As for the questioner’s question, “Is the Throne left without Him, or not?”: if the respondent refrains from answering because he does not know what answer to give, he is refraining from answering about something whose reality he does not know. If the questioner asks this to deny what the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, affirmed, he is mistaken. If he seeks guidance, that is commendable. If he seeks to expose the respondent’s ignorance, then a distinction must be made.

Someone who affirms only what the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, affirmed, while disclaiming knowledge of its manner, has spoken soundly; this question cannot refute him. The objection of anyone who challenges him with this question is invalid, for it does not undermine the respondent’s answer.

The respondent’s statement, “This is an innovated statement and a newly devised opinion”—an evasion of the question—indicates that he does not know the sound answer. Yet this does not establish that the objector is right to deny what the Messenger conveyed, nor that his interpretation of the descent as the descent of Allah’s command and mercy is correct.

This is further clarified by the following: either this objector acknowledges that Allah is above the Throne, or he does not. If he does not acknowledge this, then his question, “Is the Throne left without Him, or not?” is invalid, because this division into alternatives presupposes that He is over the Throne.

If the objector says:

“I introduced this division into alternatives to deny His descent and His being above. For if he says, ‘The Throne is left without Him,’ it follows that He would no longer be rising over the Throne or above it, and that, at the time of descent, He would not be the Most High, the Highest. Rather, He would be within the world, with the world surrounding Him. If he says, ‘The Throne is not left without Him,’ he is told: ‘If the Throne is not left without Him, then He has not descended, for His descending without the Throne being left without Him is inconceivable.’”

Then this objector is told: