If it is said that it means something not entailed by being above, such as being like created beings, he rejects the first premise. If it is said that it means something entailed by being above, such as being able to be pointed to, he rejects the second premise.

For he maintains that He is certainly above the world, as is known through reason and revelation. Thus, when it is said, “If He were above it, He would be a body,” the intended meaning of “body” is either entailed by being above or it is not. If it is necessarily entailed, the second premise—which denies that consequence—is rejected. If it is not entailed, the first premise—which asserts the entailment—is rejected.

The intended meaning of every ambiguous term used in this discussion, such as “spatially situated,” “composite,” and similar expressions, must be clarified, just as the intended meaning of “body” must be clarified. Once the point at issue has been reduced to an intelligible meaning—such as that in which attributes subsist, or that in which one aspect can be distinguished from another, and similar meanings—the denial of that meaning is not conceded. Rather, we say: This is necessarily established by sound reason, just as authentic transmitted evidence indicates.

[The seventh ground]

It may be said: Rather, sound reason, which accords with revelation, stands unopposed. Reason has demonstrated that Allah Most High is above the world. This is the approach of the accomplished practitioners of rational inquiry among those who affirm the divine attributes, just as it is the approach of the early generations and the imams: they regard being above as one of the attributes known through reason.

This is the approach of Abū Muhammad ibn Kullāb and his followers, such as Abū ‘Abbās al-Qalānisī, al-Hārith al-Muhāsibī, and others like them