First: Ascribing such defects and infirmities to God is, in both reason and religion, more manifestly false than the debate over corporeality and spatial confinement. The latter questions involve ambiguities, controversy, and obscurities that the former does not. Moreover, the unbelief of anyone who imputes those shortcomings to Him is a truth known by necessity in Islam. Because evidence is meant to identify and clarify what it proves, it is impermissible to reason from what is less clear to establish what is already more obvious—just as one would never do so when formulating definitions.

Second: Those who attribute these infirmities to Him could just as easily say, “We do not affirm corporeality or spatial confinement,” exactly as those who affirm the divine attributes yet deny corporeality do. Their dispute would then resemble the dispute with those who affirm the attributes of perfection; the speech of someone who describes God with perfect attributes and the speech of someone who describes Him with deficient attributes would thus be placed on the same footing. The deniers could rebut both groups with a single argument, and this is grossly unsound.

Third: The very same method is employed by these people to negate the attributes of perfection themselves—yet His possessing attributes of perfection is obligatory and established by both reason and revelation. That fact alone demonstrates the invalidity of their method.