The second is a terminological disagreement: one person says that place is what surrounds something else, while another says that it is what something else is situated upon, or what it rests upon.

There is no doubt that the word “place” is used in both senses. This is the source of the disagreement among those who affirm the divine attributes: may Allah Most High be said to be in a place or not? This parallels their disagreement over direction and space. Yet someone may accept the term “direction” while rejecting “space” or “place”; someone may also accept “space” or “place” while rejecting the other.

The reason for this is either adherence to the wording found in the transmitted texts, or the belief that one term carries an objectionable meaning that the other does not.

To determine the substance of the matter, one must examine the intended meaning. Whoever believes that a place can only be something upon which its occupant depends—whether it surrounds the occupant or lies beneath it—must recognize that Allah, glorified is He, is not in a place in this sense. Whoever believes that the Throne is the place, and that Allah is above it while having no need of it, then there is no doubt that He is in a place in this sense.

Among the things that must unquestionably be denied is any dependence of Allah upon anything besides Him. He, glorified is He, has no need of anything besides Him, whereas everything needs Him. Thus, He must not be described by any attribute that entails His dependence upon anything besides Him.

As for affirming relations and connections between Him and His creation, this is agreed upon by the people of the earth. As for His being above the world and separate from created beings, this is agreed upon by the prophets and messengers, the early generations of the Muslim community and its leading scholars, and these philosophers, as has been reported of them. Other philosophers, however, dispute this.