This point shows that refraining from telling a lie in the...

This point shows that refraining from telling a lie in the said example has no reason except that once a person knows the evil of an act and he is not in need of doing it, he will not commit it, because in the said example, his need can also be served by telling the truth.

And whenever relative self-sufficiency in a person hinders him from commiting indecency, the absolute self-sufficiency in God through the primary way will hinder the commission of indecency.[^8] The Lack of Claimant and the Existence of Ṣārif The origination of an action from a free agent depends on the existence of a motive ( dā‘ī ) and the absence of dissuasion ( ṣārif ). Meanwhile, there is no motive in God to do indecency, because He knows its evil and is also needless of it.

In other words, God’s self-sufficiency and knowledge hinder and hold back the materialization of the motive for the commission of an act of indecency, and the commission of an action by a free agent is impossible without a motive.

As such, origination of indecency from God is impossible.[^9] This proof is actually a paraphrase of the third proof and its keystone is that since God is aware of the evil of an indecent act and He is not in need of doing so, the motive for doing so will not be materialized in God, and as a result, for an indecent act to originate from God will be impossible.[^10] Objection: This explanation is based on the assumption that God is an Agent by intention ( fā‘il bi ’l-qaṣd or fā‘il bi ’d-dā‘ī ), as the theologians so believe.