both categories alike? Indeed, were those who say that He Himself is everywhere to tell them, “We affirm the texts indicating co-location and interpret those indicating separation non-literally,” they would be following the texts more closely than their opponents.

It is well known that diverting wording from its more likely meaning to a less likely one—what later scholars call non-literal interpretation—runs counter to the default rule. When something runs counter to the default rule, multiplying its instances likewise runs counter to that rule. Those who affirm co-location would therefore depart less from the texts than those who deny both co-location and separation. Hence their ordinary followers and devout adherents understand their teaching to mean only co-location—an inference that demolishes the specious objections.

The second response is to say: The apparent meaning of these verses either entails that He Himself is everywhere or it does not. If it entails the former, then what both categories convey must be affirmed: that He is above the Throne and that He Himself is everywhere, as maintained by some of the Jahmiyyah, both corporealists and non-corporealists, as mentioned earlier. Thus this author ought to have adopted