do not dispute the others’ position that these verses do not indicate this, that this was not intended by them, and that they may not be used as evidence for it. If they agree that these verses may not be used to prove that Allah is in every place, and that this is neither intended nor indicated by them, then these verses neither contradict nor counter what the affirmers have argued for on the basis of those other verses. If they do not counter the latter, then adducing them as a counterargument is invalid. This is clear in light of what they are being set against. For if both disputants agree that the words of Allah Most High,

“And He is Allah in the heavens and on earth” [al-Anʿām 3],

do not indicate that Allah Himself is on earth, but rather mean that He is the God of those in heaven and those on earth, or something similar, then these verses do not counter the verses indicating that Allah is above and that He is above the Throne. For His being above the Throne is not contradicted by His being worshipped in heaven and on earth, or by His being with creation through His knowledge, His power, and the like.

Indeed, those who say that He is not above the Throne agree with the affirmers concerning the meaning of these verses. He then presents the claim that both must therefore be interpreted non-literally, or one of them must, as a counterargument directed at the proof rather than at the conclusion. That is, adhering to the apparent meaning would require affirming both this and that, which is impossible; thus, the evidentiary basis for affirmation would be undermined.

This counterargument is invalid. For the evidence that He is distinct from the world and above the Throne consists of many definitive texts; one knows with immediate certainty