His essence is characterized by that which requires it to be manifest to Him; thus, it is characterized by that which entails its being known and manifest to Him.

The same applies if you mean that it is characterized by that which entails its knowing, with other things being manifest to it. Likewise, if it is explained in terms of that which entails its being both knowing and known, then whether this is explained as His very being a knower, or being known, or both, or being a seer, or both, it entails only one of these six things.

None of this precludes knowledge from being a positive attribute, nor does it entail that knowledge is merely a negative relation. Rather, if he explains it as something purely negative, this amounts to the statement he rejected, namely their assertion:

“It is not something additional to Him; rather, it is His not being absent from His essence, which is free of matter.”

If he makes the manifestation he affirmed something negative, then it means the same as the non-absence they affirmed.

The most he can say is: “They identify knowledge with non-absence itself, whereas I make it a relation that entails non-absence. They explain it as non-absence, whereas I explain it as a relation.”

He may be answered: “If this relation has no existence, then it belongs to the same category as non-absence.”

All of them may be asked: “Is His not being absent accompanied by knowledge of Himself, or is merely not being absent from Himself itself knowledge?”

If they affirm the former, they are correct, and this is the position of the Messengers. But if they say, “Rather, non-absence itself is knowledge itself,” this is plainly false, for there is no