And if He is not spatially confined, the arguments of those who deny His being above the Throne are invalid—for example, their claim that He must be either larger than the Throne, smaller than it, or equal to it; and their claim that, if this were so, He would have a particular magnitude, which would require something to determine it, and similar arguments. For those who affirm the divine attributes reply:

“These consequences follow only if He is a spatially confined body. But if He is above the Throne without being a spatially confined body, none of these consequences follows.”

Those who deny His being above creation then face two alternatives. If they concede that He is above the Throne while being neither a body nor spatially confined, every argument they have for denying His being above His Throne is invalidated. For they have based their denial solely on the premise that His being above the Throne necessarily entails His being a spatially confined body: since the consequence is ruled out, that which entails it must also be ruled out. But if this necessary connection is not established, they have no argument for their denial, and nothing remains to oppose the texts of the Quran and Sunnah affirming His being above the world. This is precisely what was to be demonstrated.

If, however, they say:

“Whenever you say that He is above the Throne, it necessarily follows that He is spatially confined or an individual substance. To affirm His being above the Throne while denying spatial confinement is self-evidently invalid,”

they are told:

There is no doubt that this position is more reasonable than affirming an existent that is neither inside nor outside the world. For if we put two positions before rational people—one affirming an external existent that is neither inside nor outside the world, and the other affirming an existent that is outside the world but is not a body—the former position would be further removed from reason