is not a body and cannot be pointed to is described in neither of these ways. If it subsists in itself and cannot be pointed to, it cannot be said to be an accident, or like an accident dependent upon a substrate. Rather, affirming something that cannot be pointed to, yet is within the world or outside it, is closer to what reason accepts than affirming something that cannot be pointed to and is neither within the world nor outside it.

These arguments are further supported by the following: when these deniers sought to demonstrate the possibility of a being existing neither within the world nor outside it, and to show that its impossibility is not self-evident to reason, they argued for this by affirming universals. They also appealed to the fact that the philosophers and a group of Muslim theologians among the Muʿtazilah, the Shīʿah, and the Ashʿariyyah affirmed the soul, saying:

“It is neither within the body nor outside it; it is described by neither motion nor rest, neither separation from anything else nor indwelling in it.”

They said, “The invalidity of their position is not self-evident.” When those who affirm sought to demonstrate the invalidity of that position, they explained that universals exist in minds, not in concrete particulars, and that the invalidity of this position is self-evident even to the majority of theologians among the Muʿtazilah, the Ashʿariyyah, the Karrāmiyyah, and others.

The point here is to say to these people:

“If you allow the affirmation of universals that are neither