separation belongs to the reciprocal mufā‘ala form, such that its holding on one side logically entails its holding on the other. The same applies in linguistic usage, except in certain cases said to be exceptions—or, rather, susceptible to explanation—such as “I punished the thief,” “I pounded the sandal,” “May Allah grant you well-being,” and similar expressions.
If you say, “I am not separate from Him,” you are committed to affirming indwelling or union. For whatever is not separate and distinct from something else is co-present with it and interpenetrates it: it shares its locus, coincides with it, and enters into it, just as an attribute shares a locus with the substrate in which it subsists and with another attribute that subsists in that same substrate. An apple’s taste and colour, for example, are not separate from the apple; rather, they share its locus and are co-present with it, while its taste also shares a locus with its colour. Separation means being apart, and is the opposite of co-presence.
Since an attribute, termed an accident, shares a locus with its substrate—termed a body—and with another accident, it is known that nothing of this kind applies to Allah, glorified and exalted be He. He is neither an accident nor an attribute; rather, He subsists in Himself and has no need of a substrate in which to subsist. Thus, He cannot share a locus with created things or indwell them. For denying that He is a body while affirming this dichotomy is a manifest contradiction.
Since this position entails corporealism, whoever holds it must face the same consequences as those who affirm corporealism. Yet he has described those who deny this as both deluded and misleading, claiming that anyone who says this is a denier of the divine attributes and that
“Disbelief lurks in his statement.”
This entails declaring those who deny corporealism to be unbelievers, and the grave consequences of such a statement are well known.
The proponents of affirmation said: “We offer you two answers: one general and one detailed.”