two views on this question, as explained above. On this basis, the question does not arise. Some followers of Ahmad and others deny contact, while others say: “I neither affirm nor deny it; thus I do not describe Him as in contact, separate, not in contact, or not separate.”

This separation, which is the opposite of contact, is narrower than separation understood as the opposite of co-location. The latter, general sense is agreed upon by those who affirm the divine attributes. It applies both between one body and another and between a body and an accident. Separation as the opposite of contact, however, does not apply between a body and an accident. An accident is co-located with a body and therefore is not separate from it in the general sense. In the specific sense, neither separation nor contact is predicated of it.

If Ahmad has stated that it is impossible for Him to be neither separate in the specific sense nor in contact, then it is all the more impossible for Him to be neither separate in the general sense nor co-located. For separation in the specific sense and contact are two kinds of separation