As for the second argument—his statement, “Either it is composite, in which case it is a body, or it is not”—it rests on denying that it is a body. His discussion and his criticism of the arguments for this denial have already been noted.

His third argument also rests on the similarity of substances, yet he has invalidated the proofs for this. It also rests on the impossibility of temporally originated events occurring within Him, yet he has likewise invalidated all the arguments for this. He appealed to the argument from perfection and imperfection, just as al-Rāzī did; yet he himself also invalidated this argument when the philosophers used it to establish the eternity of the world, as has been reported from him.

As for his fourth argument for denying that He is a substance, he based it on denying that He occupies space. He in turn based this denial on two arguments: the argument from motion and rest, and the similarity of substances.

He has explained that there is no proof for the similarity of substances. He also invalidated the argument from motion and rest when it was used to establish that bodies are temporally originated. For he said: “The sixth line of argument belongs to some of the later scholars of our school”—meaning al-Rāzī. Al-Rāzī took this line of argument from the Muʿtazila; Abū al-Husayn and others mentioned it: namely, that if bodies were eternal, then in pre-eternity they would either