indeed gone astray in one respect; yet the meaning of “Say: He is Allah, One” (112:1) is certainly not (1) the same as the meaning of “Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and may he perish!” (111:1) in any sense whatsoever. Hence it is invalid to claim that this resembles the pairing of “the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful” or “the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing,” for with the Divine Names the denoted reality is one and the names merely describe His attributes, whereas the denotation in one of those two surahs is by no means (2) the denotation in the other.

As for their comparing the matter to Allah’s being worshipped through diverse acts of devotion, the distinction is too evident to require elaboration. I therefore did not address it, for their analogy with the Divine Names appears more plausible—yet (3) its flaw (4) is now manifest. How much more baseless, then, is their likening of the revealed Books, in relation to the single inner meaning they allege, to the acts of worship performed by the servants (5) in relation to Allah Most High.

From this it becomes clear (6) that whoever among them says, “The Quran is truly preserved in hearts, truly recited on tongues, and truly written in codices, just as Allah is known in hearts, mentioned on tongues, and written in codices in reality,” intends by this sophistry to treat the revealed Books and all of Allah’s speech, with respect to the inner meaning they claim, as analogous to Allah’s Names with respect to His Essence. You have now seen that such reasoning is among the most corrupt of analogies. All praise is due to Allah, who has spared us (7) from what He has afflicted many (8) of His servants with, and who has favored us above many of those He created.