His statement: “We concede that the meanings (1) conveyed by these expressions do apply to Allah; then why, you say, must they be eternal?”

We reply: Because of the aforementioned consensus.

His statement: “If from affirming this attribute for Allah there necessarily follows the affirmation of its eternality—since everyone who accepts the first accepts the second—then, by the same logic, affirming pre-eternal knowledge would oblige one to affirm pre-eternal speech, for [kull] (2) everyone who upholds the first upholds the second.”

We reply: The distinction between the two matters is set out in al-Maḥṣūl fī ʿIlm al-Uṣūl (3); the Muʿtazilites themselves (4) endorse that distinction, and so the analogy fails.

His statement: “To establish the eternity of Allah’s speech by this method (5) runs counter to the consensus.”

We reply: We have clarified in the book al-Maḥṣūl (6) that introducing a line of reasoning not previously cited by those who reported the consensus does not amount to breaching that consensus.

He also said (7), in response to the objection: “As for the fifth objection (8) and the scriptural arguments that follow it, the answer can be summed up in a single point: we do not dispute applying the terms ‘Quran’ and ‘Speech of Allah’ to these letters and sounds. The proofs they have produced merely show the createdness of the Quran in this respect…"