But if what is meant is that He is not above the Throne, this is false. The expression “being contained in a place,” however, is more naturally understood in the first sense.

As for his statement, “Whatever has another of its kind is subject to the question ‘how?’,” it follows the same pattern as the preceding statement. It implies that the absence of anything of His kind is established by ruling out inquiry into “how.” Yet knowing that Allah has no likeness, equal, or counterpart is more evident than knowing that one may not ask “how” concerning Him. For many people have been beset by doubts and sought to determine how He is, until it was explained to them that this is unknown to us.

What revelation, reason, and the consensus of the early generations establish is only the denial that servants know how He is, and the rejection of their asking about a reality they cannot know. By contrast, the existence of anything of His kind is excluded in reality itself. How, then, can we make the former evidence for the latter?

Had he reversed the statement and said, “Whatever is subject to inquiry about ‘how’ has another of its kind,” he would have followed a valid line of argument. Yet this premise might not be conceded to him. He could be asked: “How do you know that everything concerning which one asks ‘how’ must have a likeness of the same kind?”

An argument could then be offered to establish this, but this is not the place for it. Perhaps the speaker intended this meaning, although there is more to be said about ruling out the question ‘how,’ which we have discussed elsewhere.