rather than an accident, or neither a body nor an accident, must be due either to its being a self-subsisting existent, to some characteristic that also applies to the Necessary Existent, or to something peculiar to a contingent, originated being. Under the first two alternatives, every self-subsisting existent must be a body, and their argument would therefore be sound. The second is false, because it entails explaining a positive reality—namely, a self-subsisting being, or such a being’s being living, knowing and powerful—by something involving nonexistence; yet nonexistence cannot be a cause of existence. This argument has already been discussed, and he has raised no valid objection to it.

If that is so, he has presented on their behalf an argument establishing that Allah is above creation and that He is a body, in addition to the immediate knowledge they cited, even if he has not challenged any of this. He also mentioned that later generations inherited this from earlier generations and agreed upon it. Calling it imagination does not establish its invalidity unless he demonstrates that it is a false imagining.

It thus becomes clear that what he has mentioned substantiates their position through rational analogy, prophetic reports and religious consensus, in addition to the rationally necessary knowledge they cited. Moreover, beyond substantiating His being above creation, he has also substantiated His being a body. Undoubtedly, this is his position and that of most people, both those who negate and those who affirm. For they say that His being above the Throne entails the meaning that the theologians call a body and the people of hadith call a limit.