so you are mistaken in both language and the revealed Law, even though the meaning you intended is correct.”

He replies:

“I was speaking (1) in the technical terminology of kalām. For speculative theologians and philosophers, a body is that which can be pointed to. One group among them then claimed that everything of this kind is composed either of indivisible atoms or of matter and form, while another group disputed this and said, ‘Not (2) everything that can be pointed to is composed of either the one or the other.’ If the proponent of this position establishes a rational proof that what can be pointed to is not composite, he will have prevailed over his opponents—except for one who maintains that the names of Allah Most High are determined solely by revelation. Such a person will tell him, ‘You have no right to call Him that.’”

As for the people of the Sunnah who follow the early generations, they say:

“All of you have introduced innovations into both language and the revealed Law by calling everything that can be pointed to a body. This is a technical convention that does not accord with the Arabic language, and none of the early generations of this Muslim community ever used it.”

Those who claim that a body is something composite say:

“On the contrary, our position accords with the Arabic language. Linguistically, a body is an assembled composite. The evidence (3) for this is that the Arabs say, ‘This is larger-bodied than that,’ when there is an increase in the number of parts. A comparative form can apply only when both things share the basic attribute. It is thus known that, in their usage, the word ‘body’ denotes something composite; and whenever (4) its degree of composition increases, they call it ‘larger-bodied.’”

[The invalidity, on several grounds, of the claim that Arabs applied the generic term to that which is composed of parts]

It is therefore said to them:

“As for the fact that Arabs describe what is bulkier than something else as ‘larger-bodied,’ this is