Hence the jurists say: “If an impure substance has a solid bodily form, such as carrion, its ruling is such-and-such; if it does not, such as urine, its ruling is such-and-such.” Even supposing there is proof that He is not a jasad, it does not follow that He is not a jism according to this terminology. For them, jism is broader than jasad, and negating the narrower category does not entail negating the broader one. If, for example, you say that something is not a human being, it does not follow that it is not an animal.

Thus, the term jism has different meanings in ordinary language and in the terminology of the speculative theologians. If its linguistic meaning is that of jasad—and this is ruled out by the proof he has cited—then the argument of someone who denies His rising over the Throne in His essence, or any other attribute, on the grounds that possessing that attribute would make Him a jism, is invalid. The supposed entailment does not hold in that case. One of the two premises must therefore be false: either the first or the second.

A parallel example would be someone saying:

“If He possessed knowledge and power, He would be a locus of accidents. Whatever is a locus of accidents is a locus of afflictions and defects, and therefore cannot be the All-Holy or the One free from every defect. For the lexicographers say: ‘ʿArad, pronounced with two short a vowels, denotes an illness or similar affliction that befalls a person.’ If such things could inhere in Him, He—exalted and holy is He—would be defective and imperfect. Yet He, glory be to Him, is utterly free of that, for He is the One free from every defect, the All-Holy.”

The reply is:

The term ʿarad has different meanings: the linguistic meaning just mentioned, and its meaning in the terminology of the speculative theologians. For its meaning—according to those who call knowledge and power