encompass all that was in them, despite his being separate from them. Likewise, Allah—to whom belongs the highest example—encompasses His creation with His sight while having risen over His Throne. Similarly, if a man built a house, he would know what was inside it even when outside it. Thus Allah, who created the world, knows it while being above it, as He Most High says:

“Does He who created not know, while He is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware?” [al-Mulk: 14]

When someone is answering an opponent who appeals to reason and claims that reason contradicts the revealed texts, he may need to resolve the opponent’s specious objection and demonstrate its invalidity.

Suppose the one who denies the attributes begins using ambiguous expressions, saying, for example:

“If He were above the Throne, He would be a body, or He would be composite, whereas He is exalted above that. If He possessed knowledge and power, He would be a body and would be composite, whereas He is exalted above that. If He created, rose over the Throne, and came, temporal occurrences would inhere in Him, whereas He is exalted above that. If attributes subsisted in Him, accidents would inhere in Him, whereas He is exalted above that.”

Here the questioner seeks clarification, asking him: “What do you mean by these ambiguous expressions?”

If he means by them both truth and falsehood, the truth is accepted and the falsehood rejected. For example, he might say: “By denying that He is a body, I mean denying that He subsists in Himself and that attributes subsist in Him, and denying that He is composite.” ن

We reply: “He subsists in Himself, and He has attributes that subsist in Him. You have called this ascribing corporeality, but I may not abandon the truth established by authentic transmitted evidence and clear reason merely because you have given it this name.”