the position of these people, if these verses entail that He Himself is everywhere. He would also need to answer these brethren of his among the Jahmiyyah concerning the support both categories of verses lend to their doctrine. If, however, these verses do not entail that He Himself is everywhere—as the community maintains—then they cannot be used to counter the evidence indicating that He is above the Throne.

Thus, on either assumption, the falsity of his position—that He is neither within the world nor outside it—has become clear. Whether or not these verses indicate that He is everywhere, the Quran demonstrates the falsity of their assertion that He is neither within the world nor outside it. On one assumption, the Quran conveys that He is outside the world; on the other assumption, which the disputant advances as a counterargument, it conveys that He is within it. Those people have indeed affirmed what these verses convey. On either assumption, then, the author’s position is false.

The third response reinforces this: If these verses do not indicate that He is within the world, they cannot serve as a counterargument. If they do, then the Quran contains texts indicating that He is outside the world and others indicating that He is within it. It is well known that when texts conflict, one must either give effect to them all or give precedence to one of the two texts and interpret the other non-literally. As for disregarding all the texts, no one advocates this, nor does any Muslim deem it permissible.

In that case, we would be obliged either to say that He is outside the world and interpret non-literally what indicates that He is within it; or to say that He is within it and interpret non-literally what indicates that He is outside it; or to affirm the combined import of