and their followers, they do not use the term “body” either to deny or to affirm it. Many theologians, however, do use the term “body,” such as Hishām ibn al-Hakam, Hishām al-Jawālīqī, and their followers.

[Al-Rāzī’s arguments in al-Arba‘īn: The first argument]

Al-Rāzī said:
“There are several arguments. First: If He could be pointed to, then, if He were indivisible, He would be as insignificant as an indivisible atom—and He is exalted above that by common agreement. If He were divisible, He would be composite, and the impossibility of that has already been established.”

He said:
“Our colleagues expressed this by saying that if He were above the Throne, then, if He were larger than it or equal to it, He would be divisible, since the Throne is divisible. If He were smaller, then, if He were as small as an indivisible atom, this would entail the insignificance from which He is exempt by common agreement. Otherwise, composition would necessarily follow.

“For anyone who maintains that everything spatially situated is divisible, it suffices to say: Everything spatially situated has a right distinct from its left, and a front distinct from its back; thus composition necessarily follows.”

[Response to him on several grounds: The first]

The position of those who say that He is above the Throne but is neither divisible nor spatially situated, and that He has neither a right nor a left whereby one part of Him is distinguished from another—as maintained by those among the Kullābiyya, Karrāmiyya, and Ash‘ariyya who hold this view, and those adherents of hadith and Sufis who agree with them, who say that He is above the Throne and is not a body,