= al-Nubalaʾ – al-Dhahabi, vol. 19: 322–346; al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya – Ibn Kathir, vol. 12: 187–188. Al-Ghazali holds that Allah speaks by an eternal, ancient speech (kalam) that is intrinsic to His essence, not subject to separation or dispersion in its transmission to hearts and leaves, and that it is neither letter nor sound. Moses (peace be upon him) heard Allah’s speech without voice or letters; hence, only the “speech of the self” (kalam al-nafs) is affirmed for Allah. See: - Al-Arbaʾīn fī Usūl al-Dīn, p. 17; - Al-Iqtisād fī al-Iʿtiqād, pp. 139–149 (both by al-Ghazali). (1) On defining abrogation (naskh) in Al-Maḥṣūl (vol. 1, pt. 3, p. 423), Fakhr al-Razi states: “What was narrated by al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr and affirmed by al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on them) is that the divine address (khaṭāb) indicates the repeal of an earlier ruling by a subsequent address—without that indication, the earlier ruling would remain valid, though its application would thereafter be relaxed.” See also al-Ghazali’s discussion in Al-Mustasfa fī ʿIlm al-Uṣūl (vol. 1: 107). (2) The story of the sacrifice is recounted in Qur’an 37:102–107. Ibn Kathir in his Tafsīr (vol. 4: 16) remarks: “A number of uṣūl scholars have taken this verse and narrative as proof of the permissibility of abrogating a command before the ability to enact it—contrary to some Muʿtazilite views. The implication is clear: Allah prescribed for Ibrahim (peace be upon him) the slaughter of his son, then abrogated that command and substituted a sacrifice.” The permissibility of naskh of a command prior to the capacity to fulfill it—and the evidences for it, together with a critique of the Muʿtazilite arguments—is treated by Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī in Rawḍat al-Nāẓir wa Jannat al-Manāẓir (pp. 39–41). (3) In the reading “illā amr” (إلا أمر), this is a scribal error (tashhīf).