have conventionally divided “opposites involving negation and affirmation” into contradictories and what they call “privation and possession.” By “privation,” they mean the absence of an attribute from something naturally capable of possessing it, as with blindness and muteness: these are the absence of sight and speech from something naturally capable of seeing and speaking. Inanimate things, however, they describe in neither way.

“Their specious argument” has confused some of those engaged in rational inquiry. They supposed that if He is not described by the attributes of perfection—life, knowledge, hearing, sight, and speech—it does not necessarily follow that He possesses attributes of deficiency, because the two stand opposed as “privation and possession,” not as contradictories.

They may be answered: First, this is your own terminological convention. Others do describe inanimate things as dead, lifeless, and the like, as in His words:

“Those whom they invoke besides Allah create nothing, but are themselves created.”

“They are dead, not living.”

They may also be answered: “Second,” what must be considered is the realities apprehended by reason. It is known that the absence of these attributes necessarily entails the deficiency constituted by their absence.

They may further be answered: “Third,” if you say that He possesses neither of the two opposing attributes because He is incapable of possessing either, then this deficiency is greater than the deficiency of blindness, deafness, and muteness. For that which is incapable of