That is because what Allah the Exalted negates of Himself, the intent is to clarify its absence in order to establish the perfection of its opposite, not merely for the sake of negation, because negation is not perfection.

The Shaykh : All right, let us return, brothers, and look at the topic.
He says: "In the most perfect manner, and that is because what Allah negates of Himself, the intent is to clarify its absence in order to establish the perfection of its opposite, not merely for the sake of negation". This reasoning means that when Allah negates something of Himself, the intent is not merely for us to know that it is absent from Allah, but for us to know that Allah is what? Described with the perfection of the opposite of this thing, or with the opposite of this thing in perfection. All right.
"And it cannot be merely for the sake of negation, because negation is not perfection, unless it includes what indicates perfection". This is a rule mentioned by the scholars, and it is clear: negation is not praise of perfection, except—yes—it is not perfection unless it includes what indicates perfection. This is a rule; take it with you regarding the attributes of Allah and others. "And that is because negation is non-existence". Look, did Zayd stand up now? Is the standing absent or present? Absent. Every negation is non-existence. "Because negation is non-existence, and non-existence is nothing, let alone perfection". This is clear: pure negation is pure non-existence, and non-existence is nothing; it is non-existence by its name. If it is not a thing, it is not perfection, because it is originally non-existent, so we cannot say it is perfection or not perfection. Therefore, he said it is not "let alone perfection. And because negation may be due to the lack of capacity of the subject for it, in which case it is not perfection". Correct. If negation is not intended to establish the perfection of its opposite, it may be due to lack of capacity. And what is capacity? The capacity for praise; that it is acceptable to be praised or blamed. "As if you said: 'The wall does not oppress'". Correct. Is this or not? Meaning, no one can praise the wall for not oppressing. You cannot say, "By Allah, the wall we have, Ibn Halal, is kind; he does not oppress; the small and the large, the woman and the man, the disbeliever and the Muslim, love him; he has flexibility that gives them a measure of praise that is uncountable." Is this correct or not? Why, my brothers? Because it does not accept it at all; it does not accept praise and commendation. Do you understand? Yes. You may say this wall is strong, if its construction is solid. But you want to negate a defect from it to establish the perfection of the opposite; that is not possible.
So the result is that pure negation may be due to lack of capacity, or it may be due to inability to perform this negated attribute, in which case it becomes a defect. Glory be to Allah; negating a defect becomes a defect. Answer me, everyone. Yes, it may be so, even though the original rule is that negating a defect is praise and perfection. All right, but it may be a defect. An example is: "It may be due to inability to perform it, in which case it is a defect, as in the saying of the poet:
A tribe that does not betray a pledge of protection *** and does not wrong people by a mustard seed "
Look, the speech is "a tribe that does not betray a pledge," meaning if they make a covenant, they fulfill it. Is this good or not? Good. "Nor oppress people by a mustard seed," meaning if they deal with people, they cannot possibly oppress them at all. May Allah will it, how good it is. And what does he want with this, blame or praise? Blame. And the proof that he wants blame is his saying: "A tribe", using the diminutive form, meaning it is nothing, a small tribe.
Someone might say: It may be intended by the diminutive form to be charming and affectionate, like when you say to your servant, "O boy, come," intending to be gentle with him and endearing yourself to him. And it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Ibn Abbas: instead of "O boy." So someone might say: What is intended by this? Charming. We say the original rule of the diminutive form is belittling. This is the original rule. What is the original rule of the diminutive form? Belittling. So we do not deviate from the original rule except with evidence, and there is no evidence here indicating that charming is intended. Is it clear, everyone? Clear. All right. Always in disputes, if he wants to escalate the dispute to a higher level, he diminishes the person addressed. He said: "This is your opinion, O Humayd." Humayd is the diminutive of Hamid, right? The one who was Abdullah said, "Abdullah, this is your opinion, O 'Abid." What are you, and what is your opinion? He intends belittling by this.
And the saying of the other:
"But my people, though they are of noble lineage — and in a narration, of great number — *** Are not of evil in any way, even if they are lowly".