Now that this has been made clear, the comparison advanced by those Christians is invalid according to every Muslim school.

Some Muslims say, “In classical Arabic a jism (body) is something composite, and since God is not composite, He is not a body.” Such scholars do not affirm what the Christians allege—namely, that God has a face He turns toward every place, a side, and the like.

Others likewise hold that God is not composite but still call Him a jism in the sense that He exists independently, or they avoid the term altogether; in either case they, too, reject the properties the Christians ascribe to them. As for those reported to affirm for Him the characteristics of composite bodies: Even if those Muslims were to use a term they themselves disclaim, the Christians would still have no argument against them; and if they refrain from using it, the Christians’ case is all the weaker.

It is therefore evident that the Christians possess no proof even against the people whose doctrine of embodiment is most unsound, let alone against anyone else.

Sixth Response:

We say to these Christians: By the word jism you must mean one of two things—either the lexical meaning, “a physical body (jasad),” or the technical meaning current among the scholastic theologians, such as “whatever can be pointed at.”

If you intend the former, then denying it does not oblige you to deny the attributes you mentioned—especially since you yourselves say that He is a jawhar (substance) and you divide substance into subtle (laṭīf) and dense (kathīf). Now, if the dense alone qualifies as a body while the subtle is a substance that is not a body, nothing prevents such a being from possessing attributes appropriate to it, just as the angels do.