Thus he stated that those who say that He has no end deny that He is in one place rather than another; they therefore do not say that He is above the Throne. But unless this theorist refutes their position with proof, they will defeat him in argument. For he denies that Allah is above the Throne and agrees with their unqualified statement that He has no end, limit, or boundary, even though he interprets it differently. Nevertheless, refuting their position requires proof.

As for the first argument he mentioned, they may say to him: “We do not concede that a finite line can come into alignment with an infinite line. Your statement that it ‘ceased to be parallel and came into alignment’ presupposes that this is possible. The contradiction mentioned arose only from assuming that a finite line comes into alignment with an infinite line. This entailed that there must be a point on the finite line that is the first point of alignment, and that no such point exists. But we do not concede your claim that this contradiction arose only from our assumption that the line is infinite. Rather, it may be said that this contradiction arose only from assuming that the finite line comes into alignment with the infinite line. The impossibility therefore arose from assuming their alignment, not from assuming the existence of an infinite line. Why do you say that this is not so?”

One of these two groups may also say to you: “We maintain that He is not