And “those who deny prophethood” say: Creation is not of such standing that He should send a messenger to them, just as people on society’s margins are not worthy of having a sovereign send them an envoy.

“The polytheists” say: The Lord’s greatness and majesty require that He be approached only through an intermediary and a chamberlain. To approach Him directly, without intercessors and intermediaries, detracts from His exalted dignity.

Yet those who uphold this “premise” neither accept its implications nor apply it consistently. If they were asked, “Which is more perfect: an essence possessing all forms of perception, including smell, taste, and touch, or an essence not possessing them all?” they would answer that the former is more perfect. Nevertheless, they do not attribute all these forms of perception to the Creator.

And (in sum), perfection and deficiency are relative matters and relational concepts. An attribute may be a perfection for one essence and a deficiency for another. Eating, drinking, and marriage, for example, are perfections for created beings but deficiencies for the Creator. Conversely, self-exaltation, pride, and self-praise are perfections for the Creator but deficiencies for created beings. If this is so, perhaps the attributes you describe as perfections are perfections only in relation to what is observable. It does not necessarily follow that they are perfections for what is unseen, as has been explained—especially given the dissimilarity between the two essences.

If you say, “We set aside the entity to which the attribute pertains and consider the attribute itself: is it a perfection or a deficiency?” then, for that very reason, we consider it impossible to judge it to be either, since it may be a perfection for one essence and a deficiency for another, as mentioned.