thing itself, which made a trace unnecessary for him, concerns either his knowledge of his Lord or his knowledge of the state of the person being questioned. If it were the former, he would not have been ignorant and thus asked, “Where is Allah?” Nor would the Sufi have replied to him by saying, “May Allah cast you far away!” Thus, it is clear that he knew the Sufi’s state but sought to test his knowledge of his Lord further. So the Sufi said, “Do you seek a trace when the thing itself is present?”

As for what a heretic means by “the thing itself,” he might be an adherent of particular union who believes that he has seen Allah with his own eyes in this world, and therefore says, “Do you seek a trace when the thing itself is present?”

Or he might believe that the existence witnessed is the very existence of the Real, as maintained by the proponents of absolute union, or hold some similar doctrine of the hypocritical heretics.

Yet the apparent meaning of the account does not support this, for according to such people, the thing itself and its trace are one and the same. The Sufi, however, said, “Do you seek a trace when the thing itself is present?” This implies that someone asking “Where?” can seek a trace after encountering the thing itself.

There is nothing in this account that serves Abū al-Qāsim’s purpose of denying that Allah is upon the Throne. Nor does Abū al-Qāsim maintain that one who knows Allah has attained such a direct vision of Him in this world that he no longer needs a trace.