It was further said:

“Second, if the condition required for the intended objective may or may not be fulfilled—and in many, most, or all instances it is not fulfilled—then He could create someone other than the infallible person who would be just on many (* occasions or some of them. For attaining the intended end through someone (1) who acts justly in many of (2)

(3) the matters, but unjustly in some, provided that the benefit of his existence outweighs its harm, is better than seeking it through someone who is wholly incapable of acting justly or repelling any injustice; such a person affords no benefit whatsoever.”

If they say:

“The Lord did what was obligatory upon Him by creating the infallible person, but the people forfeited the benefit by disobeying him,”

the reply is:

“First, if He knew that the people would not assist him so that the benefit might be attained, but would instead disobey him and consequently be punished, then creating him would not be obligatory; indeed, according to their position, it would not even be wise.”

It may also be said:

“Second, not all the people disobeyed him. Rather, some people disobeyed and obstructed him, while many people would prefer to obey him and learn what he says. Why, then, are these people not enabled to obey him?”

If it is said:

“Those wrongdoers prevented them,”

the reply is:

“If the Lord is able to restrain the wrongdoers, then, according to their position, why did He not restrain them? If that is not within His power, then He knows that attaining the benefit is beyond His power and therefore does not do it. Why, then, on this supposition, did you say: ‘It is possible to create an infallible person who is not a prophet’?”