The third reason is as follows:

The very absence of these attributes is an imperfection, even if no positively existing opposite is posited. We know necessarily that a being that is living, knowing, powerful, speaking, hearing and seeing is more perfect than one that is not, even if the latter, like an inanimate object, is described as neither hearing nor deaf. Since possessing these attributes is itself a perfection, and lacking them is itself an imperfection, they must be affirmed of Allah, Exalted is He. For this is a perfection possible for an existing being, involving no imperfection whatsoever; rather, the imperfection lies in its absence.

Likewise, suppose we consider two beings possessing these attributes: one can act himself—coming, going, descending, ascending and performing other such acts that subsist in him—whereas the other is incapable of this, so that none of these acts can proceed from him. The one capable of performing these acts is more perfect than the one for whom they are impossible.

If it is said, “For these acts to subsist in Him entails that temporally originated events subsist in Him,” this is like saying, “For attributes to subsist in Him entails that accidents subsist in Him.”

The terms “accidents” and “temporally originated events” are both ambiguous. If what is intended is what speakers of the language understand by them, namely illnesses and afflictions—as when one says, “So-and-so has been afflicted with a severe illness,” or “So-and-so has committed a grave offense,” as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Beware of newly introduced matters, for every newly introduced matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance.”