But to make the denial that “where” applies to Him serve as evidence is something no rational person would do. Whoever denies that “where” applies to Him argues that “where” is a question about place, saying: “Allah is not in a place, because place applies only to a body; Allah is not a body, because a body can only be originated and contingent.” He must therefore rely on these premises or others like them.

Then the one who affirms what the Sunnah has conveyed responds by challenging some of these premises, drawing distinctions within all or some of them, and explaining what is true and what is false in them. For example, one may say that “place” can mean something that encompasses a thing, whereas nothing created encompasses Allah. Or it can mean something upon which a contingent being depends, whereas Allah depends on nothing. “Place” may also mean that above which a thing is situated. Allah is above His Throne, above His heavens; thus, the denial of place in this sense is not conceded.

We also say that established reports affirm the use of the word “place,” so it cannot properly be denied without qualification. We say the same concerning the remaining premises. It is therefore clear that this argument is not valid unless it is intended to deny union and indwelling. Its meaning would then be: if Mary’s womb or the body of a human being had contained Him—as some proponents of indwelling may claim—then “where” would necessarily apply to Him just as it applies to the locus in which He dwells. A distinction is thus drawn between the two by treating one as the Creator and the other as created.

As for the intended meaning of denying that a place contains Him, it is correct if what is meant is that no created thing is above Him so as to encompass Him, nor is the Lord dependent upon it.