the very premise by which the disputant argues against his opponent’s position is one that he himself has affirmed, along with something even stronger? Other refutations of this argument come from those who adhere to the truth and have not advanced a false position.

[Refuting his argument in several ways]

We shall mention such refutations as come to mind, examining its premises and the points on which others dispute his claims.

[The first line of refutation]

His statement, “If He were a body, He would have spatial dimension and extension,” is disputed by a group who say that He is a body, yet is one and admits of no division whatsoever, so that nothing in Him can be pointed to separately from anything else. This is a view known to have been held by a group of speculative theologians among the Karrāmiyyah and others. Al-Rāzī himself mentioned it as the view of some of them, but claimed that this position is inconceivable and that its falsity is known necessarily.

The same applies to the view of those who say that He is above the Throne, yet is not a body. This is reported from al-Ash‘arī and many theologians, hadith scholars, and jurists among the followers of the four imams and others. It is the position of Judge Abū Ya‘lā and Abū al-Hasan al-Zāghūnī, and the position expressed by Abū al-Wafā’ ibn ‘Aqīl in much of his discourse. It is also the position of Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qalānisī and, before him, Abū Muhammad ibn Kullāb, as well as other groups besides these.

Thus, if someone says:

“His being a body while being indivisible, or His being above the Throne while not being a body, is something whose falsity is known by rational necessity.”