were themselves present in the gathering; but when the reply reached them it silenced them.
They had assumed that if I were to answer (1) with what they imagined Ahl al-Sunnah would say, they would achieve their goal of vilification; and that if I replied in the very words they themselves used (2), they would attain their goal of winning my agreement. Yet when they were met with the decisive criterion upheld by the Sunnis—a statement that is neither what they themselves assert, nor what they attribute to the Sunnis, though it may (4) occasionally be uttered by some uninformed people—they were left dumbfounded (5).
The response stated: “The Qur’an (6) is the speech of God, in both its letters and its meanings; the term ‘Qur’an’ is not a name for letters alone, nor for meanings alone” (7).
Thus, when the issue of the Qur’an was raised—namely, that the Qur’an (8) is the speech of God, uncreated, from Him
(1) The base text as well as manuscripts B and Q read as printed; manuscripts F and K have: “they supposed that if,” manuscript H reads: “that when,” and manuscripts T and Tif read: “they supposed that if I were to reply.”
(2) Manuscripts F, K, T, and Tif read: “they themselves say it.”
(3) Manuscripts F, K, T, and Tif read: “that which.”
(4) Manuscripts T, Tif, F, and K read: “when.”
(5) The following words are absent in manuscripts F, K, T, and Tif.
(6) Tif adds: “the entire Quran … .”
(7) After this point Tif inserts a lengthy passage of roughly two pages in which the Shaykh recounts his debate with Sadr al-Din Ibn al-Wakil, the dispute between Ibn al-Wakil and Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Zamalkani, and the altercation between Ibn al-Zamalkani and Ibn Sasra; Tif, vol. 3, pp. 172-174.
(8) Manuscripts F, K, T, and Tif read: “the Quran, and part of faith in it is the belief that the Quran … .” The subsequent phrase “and he disputed … returns” is missing from F.