then any multiplicity in it depends on multiplicity in what occupies it. If what occupies it is not established to be a divisible body, then it is not divided. If his opponent says that what occupies it is not a body, or that it is a body but is not divided in itself, the claim that the spatial region is divided is invalid. It is well known that those who maintain that He occupies a spatial region sometimes say the former and sometimes the latter, as previously related. As for those who say that it is divided in the sense that one part is distinguishable from another, their answer is given in the tenth response:

A single spatial region is what an indivisible atom occupies, as you yourself define it later. Whatever occupies it would therefore be the smallest of things, and exalted is Allah above that. If this is so, the existence of such a region depends on the existence of the indivisible atom. Yet you have acknowledged that you and the most astute thinkers of the various schools suspend judgment on the latter because the arguments concerning it conflict. If the existence of the indivisible atom is not known, neither is the existence of a single spatial region of such minuteness. If this is not known, there is no basis for knowing that a spatial region must be either a single one, as thus defined, or more than one.