the inhabitants of the other side of the earth, and that this is untenable).

He has thus stated two premises without proving either: that this necessarily places Him below some created beings, and that this consequence is untenable.

The opposing party disputes both premises. He does not concede that a lower position necessarily follows. Even if this consequence were conceded, a rational proof would still be needed to rule it out, yet the author of the argument has provided none.

Nor may it be said, “This entails an imperfection, and He is free of imperfection,” for two reasons:

First, the one who affirms Allah’s being above does not concede that this is an imperfection. Do you not see that the celestial spheres are described as being above the earth, even though this entails the aforementioned position beneath the inhabitants of the earth’s other side, without this being an imperfection in them? The same applies to everything described as being above what lies beneath it, such as air, clouds, birds, animals, plants, mountains, and minerals, as well as the angels, Paradise, the Throne, and other things. Since higher created beings are regarded as nobler than lower created beings, and the relative lower position he mentions neither precludes this nobility and standing nor entails any imperfection, it follows that this is not an imperfection.

If it is said:

“The other side contains no animals, plants, minerals, or mountains, but only water. The presence of clouds and rain there may likewise be disputed.”

The reply is:

This does not undermine our argument, for we know that the stars, the sun, and the moon are above the earth without qualification. Their being above the earth entails no imperfection in them, even if the lower position imagined by these people is assumed. The same applies if it is assumed that the other side contains things like those on this side; and even if