The second is the position of those who say: “One part of Him can be pointed to rather than another.” They say: “The division into parts that is denied of Him is the separation of His parts from one another. As for one part of Him being seen rather than another, this is not denied of Him; rather, it necessarily follows from His existence.” If the second speaker says, “This is composition, and it is impossible,” the invalidity of this argument has already been established.
[The seventh response]
It may be said: If He is above the Throne, then either this necessarily entails His being a body or it does not. If it does not, the position of those who deny this is invalid, since their argument hinges on the claim that being above necessarily entails being a body. If that does not follow, there is nothing objectionable in His being upon the Throne. If it does necessarily entail His being a body, then this position entails the beginningless existence of that which is a body.
In that case, the statement, “If place were existent, it would be a body, and its perpetual existence would entail the beginningless existence of bodies,” would not constitute an objection on this assumption. Nor would it be valid to argue on this basis that place does not exist.
[The eighth response]
As for the eighth response, it concerns his statement:
“Place is independent, for its existence, of that which occupies it, since the possibility of a void is agreed upon. Yet, according to the opponent, it is impossible for the Creator to exist without being in a spatial locus. He would therefore depend upon a spatial locus.”
The opponent objects: We do not concede that, on this assumption, every place would be independent of that which occupies it. No rational person says that any contingent thing is independent of the Necessary Being. Thus, if what is called ‘place’ is regarded as one of the contingent things brought into being by Allah, exalted is He, it cannot be said to be independent of Him.
It may also be said: If, by saying that place is independent of that which occupies it, you mean that it does not require its occupant to be upon it, this is conceded. But it does not help your argument unless