his own false denial. Rather, it should be said: Either this is true or it is mistaken. If it is true, there is nothing to object to. If it is mistaken, it is undoubtedly further removed from error than the claim that a being exists neither within the world nor outside it, neither separate from anything else nor co-located with it; or that one being subsisting in itself is distinct from another such being only in essence and time; or that one being subsisting in itself is not distinct from another in spatial direction; and other such claims. Anyone who understands and conceives of these claims knows that they contradict sense perception and necessary knowledge.

The innate disposition undoubtedly affirms this more strongly of those claims than of the one under discussion. For if you suggest to anyone of sound innate disposition that a being exists neither within the world nor outside it, or that the Creator is neither above the world nor within it, or anything similar, his innate rejection of this will be unavoidable and beyond his power to suppress. But if you suggest to him a being above the world that can be pointed to through sense perception, yet of which one can say neither that something remains of it on its six sides nor that nothing remains, he would not reject this through his innate disposition and immediate intuition as strongly as he rejects the former claim. For this is subtler to grasp and, even once understood, leaves more room for confusion than the first.

For this reason, eminent Muslims and leading scholars were found among those who held this view, but not among the others. For the latter include no one whom Muslims take as an authority in even a single subsidiary matter of religion, let alone the foundations of their religion. Every one of them holds views contrary to the consensus of the Muslims—indeed, views that constitute outright unbelief.