The Ash’arites maintain that the world is created and that it must "necessarily have a Maker who created it." Ibn Rushd objects to them, because they cannot answer the mode of the existence of the Maker of the world whether He is eternal or created, yet they want to show that the world is created in time, whereas God is eternal. They cannot maintain that God is created, because this would mean that He is in need of a creator, and this creator of another one, and the matter would continue ad infinitum. ASHARITES BELIEVE THAT EVERY CONTINGENT DEPENDS ON A NECESSARY. AS THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A NECESSARY EXISTENT IT IS NECESSARILY CONTINGENT AND IT NECESSACIRY DEPENDS ON A NECESSARY EXISTENT. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROOFS PRESENTED BY ASHARITES ANS MATURIDITES OF WHICH IBN ARRUSHD PRESENTS ONLY ONE AS HE IS IGNORENT OF THE OTHERS. THIS IS A FALLACY. Nor can they maintain that God is eternal, because this would lead to an outcome opposite to the one advocated by the Ash’arites. If the Maker is eternal, then His actions must be eternal. Consequently, the world that is produced by an act of God must be eternal. IBN RUSHD HIMSELF IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHETHER EACH AND EVERY ACT OF THE DIVINE ETERNAL ESSENCE IS ETERNAL OR SOME OF THEM ARE NOT ETERNAL. THERE IS NO IMPLICATION BETWEEN THE ETERNITY OF DIVINE ETERNAL ESSENCE AND IN THE ALLEGED ETERNITY OF DIVINE ACTS. SO THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON IBN ARRUSHD AND NOT UPON ASHARITES AND MATURIDITED. ALSO IBN ARRUSHD DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE ETERNITY AND DISTINCTION OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. IF HE CAN NOT BELIEVE IN THE ETERNITY AND DISTINCTION OF ESSENTIAL DIVINE ATTIBUTES HOW CAN HE BELIEVE IN THE ETERNITY OF DIVINE ACTS. THIS ONLY MEANS THAT HE BELIEVED THAT EACH DIVINE ACT IS NOTHING BUT A DIVINE ESSENCE . HIS ARGUMENT IS AS INCORRECT AS TO CLAIM THAT IF THE ETERNAL ESSENCE OF DEITY IS NECESSARY IN EXISTENCE THEN EACH ACT OF THE ETERNAL ESSENCE IS ALSO NECESSARY IN EXISTENCE. The Ash’arites, argues Ibn Rushd, would reject this outcome by trying to refine their position, claiming that God is eternal, but his actions are created by an eternal will. However, this maneuver would not help them, but rather entangles them in further difficulties from which they cannot extricate themselves. THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY ACTUALLY THE DIFFCULTY IS IN THE SYSTEM OF IBN ARUSHD HIMSELF.
The Ash’arites’ view that God’s created actions result from an eternal will is untenable, because the relationship between the will and the actions is a conditional one. "The will is the precondition of the action, rather than the action itself." Ibn Rushd argues that the will, which is actual, exists alongside the act that produces the object. The action and the will are two correlates. If "one of the two correlates existed in actuality, the other would have to exist in actuality as well, like father and son, There is no such implication . This is an incorrect analogy. Even this correlation is contingent and not necessary. Thus the non existence of ncorrelation is possible.Yet as it is stated that eternity of Possible is impossible the entire argument fails. but if one of them existed potentially, the other would also Once again ibn Arrushd did not provided a proof for thisso that it may be commented. A proper response is that it is a proof less claim of IBN ARRUSHD. . Should the will that is actual be created, then the willed action must necessarily be created [in actuality]. It is as incorrect as to claim that if IF THERE IS JUST ONE ETERNAL THEN THERE IS TOTAL IMPPOSSIBILITY OF NON ETERNALS , AND THERE IS NO NT ETERNAL. Furthermore, should the will, which is actual, be eternal, then what is willed, which is equally actual, will be eternal." The relation between the will and action is symmetrical and the attribute that describes one must describe the other. SUCH AN IMPLICATION DOES NOT EXIST BETWEEN ETERNAL INTENTION AND WHAT IS INTENDED If the action is created, the will that produced it must be created and vice versa. Neither the claim “ If an ACTION is created THEN the INTENTION which Produceth It Created” has a proof Nor the Converse Can be proved.This meaneth THAT Eternal Essence is NOT a Cause of any Non Eternal. Deity is NOT a Creator of ANY thing. THIS IS ASHARITES BELIEVE THAT EVERY CONTINGENT DEPENDS ON A NECESSARY. AS THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A NECESSARY EXISTENT IT IS NECESSARILY CONTINGENT AND IT NECESSACIRY DEPENDS ON A NECESSARY EXISTENT. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROOFS PRESENTED BY ASHARITES ANS MATURIDITES OF WHICH IBN ARRUSHD PRESENTS ONLY ONE AS HE IS IGNORENT OF THE OTHERS. THIS IS A FALLACY. NOTHING BUT ATHEISM.
By supposing the existence of an eternal will, the Ash'arites still would be unable to explain how the action can be created from an eternal pre-condition. IBN ARRUSHD FAILS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A CONDITION AND A CAUSE. ETERNAL CONDITION IS NOT A CAUSE.Inability to explain a Phenomenon or an Occurrance doeth not prove its Impossibility. Furthermore, this supposition adds difficulties of its own. ADDITION OR SUBSTRACTION OF DIFFICULTIES DOETH NOT PROVE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A PROBLEM. The eternal will must be related to what is created before and after its creation, that is, during the endless time when the product did not exist yet. EtErnal IntEntIon Is rElatEd to what so EvEr Is IntEndEd but thE rElatIon Is also not EtErnal. Time can not be Eternal since no part of Time is in ETERNITY. IF SOME PART OF TIME IS IN ETERNITY THEN THERE IS NO TIME WHICH CONNECTETH THE NON ETERNAL TIME AND THE ETERNAL TIME. THUS AN INFINITE BARRIER BETWEEN ETERNAL TIMES AND NON ETERNAL TIMES.SO THE ENTIRE IBN ARRUSHD ARGUMENT IS ABOLUTELY WRONG AND INFINITELYFALLACIOUS.FURTHER IBN ARRUSHD DID NOT DEFINE THE THERM TIME WHILE WRITING THIS ARGUMENT. SO UNLESS AND OTHER WISE THE WORD TIME IS DEFINED IN THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT IS USING A MEANING LESS TERM. THIS IS A FALLACY. From an Aristotelian perspective, when an object does not exist in actuality, it must exist in potentiality. IBN ARRUSHD DID NOT DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POTENTIALITY AND A POSSIBILITY. ACTUALLY A POTENTIALITY IS A POSSIBILITY. IF A THING DOETH NOT EXIST IT IS EITHER POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE. BUT IF A THING IS POSSIBLE IT IS NOT NECESSAY THAT IT EXIST SINCE POSSIBILITY OF A POSSIBLE DOETH NOT IMPLICATE THE EXISTENCE OF THAT POSSIBLE. Accordingly, what is created must have been non-existent during an infinite period of time before coming into existence. THIS IS ONLY CORRECT IF AN INFINITE TIME EXIST AND IS NECESSARY IN EXISTENCE. BUT IF TIME DOETH NOT EXIST ALL THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE SUPPOSITION OF INFINE TIME BECOMES INCORRECT AND WRONG.
From this Ibn Rushd concludes that the will "cannot be related to what is willed at the time in which it necessitated its coming-to-be, except after a lapse of an endless time, and what has no end, does not cease. Thus, what is willed must not become actual, unless an endless time has elapsed, which is an evident absurdity.BUT THERE IS NO INFINITE TIME. SO ALL THE ARGUMENT IS INCORRECT. " The will precedes both the action and the willed object produced by it. However, when the action takes place, a specific active element is required to account for it. This active element, Ibn Rushd maintains, is an effort, ‘azm, that occurs in the will in order to produce the action. For, if such an extra state does not affect the willing agent at the time of action, the occurrence of the action at that time will remain inexplicable. The Ash’arites, however, would not accept this implication, because it would introduce change to God and compromise His eternality. THE EXISTENCE OF ETERNAL DIVINE INTENTION IS JUST A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF A NON ETERNAL POSSIBLE. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER CONDITION THAT IS A SUFFICIENT CONDITION THAT THE ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE OF INTENTION ETERNALLY AND INTRINSICALLY CHOOSETH THE NON ETERNAL AT A GIVEN TIME ρ . THERE IS NO ABSUDITY ,NO IMPOSSIBILITY AND NO SURDITY AND NO SELF CONTRDICTION IN THESE SUPPOSITIONS. The outcome of Ibn Rushd’s criticisms of the Ash’arites’ supposition that what is created necessarily requires an Agent is that it involves logical difficulties that not only the Ash’arite theologians cannot answer, but the craft of dialectics itself cannot resolve adequately. Having shown that the supposition that the world is necessarily created by God is untenable on the Ash'arites' premises, he argues that the ordinary people are not equipped to understand their reasoning, which is also furthest from the methods used by the Scripture. When, for example the Qur’an refers to God creating the world, it does not state whether He creates it with an eternal will or a created one. DIFFICULTIES DOES NOT IMPLY UNSOLVABLITY. IT IS SHEWN THAT IBN ARRUSHD IS INCORRECT. THEREARE CERTAIN THINGS WHICH ARE FROM IJMA AND IBN ARRUSHD DOES NOT BELIEVE IN IT. The Almighty says: ‘Indeed, when We want a thing to be, We just say to it: "Be", and it comes to be.’" Religion approaches the understanding of the common people in a simple and straightforward way. THAT IS WHAT ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES DO, THEY UNDERSTAND QURAN AND HADIS AS THEY ARE. It does not resort to complicated and abstruse arguments that they cannot understand. Both the ordinary people in the Muslim community and the philosophers are justified in rejecting the Ash'arites' abstruse arguments for the existence of God. THIS IS A FALSE COMPLEX STATEMENT .COMMON MEN ACCEPT ASHARITE DOGMAS . ONLY STUNCH AND BLIND FOLLOWERS OF ARISTOTLE REJECTS THEM BY FALLACIES LIKE THAT OF IBN ARRUSHD