As for Ibn Rushd’s report that they regard knowledge as the cause of forewarning about particulars, the response is as follows:

The philosophy found in the books of Ibn Sīnā and others like him attributes this to the active intellect and the celestial soul. According to them, this is the source of such forewarnings, and they call it the Preserved Tablet. From it, they maintain, revelation descends upon the prophets, and from it Moses was addressed.

Much of this has also entered the discourse of those Sufis who followed their path.

If a group other than these philosophizers attributes this to God’s knowledge, then there is no doubt that whoever holds that God forewarns His servants about particulars must acknowledge that He knows them. Informing others of something presupposes knowing it. This establishes the third position reported from them.

Abū al-Barakāt mentioned the three positions in his al-Muʿtabar. The first is the position that He knows only His own essence, which he attributed to Aristotle, quoting his words. Ibn Rushd venerates Aristotle to the utmost and regards him as one of the greatest philosophers. How, then, can he deny that they held this position?!

Abū al-Barakāt also mentioned Ibn Sīnā’s position and reported their third position: that He knows His own essence and all His creatures at all times, in their varying states, including what exists and what is to come.

This position tends towards two views. The first is the view chosen by Ibn Rushd, which he presented in terms approaching the implication of change, without answering that objection. The second is to accept this implication and explain that it entails nothing objectionable.

This was the view chosen by Abū al-Barakāt, as it is by various groups of