perfection, then He lacked them before they came into existence, and the absence of perfection is an imperfection. It follows that He was imperfect, whereas declaring Him free of imperfection is obligatory by consensus.” This argument is among the most unsound of arguments, for several reasons:

First: These people say that His freedom from imperfection is not known through reason, but only “by consensus”—which is what they rely upon to deny imperfection of Him. We therefore return to their appeal to consensus. It is well known that consensus cannot be invoked as proof on the very points under dispute. Their opponent says: “I have not agreed with you in denying this meaning, even though I agree with the general statement that Allah is free of imperfection. In my view, this meaning is not an imperfection and is not included in what I have conceded to you. Unless you establish its negation through reason or revelation, your appeal to my words, despite my not having intended that meaning, misrepresents me. You invoke consensus, yet those who affirm these attributes are among those whose agreement constitutes consensus, and they have not conceded this.”

Second: The absence of these things before they come into existence is an imperfection; rather, if they existed before they came into existence, that would be an imperfection. An example is Allah’s speaking to Moses, peace be upon him, and calling him. His calling him when He did was an attribute of perfection; had He called him before he arrived, that would have been an imperfection. Each of these is thus a perfection at the time of its occurrence, but not before it occurs. Indeed, its occurrence before the time at which wisdom requires it to occur would be an imperfection.

Third: It may be said: We do not concede that the absence of this is an imperfection, for whatever comes into existence in time