a substance, nor do they call everything that can be pointed to a body; thus, they do not call air a body.

In your terminology, however, you call this a body, just as you use the term dhāt (essence) for anything possessing attributes, anything self-subsisting, or anything at all. Thus, your usage is restricted neither by the bounds of the Arabic language nor by the Lawgiver’s authorization, whether in negation or affirmation.

If this is your only argument against your opponent, he would prevail over you, and his judgment concerning what you dispute would stand on the same footing as your shared judgment concerning what you agree upon, or your own judgment concerning matters of this kind that you alone maintain.

Furthermore, your account that the philosophers call Him a substance, defining substance as an existent that does not inhere in a subject, represents only what Ibn Sīnā and his followers said.

As for Aristotle, his followers, and other philosophers, they call Him a substance: in their view, all existence is divided into substance and accident, and the First Principle falls within the category of substance.

It appears more likely that the Christians adopted the designation of Him as a substance from the philosophers, for they fashioned a doctrine combining the religion of Christ with that of the Sabian polytheists.

As for the disagreement over meaning, the response is as follows:

The statement that He is a substance like other substances, or a body like other bodies, is ambiguous, for it may mean that He is like every substance and every