possible, [then a temporal event can subsist in Him after not having subsisted in Him, just as He brings temporal events into being after not having brought them into being] (3), and (4) our position is the correct one. Your position, therefore, is false under [both] (5) alternatives.

If you say to us:

“You agree with us that an infinite succession of temporal events is impossible, and this is the argument both you and we use to [deny] (6) the eternity of the universe.”