The Asharites maintain that the world is created and that it must "necessarily have a Maker who

created it."[13] 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.[14] 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 Asharites. 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 Asharites, 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 Asharites view that Gods 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 pre-
condition of the action, rather than the action itself."[15] 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."[16] 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.
CONCEPT OF INTENTION IS MISUNDERSTOOD BY IBN AR RUSHD .IF THE ETERNAL
DIVINE INTENTION IS TO CREATE THE INIVERSE NOT ETERNALLY THEN THE
UNIVERSE IN NECESSARILY NOT ETERNAL. FURTHER THE ETERNITY OF
POSSIBLES IS IMPOSSIBLE. SO THERE IS NO LOGICAL PROBLEM. IF THE
POSSIBILITY OF A NON ETERNAL IS ETERNAL THEN IT ONLY MEANS THAT IT IS
ETERNALLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE A NON ETERNAL.SO SUCH A CONDITION IS
MISUNDERSTOOD. FIRST THAT ETERNITY OF A NON ETERNAL IS IMPOSSIBLE
AND POSSIBILITY OF NON ETERNAL IS ETERNAL. THESE IN NO WAY IMPLY THAT
POSSIBILITY OF ETERNITY OF POSSIBLE IS ETERNAL.
SECOND CONDITION IS FOR POSSIBLES AND NOT FOR IMPOSSIBLE.
ALSO THERE IS NO MUTUAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN ANY TWO OF THE
STATED ABOVE. SO IBN ARRUSHD IS IN CORRECT ONCE AGAIN,


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.
"[17] 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.[18] The Asharites, 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 . THERE IS NO ABSUDITY ,NO
IMPOSSIBILITY AND NO SURDITY AND NO SELF CONTRDICTION IN
THESE SUPPOSITIONS.
The outcome of Ibn Rushds criticisms of the Asharites supposition that what is created
necessarily requires an Agent is that it involves logical difficulties that not only the Asharite
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
Quran 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."[19] 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.[20] 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