Seventh:

It should be said: The designation “generous” is applied to many created beings, even though these attributes are absent in them. If this meaning were inherent in the designation, it could not properly be applied to any created being except metaphorically or equivocally. Besides both being contrary to the default understanding, either usage would require it first to be established that the word is used for that meaning on its own. How, then, could this be so when that very usage is lacking?

Eighth:

It should be said: It is recognized in revelation, language, and reason that someone who acts or bestows what is appropriate without any purpose whatsoever acts frivolously. If he does so without any purpose that benefits himself, he is foolish or ignorant. Both are blameworthy according to revelation and reason. Indeed, under Islamic law, he deserves to have his control over his property restricted, and he is among the worst spendthrifts. Some spendthrifts expend their wealth for unlawful ends, yet those ends include something they themselves seek. As for someone who bestows what is appropriate without any purpose whatsoever, such a person—if he exists—is blameworthy. Yet “generosity” is a term of praise in revelation, language, and reason. It is therefore impossible to explain it as something people can only regard as blameworthy.

Rather, it should be said, as the ninth point:

What this designation supposedly denotes is not known to exist at all. Among existing things, nothing bestows benefit or does good without any purpose whatsoever. Even natural motions have an endpoint and a resting place toward which their inclination tends. Their inclination is called a will, and they themselves have described it as love for that perfection. Since what this designation supposedly denotes does not exist, whereas the designation is known in revelation and language to apply to existing individuals, it cannot denote what he has described.