denial. Rather, the implication is affirmed just as the proposition entailing it is affirmed, even if this is said to involve a contradiction. That being so, they cannot be held to those implications of denying that He is a body which entail denying the implications of His being above the Throne. Accordingly, they cannot be held to the conclusion that He occupies space or that He does not occupy space, for neither conclusion follows from their position so long as they combine denial and affirmation. This is clear. Hence these people and others like them continually incline towards those who deny in one respect and towards those who affirm in another.

Thirdly, you may be told: Grant that these people contradict themselves by affirming an existent above the world that is not a body. Your affirmation of an existent that is neither within the world nor outside it involves an even greater contradiction. For your saying “existent” requires one of these two alternatives to hold. By denying both, you have denied a necessary implication of existence known through innate, self-evident awareness. This is especially so since it is known through innate, self-evident awareness that Allah is above the world, and that whatever is neither within the world nor outside it can only be nonexistent.

Fourthly, they may say to you: We do not concede that this is a contradiction. Rather, we know through innate self-evidence, necessary religious knowledge, and revealed and rational proofs that He is above the Throne. We also know, from the rational proofs on which you agree with us and from what