To so much as converse with someone(1) on account of his sophistry—such a person(2) is among those most deserving of this censure, and this will become even clearer in what follows. It is the sixty-third point, namely their statement:

“Likewise, we say(3) about the Divine Speech: it is one; it bears no resemblance to the speech of creatures, and it is not confined to any language. It is not to be described as Arabic, Persian, or Hebrew. Rather, the expressions used to convey it are many and varied: when the speech of Allah is recited in the Arabic tongue it is called the Qur’an, and when it is recited in Hebrew or Syriac it is called the Torah(4) and the Gospel.”

This assertion is among the most patently unsound ideas whose falsehood is grasped by sheer common sense; it is outright disbelief, and whoever understands it and persists in it is persisting in disbelief. The Qur’an is recited in Arabic, and it may—so far as possible—be translated into Hebrew, Persian, or other languages; yet once it is rendered into Hebrew(5) it is neither the Torah nor anything like the Torah, nor are its meanings identical to the meanings of the Torah. Likewise, if it is read in Hebrew and translated(6) into Arabic or Syriac, it is still not the Qur’an, nor do its meanings correspond to those of the Qur’an. The Gospel, too, is known to be read in several tongues, yet its meanings are not the meanings of either the Torah or the Qur’an. Can anyone with intellect or faith maintain that the speech of Allah, simply because it is recited in Arabic, thereby becomes the Qur’an? Nor is the proponent of this view forced to admit that when the Torah and the Gospel are rendered(7) into Arabic they become the very Qur’an that was revealed.