The analogy of the absent to the present, when they share the same cause. One of their examples is their saying: knowledge is a cause for the knower to be a knower, present. So it should be for the absent. On this basis, the attributes are proven to be in addition to the essence.

Ibn Tumart criticized this analogy, focusing on two fundamental points: The first: It is impossible for God's knowledge to be described as a cause, because a cause may separate from the effect, and it may cease to exist. Its continuation is no more likely than its separation, nor its separation more likely than its continuation, except by a specificizer. We note that this criticism is based on the possibility of separation between God and knowledge implied by this analogy, based on the possibility of separation between the effect and the cause. This implies a weakness in that the cause in this analogy is the attribute of knowledge, in addition to the essence (as the Ash'arites believe). God's knowledge may separate from its cause (the additional attribute), but it does not separate from its existence in itself (which is what the Mu'tazilites believed).

The second: One of the conditions for analogy between two things is that there be a common ground between them. There is no common ground between the absent and the present in this case. Rather, each of them is the opposite of the other. This one acts, and that one does not act. This one is ancient, and that one is new. This one is in need, and that one is self-sufficient. The commentator of "A'azz ma yutlab" further clarified this meaning by saying: "This is a false statement, as the eternal, glory be to Him, has no common ground with His creatures in anything, nor any link. Links are only between those who are similar or of the same kind. And the Creator, glory be to His praise, has no equal and no kind, so what they said is false." We note that this objection was more valid and appropriate than the previous objections.

The Ash'arites held that the cause, the new, and the condition do not differ between the present and the absent. This is the basis on which this analogy was built. See in this regard: Al-Iji, Al-Mawaqif: 345.

Most theologians held the opposite, stating that the cause is constant, and wherever it is found, the effect is certainly found. It is in this regard different from the condition, for the condition may exist and the conditioned be absent, such as the existence of life and the absence of knowledge (see the previous source).

Perhaps Ibn Tumart meant by this that the cause separates from the effect according to possibility, considering divine power, not according to observed custom, as the theologians state. In that case, he would be following the Ash'arites, especially Al-Ghazali, in their rejection of the inherent action of the cause and attributing all action to God Almighty.

Unknown, Sharh A'azz ma yutlab.

See this analogy and its criticism in: Risalah fi anna al-shari'ah la tuthbat bi al-'aql.