This is why those who held that bodies are alike called those who affirmed a body “likeners of Allah to created beings,” on the basis of what they supposed necessarily followed from their position. Similarly, those who deny the divine attributes call those who affirm them “likeners” and “corporealists.” Indeed, they have called everyone who affirms the attributes “likeners,” “corporealists,” “Hashwiyya,” “scum,” “rabble,” and similar names, on the basis of what they supposed necessarily followed from their position.

However, once it is known that someone who holds a view does not accept these implications, they may not be attributed to him as his own views, whether they actually follow necessarily or not. Rather, if they do necessarily follow and are false, this demonstrates the falsity of his view.

Thus, the dispute between these two groups turns on whether bodies are alike. This has been discussed at length elsewhere, where all their arguments have been examined.

The second matter concerns what they mean by “body” in their technical usage. They disagree over whether it is composed of discrete parts, of matter and form, or of neither.

If it is composite, does it consist of two parts, six parts, eight parts, sixteen parts, or thirty-two?

All these matters are disputed among them. Those who affirm the disputed kind of composition in a body tell the others that, if they say, “He is a body,” this composition necessarily follows from their position. The others deny that it necessarily follows.