nor of matter and form as conceived by the intellect,” then the discussion with him concerns whether the former necessarily entails the latter.

If the other person says, “Rather, everything that is above something else, and everything that can be pointed to with the hands, must be composed in one or the other of these two ways,” this is equivalent to someone else saying: “Everything that is living, powerful and knowing must have this composition”; or: “Everything that possesses life, knowledge and power must have this composition”; or: “Everything that hears, sees and speaks must have this composition.” This rests on the premise that every self-subsisting existent is a body, and that every body has this composition. It is well known, by their own agreement, that this is false in the view of the vast majority of scholars and rational thinkers.

Indeed, I know of no group of recognized rational thinkers who have said both, “He is a body,” and, “He has this composition.” Rather, what I know is that those who have said, “He is a body,” such as the Hishāmiyyah and the Karrāmiyyah, do not all define a body as something having this composition. This has only been reported from some of them. Statements may also be attributed to some of them which others among them deny, as in the reprehensible statements attributed to Muqātil ibn Sulaymān and Hishām ibn al-Hakam. Many people have rejected the attribution of these statements to Muqātil ibn Sulaymān. As for their attribution to Hishām, many of his followers have rejected it.

If anyone is assumed to have said this, then his assertion is false, like that of anyone else who speaks falsely about Allah. Such are the reports concerning some Jews, Rāfidah and corporealists, who describe Him with imperfections far above which Allah is exalted: that He is hollow; that He wept until His eyes became inflamed and the angels visited Him in His illness; that He bit His fingers until they bled; and that He descends on the afternoon of the Day of ‘Arafah upon a gray camel.