If someone says, “Just as this cannot be described as being below, neither can it be described as being above. For that which is above in an absolute sense is that which encompasses: there are only the encompassing entity and the centre. Thus, if this does not encompass, it is not above,” the reply is that there are two answers.

First: On this supposition, if He encompasses, He is in no respect below; rather, He is above. Accordingly, if He is the Manifest, above whom there is nothing, and the Hidden, beneath whom there is nothing, and if a person were to lower a rope, it would descend to Him—then He would encompass the world and be above it in an absolute sense. This would not entail His being a celestial sphere or resembling one. A created being’s grasp encompasses what it holds in its hand on every side, yet what it holds does not have the shape of its hand, nor does its hand have the shape of what it holds.

It is related that one of the shaykhs was asked about the Lord being above the world, encompassing it and holding it. He replied, “One of His creatures—a hawk, for example—can grasp a chickpea in its claw, thus being above it, encompassing it and holding it. If this is not impossible for some of His creatures, how could it be impossible for Him?”

Second: If He is supposed to be above without encompassing, it does not follow that He has a centre, that the centre of the world is His centre, that the centre is what lies below in relation to Him, or that what encompasses is what lies above in relation to Him. Rather, these implications apply only to that which encompasses and that which is encompassed. The centre stands in relation to the encompassing entity as the central point does to a circle. If something is supposed to be neither a circle nor a sphere, it would not have a centre corresponding to the central point of a circle.

For this reason, if