Another objection is that many people dispute their claim concerning entailment in the first premise he mentions.

Another is that many people dispute whether those consequences constitute imperfections.

Another is that the terms used in the two premises require clarification, since their meanings are ambiguous. Either the antecedent or the negation of the consequent must then be challenged: either the entailment they assert is not conceded, or their denial of the consequent is not conceded.

Another is to demonstrate that all the consequences of knowledge are perfections involving no imperfection whatsoever.

Another is that what he mentions rests on the necessity of affirming speech for the Lord, Most High, and declaring Him free of imperfection. This is true, as we have established elsewhere. We have explained that any perfection whose existence is possible and which involves no imperfection whatsoever must be affirmed of Allah, Most High; that knowledge is among the greatest perfections and involves no imperfection whatsoever; and that, since knowledge exists, it is more fittingly affirmed of Him than of anyone else. Knowledge, simply as knowledge, entails no imperfection at all. However, when unjust souls know certain things, they may use that knowledge to further injustice. Souls lacking such knowledge may also be harmed when they come to know certain truths. The harm thus arises from the evil within those souls.

As for the Holy One, who is free of every flaw, His knowledge belongs to the fullness of His perfection. It is an attribute for which He is praised and extolled, and it entails neither blame nor imperfection in any respect. How much more so when it is known that the world exists, that it cannot exist without knowledge, and that He cannot bring anything about unless He knows it? There are also other demonstrative proofs establishing that He, Most High, must know all things.