the proponent of the argument. You said: “This kind of argument cannot yield certainty—as is evident—nor can it even silence the opponent. The explanation is that the opponent may say: ‘I acknowledged the judgment in the agreed case only for a reason that is absent from the disputed case. If that reason is valid, the analogy fails because of the evident distinction; if that reason is invalid, I reject the judgment in the agreed case.’ Thus, this argument faces either a rejection of the judgment in the original case or an evident distinction between it and the case being compared to it.”

This very objection applies to what you have stated here. The opponent who agrees with you that He is not below says that Allah is above the Throne, above the heavens; that the Throne is above the heavens, and the heavens are above the earth. He is not described as being below, because that would entail His not being above the Throne. This opponent may not know, or may not concede, that some of these bodies can be described as being below something in some respect. He therefore denies that Allah is below anything, since that would contradict His being above the Throne.

As for what you have put forward, they say that it does not entail that He is not below anything in any respect. You must either concede this or deny it. If you deny it and say, “Rather, this entails that He is below some