has body, whereas this one does not”—that is, it has thickness and bulk, unlike the other. “Body” may also mean thickness and bulk themselves.

Certain groups among the speculative theologians who espouse negation have claimed that, in ordinary language, a body is something compounded and composite, and that their use of the term “body” for everything that can be pointed towards accords with linguistic usage. They say:

“Anything that can be pointed towards has one part distinguishable from another. Whatever is like this is composed either of individual atoms, each of which is an indivisible part with no side distinguishable from another, or of matter and form, which are two intelligible substances, as some philosophers maintain.”

They say:

“If, then, such a thing is composite and compounded, a body in the Arabic language is something compounded and composite. The evidence is that the Arabs say ‘a large-bodied man’ and ‘Zayd is larger-bodied than ‘Amr’ when his extension in the various directions is greater. By the intensive force of ‘larger-bodied’ and ‘large-bodied,’ they mean only the greater number of parts joined together and their composition. For they do not say ‘larger-bodied’ of someone because his knowledge, standing, or other activities and attributes have increased, apart from aggregation. Only when the aggregation in him increases through an increase in his parts do they say ‘larger-bodied’ or ‘a large-bodied man.’ This shows that their expression jassama (‘to make into a body’) conveys composition.”

This is the basis of the position of these proponents of negation. It rests on two premises: one based on transmitted linguistic usage, and the other on rational reflection and innate understanding. As for the premise based on transmitted linguistic usage, it is their claim that speakers of the language apply the term “body” to what is composite