these two claims are false, the “third” necessarily follows: that He, glorified and exalted, is above His heavens, over His Throne, separate from His creation. If that is so, the objector’s claim is invalid.

This applies if the objector does not acknowledge that He is above the Throne. One of the leading proponents of the denial of Allah’s being above creation was asked about His descent and replied, “His command descends.” The questioner said to him, “Then who descends? In your view, there is nothing above the world, so from whom does the command descend? From sheer nonexistence?” He was left speechless.

If, however, the objector affirms Allah’s being above creation and says that Allah is above the Throne, but does not acknowledge His descent, instead maintaining that an angel descends, or that His command descends—meaning the thing commanded, which is one of His created things—then he makes the descent a newly originated effect that Allah brings into being in heaven. Similar claims are made concerning His rising over the Throne.

He is then told: This same division of possibilities applies to you. If you say, “When He descends, the Throne is left without Him,” the first unacceptable consequence follows. If you say, “The Throne is not left without Him,” you have affirmed a descent without the Throne being left without Him, and this is inconceivable on your own principles.

If he says, “I affirm this only of some of His created things,” he is told: Whatever you affirm while denying a voluntary act subsisting in Him Himself cannot be understood from this statement; it cannot possibly be what is intended by it. Moreover, you have distorted words from their proper meanings. You have thus combined two things: affirming something that cannot be understood from the words of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and distorting the words of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

If you say, “The one who descends is an angel,” the reply is: This is false for several reasons: