believers in this negation. Had it been true, they would have believed it. Thus, his praise has the opposite effect to the one he intended.

One may also reply:

The assertion that bodies are equivalent, and the use of this as a basis for argument, constitute a familiar method followed by the Muʿtazilah and those who agreed with them among the Ashʿarīs and others. Al-Ashʿarī’s words in his book al-Ibānah imply that he opposed them on this point. Thus, this is no novel method.

Moreover, he has offered no proof whatsoever that bodies are equivalent. As for what he mentions concerning composition and finitude of power, if sound, it would itself constitute a proof. For He, glorified be He, is independent of everything besides Him; it is therefore self-evidently impossible for Him to depend upon an agent, as all rational people agree.

Furthermore, he has offered no proof that a body is composite or that its power is finite. His opponent denies both propositions, as has been discussed in the appropriate place.

More astonishing still is his interpretation of the Most High’s words:

“The Most Merciful rose over the Throne.” [Tā Hā: 5]

as conveying this meaning. The falsity of this is too obvious to require explanation.

He said:

“As for the second reason, ordinary people consider that what exists is what can be imagined and perceived by the senses, and that whatever can neither be imagined nor perceived by the senses is nonexistent. Thus, when they are told that there is an existent being that is not a body, they can no longer form a mental image of it, and so regard it as belonging to the category of the nonexistent—especially when they are told that He is neither within the world nor outside it, neither above nor below. For this reason, the group that