in righteousness ever affirmed the existence of an indivisible atom or said anything indicating that he accepted its existence. Nor did the Arabs before them, the other peoples who retained their innate disposition, or the followers of the Messengers. How, then, can it be claimed that they used the word “body” only for something composite, assembled from parts?

If you were to say to any Arab, “In your view, the sun, moon, and sky—or mountains, air, animals, or plants—are composed of tiny parts, each of which is indivisible,” he would not conceive of this notion without considerable effort. Then, once he had conceived of it, he might reject it on the basis of his innate disposition, saying: “How can anything exist in which one side cannot be distinguished from another?”

Most rational people, among the various Muslim groups and others, deny the existence of indivisible atoms. The jurists all deny it, as do the scholars of hadith and the practitioners of Sufism. Thus, the jurists agree that one body can be transformed into another, as when excrement becomes ash or a pig becomes salt. They then debate whether, through this transformation, the substance becomes pure or not.

According to those who affirm indivisible atoms, however, entities themselves do not undergo transformation. Rather, the very same atoms present in the first substance remain in the second; only their composition differs. Hence, those later jurists who speak of “composition” in relation to water and similar things are those who have adopted this notion of composition from the speculative theologians. Such a jurist says: “Water differs from other things only in its composition.”

Likewise, those who affirm indivisible atoms hold that we have never witnessed Allah Most High bringing into existence any atoms or self-subsisting entities, and that all that He creates of animals, plants, minerals, fruits, and rain