and the distance? If they say: No, they contradict themselves. And if they say: Yes. We say: Is the distance and space existent or non-existent? If they say: Non-existent, it is said to them: How? It is assumed that this body is an arc, and when the arc is placed as we have assumed, its ends are on the surface of the world and its curved inside is outside. And if they say: Existent. We say: How? It is assumed that outside the world is pure non-existence, and Allāh has not created any space except to the extent that the end of the arc passes through, until its end returns to another place on the surface of the world, so that space is thus in the shape of an arc, and what is between its concave side and the world remains as it was. If they say: The existence of distance between two bodies does not necessitate that what is between them is something existent, rather it is possible that what is between them is pure non-existence, and the existence of space only means that it is such that it can be known. We say: The existence of distance between the sky and the earth does not necessitate the existence of that by which the distance exists, and that by which the distance exists is the space, which is the distance. The necessity is only its existence in the sense that it can be known, not in the sense that it is not non-existence. In other words: distance means the absence of contact, so the existence of distance is another expression for the existence of the absence of contact, and the existence of non-existence only means that it can be known. As for the statement of al-ʿAḍud: "because it is pointed to here and there," such a thing occurs in the example we have assumed, so whoever is at the edge of the world points to what is between him and the arc here