“The philosophers” say: If His possession of these attributes entails perfection for Him, then He would have attained perfection through something other than Himself and would therefore be deficient in Himself. If it entails deficiency for Him, these attributes cannot be ascribed to Him.

“The Muʿtazilah” say: If attributes possessing real existence subsisted in His essence, He would depend on them, while they would depend on Him. The Lord would thus depend on something other than Himself. Moreover, these attributes are accidents, which can subsist only in a body. A body is composite, and whatever is composite is contingent and dependent; that is deficiency itself.

They also say: If He decreed His servants’ deeds and punished them for those deeds, He would be unjust, and that is a deficiency.

Their opponents say: If anything occurred within His dominion that He did not will, He would be deficient.

“The Kullābiyyah and their followers” deny His attributes of action, saying: If these subsisted in Him, He would be a locus for temporal occurrences. If such an occurrence entailed perfection for Him, He would have lacked that perfection before it, which is a deficiency. If it did not entail perfection for Him, it could not be attributed to Him.

“A group among them” deny His attributes known through revelation, on the grounds that these entail composition, which in turn entails need and dependence.

Likewise, they deny His love, on the grounds that love involves an affinity between the lover and the beloved, and that an affinity between the Lord and creation is a deficiency.

They similarly deny His mercy, because mercy is a tenderness in the one who shows mercy: a weakness and frailty of constitution, and distress over the one shown mercy—and that is a deficiency. Likewise, they deny His anger, because anger is the boiling of the heart’s blood in pursuit of vengeance.

They also deny His laughter and amazement, because laughter is a lightness of spirit arising from the occurrence of something pleasing and the removal of something harmful, while amazement consists in regarding its object as something extraordinary.