This point was made by the author of al-Irshād and others, yet the illustration is not exact. The proper parallel would be to say, “I never gave you a dirham without having already given you another before it.” By contrast, the statement, “I will not give you a dirham until I have given you one,” negates a future act until that same future act has occurred.

What is at issue, then, is the affirmation of a past event preceded by another past event, not a future event preceded by another future event. Logically speaking, four configurations are conceivable: (1) a future followed by a future, (2) a past preceded by a past, (3) a future preceded by a future, and (4) a past followed by a past. The first two form one pair and the latter two another; the pair that is impossible in this context is the latter, not the former.

Furthermore, to ground the transcendence of the Almighty in the mere denial that He is a “body” is an innovation in the Sharīʿah and an inconsistency in reason; it is therefore invalid both scripturally and rationally.

Scripturally, neither the Qur’an, nor a single Prophetic ḥadīth, nor any report from the early generations or the leading Imāms employs such terminology. Indeed, discussing Allah’s attributes in terms of denying or affirming corporeality was regarded by the Salaf and the Imāms as an innovation. Had this been a principle upon which the Sharīʿah relies, the Sharīʿah would have pointed to it explicitly. Allah rebuked the Jews for attributing deficiencies to Him—such as their saying, “Allah is poor,” “Allah’s hand is chained,” or that He “rested”—even though the Torah is filled with descriptions of the divine attributes; yet He did not censure them for those descriptions, nor did He say they had distorted them.

Many theologians nonetheless rebut the Jews by means of this innovated method and abandon the Qur’anic approach.