And there is no doubt that whatever is above the world must be capable of being pointed to as being there. This is what we mean by affirming spatial occupation and direction. If this classification necessarily entails affirming direction and spatial occupation, it cannot be valid unless affirming direction and spatial occupation is itself correct. Yet the poet has offered no proof that affirming spatial occupation, direction, and corporeality is correct.

We further say that the rational proofs negating spatial occupation, direction, and corporeality invalidate this classification and its claim to exhaustiveness. For if we suppose an existent that is neither a body, nor something occupying space, nor in a direction, it is conceivable that it is neither separate from another nor shares its locus. Accordingly, whenever the assertion of corporeality is rejected, this argument is invalidated.

The same applies to “union.” If union leaves the two things as they were, there is no union: they remain two, retaining their original attributes. If, however, what is meant is transformation into a third kind—as when water and milk, or water and wine, unite to become a third kind that is neither pure water nor pure milk—this can occur only after one of them undergoes transformation and corruption affects its essence. Allah Most High is far above that, for He is the Necessary Existent in Himself, eternal in His essence and attributes. None of His attributes can cease to exist. Transformation and corruption are therefore impossible for Him, in accordance with the import of the argument: a created being must either be separate from the Creator, with the Creator separate from it, or indwelling and union must necessarily follow. Both indwelling and union are false, so the former alternative must be true.