He then raised against himself (1) a series of questions—among them objections (2), sometimes regarding the very attribution of these meanings to Allah and sometimes concerning their eternality—and he said (3):

"One such question is: Why may it not be that the judgment which constitutes the purport of informative speech simply refers to His knowing it? And even if we concede that He—exalted is He—is described by command, prohibition, and information in the manner you have outlined, on what grounds do you assert that those meanings are eternal, when you say (6): Everyone who affirms these meanings affirms them to be eternal?

We reply (7): The issue of establishing the attributes is one matter, while the issue of their eternality is another. Were the affirmation of one to necessitate the affirmation of the other, then from affirming that He, exalted is He, possesses eternal knowledge it would follow that He, exalted is He, speaks with eternal speech—and since that is invalid, so too is what you have claimed. Furthermore, even if we were to concede that this kind [of consensus entails (9) the negation of Allah’s speech, it is nevertheless countered by another] (10) kind of consensus: no one from the ummah has ever affirmed the eternality of Allah’s speech by the method you have proposed. Hence clinging to what you have mentioned would itself amount to breaching the consensus."