the later scholars who affirmed intelligible substances that do not occupy space, in agreement with the eternalist philosophers, or claimed that this constitutes evidence for denying such substances: When you debate the unbelieving heretics and they claim that substances which do not occupy space exist, you are unable to refute them, or you are remiss, saying, “We know of no evidence that disproves their existence,” or affirming their existence yourselves. Yet when you debate your fellow Muslims, who uphold what is required by the divine texts, the way of the early generations, the natural disposition with which Allah created His servants, and rational proofs free of countervailing evidence, and who say that the Creator, exalted is He, is above His creation, you strive to deny this position, its implications, and its necessary consequences. You say, “A substance means nothing other than that which occupies space in its own right.” If this statement is true, then use it to refute the heretical philosophers; if it is false, then do not use it against the Muslims.

As for treating it as true when you refute what your fellow Muslims say, but as false when you are unable to refute those who reject the religion, this is the way of someone who has deprived himself of his share of reason, religion, and sound inquiry and debate, by the standards of both reason and revelation.

The second reply:

At the beginning of this argument, you said, “Either His essence can be pointed to as being here or there, or it cannot.”

Then you said, “If the former is the case, then He occupies space.”

You should therefore have said, “And if His essence cannot