what they convey. This is also known through many proofs, through the mass-transmitted Sunnah, and through the consensus of the early generations of the Muslim community and its leading scholars. Moreover, it accords with the self-evident dictates of human nature and with rational demonstrations.

As for what is thought to indicate that He is within the world, the first response is that we do not concede that any of these verses has that apparent meaning. Even if this were conceded, accompanying verbal indications clarify the intended meaning, so that His being within the world is not what is intended. In light of these verbal indications, co-location is no longer the apparent meaning. Furthermore, it is established that the early generations of the Muslim community unanimously interpreted such wording in a way that excludes co-location. The co-location imagined to be implied by it is also ruled out by sense perception and reason, both immediately and through reflection. Whoever nevertheless thinks that it indicates co-location errs on his own account, not because of the verses.

Furthermore, this is not a counterargument directed at the evidence—one that would impugn it by adducing verses like these which indicate that He is above, yet were not intended to mean that He is above, thereby leaving the wording open to specification and undermining its evidentiary force. Evidence denying that He is above, however, would constitute a counterargument directed at the conclusion. In that case, they are told that an objector may not advance an apparent meaning as a counterargument when he agrees with his opponent that it does not conflict with the latter’s position.

Moreover, if the two were assumed to conflict in their apparent meanings, this would necessitate interpreting one of them non-literally. Why, then, must a non-literal interpretation be applied to