Thus, a counterargument directed at the conclusion consists in negating the proponent’s claim or establishing its contradictory through another proof. A counterargument directed at the proof consists in demonstrating its invalidity or the invalidity of one of its premises. The latter is called a counterargument directed at a premise of the proof.

What he has cited is neither a counterargument directed at the conclusion nor one directed at the proof. For a counterargument directed at the conclusion must rest on evidence establishing either a claim that contradicts the proponent’s or one equivalent to the objector’s. If the objector’s claim is established, it negates his opponent’s claim, which contradicts it. Whenever the proponent’s claim is negated, the objector’s aim is achieved, and this entails the truth of his own claim that contradicts it.

Now, this author and those who agree with him do not dispute that these verses do not negate Allah’s being above the Throne. Nor, in their view, do they indicate that Allah Himself is in every place, such that one could argue that this entails His not being above the Throne. Rather, the opponent and his associates have no doubt that these verses indicate none of this. Anyone who claims that they indicate that Allah Most High Himself is in every place is making a false claim, whether or not their apparent meaning is said to imply this. For the most that could be claimed is that their apparent meaning implies that He is in every place. Yet this author and those who agree with him