2. Ahmad ibn Ziyad ibn Ja`far al-Hamdani said: `Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim said, on the authority of his father, on the authority of al-`Abbas ibn `Amr al-Fuqaymi, on the authority of Hisham ibn al-Hakam ibn al-Hakam saying that Ibn Abu al-`Awja’ entered the presence of al-Sadiq so al-Sadiq asked him, “O son of Abu al-`Awja’! Are you created or not?” He replied, “No, I am not created.” Al-Sadiq said to him, “So, if you were created, then how would you be?” The reporter says: Ibn Au al-`Awja’ could not provide an answer. Therefore, he stood up and left.

3. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya la-`Attar said: Sa`d ibn `Abd Allah said: Ibrahim in Hashim said on the authority of `Ali ibn Ma`bad, on the authority of al-Husayn ibn Khalid that A man entered the presence (of Imam Abu al-Hasan `Ali al-Rida) and said: “O son of the Messenger of Allah ! What is the proof that the universe emerged?” He replied, “You did not exist, and yet you came into being. You already know that you have not created yourself, and that you have not been created by someone like you.”

4. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid said: Muhammad ibn al-Hasan alSaffar said on the authority of Ibrahim ibn Hashim, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Hammad, on the authority of al-Hasan ibn Ibrahim, on the authority of Yunus ibn `Abd alRahman, on the authority of Yunus ibn Ya`qub that `Ali ibn Mansur reported to me that Hisham ibn al-Hakam reported to me that An atheist in Egypt was informed of some knowledge from Abu `Abd Allah al-Sadiq so he left for Medina to debate with him. However, he did not find him. It was said to him: “He is in Mecca.” So the atheist left for Mecca. While we were with Abu `Abd Allah , the atheist came close to us while we were circumambulating [tawaf] the Ka`bah. The atheist bumped shoulders with Abu `Abd Allah , so the Imam asked him “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is `Abd al-Malik.” The Imam said: “Then what is your agnomen [kunya]?” He answered, “Abu `Abd Allah.” The Imam asked, “Who is the Sovereign (al-Malik) whom you serve? Is He the Sovereign of the Heavens, or is he one of the sovereigns of the earth? And tell me about your son. Is the servant [`abd] of the God of Heaven, or a god of the earth?” The atheist kept quiet. So Abu `Abd Allah continued, “Say whatever you wish to, you will be defeated.” Hisham ibn al-Hakam says: Isaid to the atheist: “Will you not refute him?” Thus, he disliked what I said. Therefore, Abu `Abd Allah said to him, “Once I complete the circumambulation, come and see me.” Once Abu `Abd Allah finished, the atheist came to him and sat down in front of him, while we had gathered before him. Thus, he addressed the atheist, “Do you know that the earth has a top and a bottom?” He replied, “I do not know, but I certainly think there is nothing below it.” Abu `Abd Allah said: “Thinking [zann] is incapability unless you achieve certainty. Have you ascended to the heavens?” He answered, “No.” The Imam asked, Then do you know what is in it?” He replied, “I do not.” The Imam said: “Then have you been to the east and the west and seen what is behind them?” He replied, “No.” The Imam responded, How strange! You have not been to the east or the west. You have not descended below the earth. You have not ascended to heaven. You do not have any knowledge of what surrounds them. However, you re in denial of what is in them. Does a wise man deny what he knows not? The atheist said: “No one but you has eve said such a thing to me.” Abu `Abd Allah said: “You are in doubt as to whether He exist or not.” The atheist replied, “That might be it.” Abu `Abd Allah said: O man! There is no authority for the one who knows over the one who knows not. Likewise, there is no authority for the ignorant over the learned. O my Egyptian brother! Understand this from me! We never doubt in Allah. Do you not see the sun and the moon, and the night and day? They have recourse, but they do not make mistakes. They come and they go. They are both compelled. There is not place for them except their own place. If they both had the power to leave, and not come back, then why do they come back? If they both are not compelled, then why does the night change into the day, and the day into night? By Allah, O Egyptian brother, they are both compelled to continue their routine. Surely, their Compeller is Wiser and Greater than they are! The atheist said: “You are right.” Abu `Abd Allah then said: O Egyptian brother! They way you atheists reason is wrong. Time does not bring anything into existence. If the passage of time can take then away, then why does it not return them? And if the passage of time can return them, when why does it not take them away? They are compelled, O Egyptian brother! The sky has been raised, and the earth has been set down. Why is it that the sky does not collide with the earth? And why is it that the earth does not collide with the sky? Why is it that the earth does not go out of its orbit? Who holds them together and who holds together what is between them? The atheist said: “By Allah! Their Lord and their Master holds them together!” Thus, the atheist came to believe through his contact with Abu `Abd Allah . Humran ibn A`yun said to him . “May I be your ransom! Atheist become believers through you, just like the unbelievers use to become believer through your father .” The believer, who had believed thanks to Abu `Abd Allah , said: “Make me of your students.” Abu `Abd Allah said to Hisham ibn al-Hakam, “Take him with you and teach him.” Thus, Hisham taught him, and then he became the teacher of the Egyptians, and the people of the northern region (Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon). He was trained spiritually and academically until Abu `Abd Allah was pleased with it.

5. My father and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid (may Allah have mercy on them) both said: Ahmad ibn Idris and Muhammad ibn Yahya al-`Attar both said, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ahmad, on the authority of Sahl ibn Ziyad, on the authority of Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, on the authority of `Ali ibn Ya`qub al-Hashimi, on the authority of Marwan ibn Muslim that Ibn Abu al-`Awja’ entered the presence of `Abu `Abd Allah al-Sadiq and said: “Do you not claim that Allah is the Creator of Everything?” Abu `Abd Allah replied, “Most certainly.” He said: “I also create.” The Imam asked him, “How do you create?” He responded, “I relieve my bowels in a place, then I stay away from it, and it makes insects. Therefore, this is my creation.” Abu `Abd Allah replied, “Is not the creator of something aware of what he has created?” He answered, “Why not?” The Imam said: “So, can you distinguish the male from the female, and the young from the old, among those insects?” The reporter says: Ibn Abu al-`Awja’ kept silent.

6. `Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn `Imran al-Daqqaq said: Muhammad ibn Ya`qub alKulayni through his source of transmission, said When Abu `Abd Allah al-Sadiq had a word with Ibn Abu al-`Awja’, he returned to Abu `Abd Allah the next day and sat down speechless. Therefore, Abu `Abd Allah said: “It seems as if you have returned to discuss some of the things we discussed before.” He replied, “That is what I intend, O son of the Messenger of Allah!” Abu `Abd Allah said: “How astonishing is this? You reject Allah, but you bear witness that I am the son of the Messenger of Allah.” He responded, “It is a custom and a formality.” The Learned [al-`alim] said to him, “Then what prevents you from speaking?” He replied, “My reverence for you. Even my tongue venerates you, preventing it from verbalizing anything. Verily, I have consulted with scholars and debated with theologians, but never has such a sense of awe entered me as when I am in your presence.” The Imam said: “That may be the case. However, I will start with a question.” He approached him, and asked: “Are you created or uncreated?” `Abd al-Karim ibn Abu al-`Awja’ answered, “I am not created.” So the Learned asked him, “If you are uncreated, then describe to me how you would be, had you been created?” `Abd al-Karim was baffled and unable to answer for a long time, focusing his eyes on the piece of wood that was before him. He was saying “Long, wide, deep, short, moving, motionless, all of these are descriptions of its creation.” The Learned said to him, “If you do not know the description of its formation, then create yourself on the basis of yourself.” `Abd al-Karim replied to him, “You have posed a question that nobody has ever posed to me before, and which nobody will ever ask me after you.” Abd `Abd Allah responded to him, You admit that this question has never been asked of you in the past. However, how can you know that this question will never be posed to you in the future? O `Abd alKarim! You have negated yourself, because you claimed that all things are the same in the beginning. How, then can you precede or delay things in time? He then continued, O `Abd al-Karim! I will further clarify matters for you. If you had a bag which contained jewels, and someone asked you “Is there a gold-coin [dinar] in the bag?” you would deny that there is a gold-coin in bag. If the questioner then asked you “Describe for me the gold-coin,” when you did not know how to describe it, would it be right for you to deny its existence simply because you cannot describe it?” He replied, “No.” Abu `Abd Allah then responded to him, “The universe, however, is far greater, longer, and wider than the bag. Likewise, it is possible that there is something in the universe that was created but which you cannot describe from the uncreated.” `Abd al-Karim withdrew, but some of his friends surrendered to reason and embraced Islam while other remained obstinate in their unbelief as he did. He returned on the third day and said: May I redirect the question?” Abu `Abd Allah said to him, “Ask whatever you may wish.” So he asked, “What is the proof for the emergence of bodies?” Abu `Abd Allah replied, Verily, in contemplating all things, big, and small, I found that they all increase or decrease from their original state. If they were eternal, however, then they would decline or increase from their original state. This is because anything which can decline or change can be located and can disappear. Anything that exists after nonexistence has emerged. And anything that exists did not exist at one point. Eternity (sempiternity) and nonexistence cannot co-exist in the same thing. `Abd al-Karim said: “On the basis of your reasoning, nothing that changes can be eternal, and must have emerged. So, if something always remains small, how can it be said to have emerged?” The Learned answered, Verily, we are talking about this universe. Were it to be taken away and replaced with another one, nothing would be left of the first one. That is sufficient proof that it has been taken away and replaced by another one. However, I shall answer you on the basis of your assumption. We say: Even if something remains small, that small thing could join with another small thing, and thus become bigger. And since it is subject to such change, it cannot be eternal. Consequently, anything that is subject to change has emerged. There is nothing beyond that for you, O `Abd al-Karim.” So he withdrew, full of shame and disgrace. When the next year approached, the Imam met him in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. So some of his followers [shi`ah] said to him: “Ibn Abu al-`Awja’ has become a Muslim.” The Learned replied, “He is blinded from faith. He will not submit.” When he saw the Learned, he said: “My Master, my Guardian.” The Learned asked him, “What brings you to this place?” He answered, “It is a custom. It is the practice of the town. And we want to watch all these crazy people shave their heads and throw pebbles at Satan.” Hence, the Learned said: “You remain firm in your arrogance and misguidance, O `Abd al-Karm.” When he started to talk, the Learned said to him, “There is no quarrel in the pilgrimage.” Then the Imam shook off his cloak from his hand and said: “If things are as you say, and they most certainly are not, then we are both saved. However, if things are the way we ay, and they most certainly are, then we are saved and you are destroyed.” `Abd al-Karim drew closer to the ones that were with him, and said: “My heart is filled with rancour. Take me away from here.” Therefore, they took him out, and he died, may Allah deprive him of mercy! The Compiler of this book says: Among the proof that bodies emerged is that bodies are subject to increase and decrease. They are subject to growth and development which makes them into different forms and shapes. Evidently, we already know that we have not formed our bodies, nor anyone from our species has formed them. It is not rational to believe that bodies, which are subject to change, growth, development, and measure, and which are not eternal, can come about without a Planner. If it is possible for the universe and all it contains to be without a Producer or a Creator, then it would also be possible for smaller things. If this were the case, then we should be able to find texts without authors, buildings without builders, and paintings without painters. However, it is not possible to find a boat that was not expertly designed by a builder. If all of this is impossible, then so is the argument that something can exist without a Creator. Everything we have mentioned, and which we have not mentioned, is subject to change: the skies, time, the sun and the moon, their rising and their setting, the seasons, trees and their fruits; the denial of which is the most obstinate stubbornness. This is clear. All praise be to Allah! I have asked one of the learned monotheists regarding proof that bodies emerged. He said: The proof that bodies emerged is that their existence is not separate from His Existence. The bodies do not have individual existence. They exist along with others. Whenever a body exists along with others, it cannot be unique, and can only have been created. Therefore, the body is created as it cannot be separate from the Creator nor precede it. And among the proofs that Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, is not a body is that there is not a body that does not have a body that resembles it, which is physically present or at least imaginable. Whatever has a similarity of any kind is created and has emerged. Therefore, since Allah, the Mighty and High, is Eternal, it proves that He is devoid of a body. One more thing: if someone speaks of a “body” literally, it subject to increase since it applies to something which can be measured in terms of length and width, and something which is composed of parts. If someone says: Verily, Allah, the Mighty and High, possesses a body, this statement could only be true if one proves that the aforementioned descriptions could apply to Him. If what we have mentioned before can apply to Him, then it could only mean two things: one, that He is created, and that he emerged like all bodies; or two, that all bodies are eternal. However, if the word “body” does not convey this meaning, and is only the name of a word, then it is a convention. Thus, it would be like someone calling Allah, the Mighty and High, a human, composed of flesh and blood, metaphorically, and not literally. However, the Names of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, should only be drawn from the names which He Himself has used, or which have been taught to us by the Messenger of Allah or the Rightly Guided Imams .

7. Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Qittan said: al-Hasan ibn `Ali al-Sukkari said: Muhammad ibn Zakariyya said, on the authority of Ja`far ibn Muhammad ibn `Uamrah, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ja`far ibn Muhammad, on the authority of his father Muhammad ibn `Ali, on the authority of his father `Ali ibn al-Husayn, on the authority of his father, al-Husayn that The Commander of the Faithful said: Verily, the body has six states: health, illness, death, life, sleep and wakefulness. Similar is the spirit: its life is its knowledge, its death is its ignorance, its illness is its doubt, its health is its certainty, it sleep is its negligence, and its wakefulness is its preservation (against evil). The Compiler of this book says: And amongst the proofs of the bodies having emerged is that the bodies are not free from co-existence or separation, or from being in motion or being still. Co-existence, separation, motion and stillness have all emerged. Therefore, we have learnt that the body has emerged due to the emergence of what does not separate from it, not precedes it. If someone says: Why did you say: Co-existence and separation are two independent connotations and likewise motion and stillness, so that you may claim that the body is not free from them? It would be replied to him: The proof of that is we find the body co-existing after being separated, while it is possible for it to remain separated. If it was not so that it had emerged, then it would not be more worthy for it to co-exist than to remain separated on what it was, because it dos not emerge itself in this time, so it may have emerged itself on what has coexisted. Neither has it annulled it this time so that it may exist due to its annulment. It is not possible for what has co-existed to take its meaning due to annulment. Do you not see that if it was so that it would not co-exist but due to annulment of a meaning or it would not separated but due to annulment of a meaning, then it would necessitate for it to co-exist and separate within one state due to the annulment of both meanings? Also, if everything was free form containing the meaning of co-existence and separated, then it would necessitate for the accidents to e co-existent and separated, because they are free of these (four) meanings. Its annulment has been explained and the proof of its annulment is that it co-exists due to emergence of a meaning and separated due to emergence of a meaning. Similar is the case for the motion and stillness and all other accidents. If someone says: if you said: The co-existent becomes co-existent due to the being of the coexistence and becomes separated due to the separation. Thus, why have you rejected it becoming co-existent or separated due to both of their existence in it? Similarly, you necessitate this statement: The co-existent becomes co-existent due to the negation of separation and the separated becomes separated due to the negation of co-existence. It would be replied to him: Indeed the co-existence and separation are opposites. Opposites do not appear in one existence at the same time. However, this ruling does not apply in the negation, because the negation of two opposites cannot be rejected in an existence at the same time unlike their subsistence. This is why we have said that if a body co-exists due to negation of separation and is separated due to negation of co-existence; it would necessitate for them to become co-existent and separated due to the negation of separation and is separated due to the negation of co-existence; it would necessitate for them to become coexistent and separated due to the negation of both of them. Is it not so that both black and white colors are negated from a red color, while both are opposites? However, it is not possible for both of them to be present and co-exist at one time. Thus, it is proved that negation of opposites cannot be rejected in one state like the way their affirmation can be rejected. Also, the one saying this has proved the co-existence, separation, motion and stillness and has necessitated that body cannot be free from them, because if it was free from them it would necessitate for it to co-exist, be separated, be in motion and be still. For if it was free from them it will not be attributed with this ruling. If the matter is such, and the body is not fee from these changes then it necessitates it being emerged. What also indicates this is that the human being is ordered on co-existence, separation, motion and stillness and it carries them out, and is praised for it, thanked for it and condemned over it if it was evil. We now know that it is not possible to command the body to do or not to do, nor to praise it for that action or denounce it. Therefore, it is necessary for who can be commanded to do or not to do and deserves praise or criticism for that action to be other than the one who cannot be commanded to do or not to do and not deserve praise or criticism for it. The requirement of this is the affirmation of the accidents. If he said: Why do you accept: The body is not free form co-existence, separation, motion and stillness. And why do you reject that it has never been free of them? Thus, this does not indicate upon the emergence of a body. It would be replied to him: If it has ever been possible for it to be free from co-existence, separation, motion and stillness then it would be possible now and we should witness it. Therefore, when it is not possible to find bodies without co-existence or separation, then we come to know that they have never been free of them in the past. If he says: Why do you reject that if the bodies could not be free of these in the past then it is not possible for the bodies to be free of them in present? It would be said to him: Time and space do not have an effect in this matter. Is it not so that if someone says: I was free from this in the first year r for twenty years and it has become possible for me after this period? Or it is possible for me in Syria but not in Iraq or it is possible in Iraq but not in Hejaz; he would be perplexed and ignorant to the wise and whoever endorses him would also be ignorant. Therefore, we know that time and space do not affect in this. If there is no rule and effect in this matter, then it is necessary that the rule of body applies to it in what has passed and in what will come in the future has the ruling of the present. When it is not possible for the body to be free in present form co-existence or separation, and motion or stillness, we lean that it can never be free from these ever. If it could be free form these in the past, then it cannot be rejected that it can remain as that in the present. So if someone informs us about an unknown town that bodies there were neither coexistent nor separated, neither in motion nor still, then we would doubt in that and not believe that to be true. The annulment of that proof is the annulment of this statement. Moreover, whoever proves that bodies are neither co-existent nor separated, most definitely proves them to be neither close together to one another nor far apart from each other. This attribution cannot be rational, because there should be either partition and distance between two bodies, or there should not be any partition and distance between them; there is not third way. If there is partition and distance between them, they would be separated. However, if there is no partition and distance between them, it would be necessary fro them to be co-existent, because this is the limit of the co-existence and separation. If it is so then whoever proves that bodies are neither co-existent nor separated, is proving them with an attribute that is not rational. And whosoever goes out of the boundary of rationality is a void-doer. So if he says: Why do you accept that: The accidents are emerged and reject that they are not eternal and are always connected to bodies? I would be replied to him: Because we find the co-existent when separated, the co-existence is annulled from it and separation emerge to it. Similar is the separated when made t co-exist, the separation is annulled from it and the co-existence emerges to it. The eternal is eternal due to itself. It is not possible for it to emerge and be annulled. Therefore, it is proved that the co-existence and separation are both emerged and like is the case for all accidents. Is it not so that they are annulled by their contraries then emerge after that. Whatever has the possibility of emergence and annulment cannot be but emerged. Further more, the eternal being which continues have no need in its essence to a creator, clarifying that it is worthier of being existent than nonexistent, because if it is not so then he would too exist but through a creator. If it is so then we know that the eternal cannot be annulled, if it is worthier of being existent than nonexistent. And that whatever can be annulled, cannot be eternal. If he says: Why do you say that whatever does not have precedence over the emerged, it is necessary for it to be emerged? It would be replied to him: Because the emerged is that which comes about after not being there and the eternal is the existent that has always been there. The existent that ahs always been there is necessarily the preceding over the one that came about after not being there. Whatever has not proceeded is the emerged. Therefore, its share of the essence is the share of the emerged, because it does not have the precedence but of the emerged. If it is so then the emerged does not have the share of the eternal in the essence and precedence. Rather it would be of the emerged. In addition whatever shares in its cause or is equal in its essence and does not have precedence over it then it is necessary for it to be emerged. If he says: Is it not so that he body is free form accidents and it is not necessary for it to be an accident then why do you reject that it is not free from changes and that it is not necessary for it to have emerged? It would be replied to him: We have attributed the accident [`arad] that it is not of the attributes of precedence and subsequence. It is indeed informing about genuses of the accidents. If the body does not precede it then it is not necessary that it may become from their genus. This is why it is not necessary for the body to be an accident, even if it does not precede over accidents, if it does not share the accidents in what makes them accidents. We attributed the eternal that it is informing about its precedence and its essence not having any prior to it. And we attributed the emerged that it is informing about its being connected with a finish and an end, and a beginning and start. If it is so, then whatever has no bodies preceding over it, it is necessary for it to remain to a finish and an end, because it is no possible for an existence that is not present from the beginning to have precedence over another existence that is present from the beginning. If this is true, then the emerged shares in what it has emerged and that is its existence to an end. This is why it necessitates to be emerged for its existence to a finish and an end. Similar is the answer to all what one may ask in this matter from this issue. If someone says: if it is proven that the body has emerged then what is the proof that it has One who has emerged it? It would be said to him: Because we find changes in their entirety are connected to the emerged. If he says: Why do you say that the emerged are connected to the emerged for what it is? It would be replied: Because if they were not emerged, they would not be in need of a creator. Is it not so that they were non-emerged existents or were nonexistent, it would not be possible that they may be connected to the emerged. If it is so then it is proven that they are connected to the emerged for what the emerged is. Therefore, it is necessary for every emerged being to have their ruling that every emerged being requires a creator or one that emerges them. These are proofs of the supporters of the Unity (of God), which are in accordance with the Book and the authentic traditions of the Prophet and the Imam .