that Pharaoh had claimed (1). So why, then, should Pharaoh be more deserving of eternal confinement in the Fire than this one? After all, both of them (2) are, in his view, created. Abū ʿUbayd (3) concurred with him on the same point (4) and deemed it acceptable [indeed, praiseworthy] (5).
The most that you can reproach him for, according to your standard, is that he has denied Allah another meaning which you (6) affirm for Him. Yet that (7) meaning is something most people cannot even conceive—neither the Muʿtazilah (8) nor anyone else—much less pronounce it created. Moreover, such a meaning cannot possibly inhere in the tree or anything else so that the tree itself would be the one speaking it. The early scholars did not censure them (9) on this account, nor did they say to them what you allege—that it is created. They merely said that it is created, but that there is (10) another meaning which is uncreated; nor did they say that this very thing which you have called created,
(1) In S: “ma ad-daʿī” (“the one called”).
(2) In S and T: “wa kalāmuhumā” (“and their speech”). It appears earlier elsewhere in both manuscripts, as noted. See p.278 and in Khalaq Af‘āl al-‘Ibād: “wa kullan minhumā” (“and each of them”).
(3) In Khalaq Af‘āl al-‘Ibād: “fa-akhbara bi-dhālika Abū ʿUbayda” (“and Abū ʿUbayda reported that”). Similarly in all copies at the location indicated in the previous footnote.
(4) The phrase “ʿalā mithl hādhā” is omitted in Khalaq Af‘āl al-‘Ibād. It is also omitted in all copies at the location indicated on p.278.
(5) The material between the brackets is an addition from Khalaq Af‘āl al-‘Ibād. In all copies there is a blank space after “istaḥsanhū” approximately the length of two words, perhaps indicating what was intended to be added.
(6) In the original it reads “yuṯbitūn” (“they affirm it”). This reading is attested in S and T, and fits the context.
(7) In S and T: “wa dhālik” (“and that”).
(8) Indeed, the point of contention between the Muʿtazila and the Ashʿaris is the denial or affirmation of the meaning inherent in the Divine Self. The Muʿtazila deny it and do not affirm it. Accordingly, al-Ijī in his al-Mawāqif (p.294), after stating the Muʿtazila position on the speech of God and noting that there is no dispute between the Ashʿaris and the Muʿtazila except concerning kalām al-nafs (“speech of the Self”), says: “…and what we maintain concerning kalām al-nafs they deny its affirmation…”.
(9) In the original it reads “lā yuʿībbūnahum” (“they do not criticize them”). This reading is attested in S and T.
(10) The word “thumma” (“then”) is omitted in S.