is a lesser degree of disbelief than denying the Maker. Likewise, acknowledging the Maker as acquiring perfection or acting aimlessly is a lesser degree of disbelief than denying Him. Thus, accepting a greater burden of proof, and negating God without proof, is among the most utterly false positions.

The same two responses apply to the arguments they advance for denying that He commits reprehensible acts—such as imposing impossible obligations and the existence of evils:

First:

The same consequences also follow with respect to what they describe as eternal and necessarily existent.

Second:

This entails only a deficiency, which is less objectionable than nonexistence. If, then, the argument entails only a deficiency in an existing being, it is impermissible to affirm His nonexistence without proof. Rather, affirming existence, even with deficiency, is unavoidable on every supposition.

Someone who argues against the existence of the Creator on the grounds that it entails the invalidity of prophethood and the Resurrection is like someone who heard that Allah Most High had sent a messenger, and that some people had rejected him, causing him distress. He then went to the messenger and killed him, saying, “I killed him only so that he would not suffer the distress of being rejected.” These people have likewise done away with the Creator lest His messengers belie Him, as they allege.

Likewise, they are like someone who wished to champion a king with a vast kingdom, but