does not result from prostration.” The response is: Do you claim that such proximity does not occur with respect to Allah, or that it occurs neither with respect to Allah nor with respect to anything else?

If the latter is the claim, this is nullifying the text, not reinterpreting it. For if you claim that proximity in direction to anything whatsoever is inconceivable, then it would be impossible for the servant to draw near to anything whatsoever. To call an act that involves no proximity to anything “drawing near” would be neither literal nor figurative usage. It would therefore be false, subverting and altering the language.

If, however, he claims that proximity in direction can occur with respect to something other than Allah, then his statement, “It is known of necessity that proximity in direction does not result from prostration,” would be an invalid generalization. Rather, he should have said, “It does not occur with respect to anything other than Allah.” If he says that, he is told: There is no difference between prostration bringing one near in direction to Allah and its bringing one near to anything else.

This point is clear and evident: he faces two alternatives. Either he calls something that involves no drawing near in any respect “drawing near,” or he contradicts what he claims to know of necessity.