in seeing the face, for the face itself is the object the onlooker wishes to behold. In the same way, the parchment is only an intermediary for coming to know the speech, and it is that speech that the reader seeks to perceive. People understand that the faculty of sight actually meets nothing in the mirror but the reflected rays, yet the purpose of that sight is the sun; and that the faculty of sight touches nothing in the parchment but the written ink, yet the aim of the sight is the written speech.

They also know that the very image that appears in the mirror is not the face itself, and that the very ink with which the script is traced is not the speech itself; they keep a clear distinction between the two, just as the Exalted One has said:

“Say, ‘If the sea were ink for the Words of my Lord, the sea would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought another like it to replenish it.’” (al-Kahf 18:109)

Thus, glorified be He, separates the Words from the ink with which the Words are written. How, then, can anyone say that “this is that,” and that the word is entirely in the parchment while it is entirely in the speaker?

Eighth:
Speech possesses a meaning that resides in the speaker; he conveys that meaning by means of his utterance, and the utterance is what is written on the parchment. What is inscribed on the parchment is the utterance that corresponds exactly to the meaning; the meaning is never written apart from the utterance whose script is set down, for only then can what has been written be known. Consequently, the claim of these people that the very meaning which is wholly in the heart is likewise wholly in the parchment amounts to equating the meaning itself with the written script—and that is false.