tongues, and existence at the tips of the fingers. In concrete reality, things possess the first rank (1); they are then grasped by the hearts, after which they are expressed about (2) through spoken words, and finally those words are written down. Speech, therefore, belongs to the third rank, and it is this utterance that is written in the muṣḥaf.

How then can someone maintain that the speech found in the written book is the same as claiming that the Speaker is in the book? The gulf between the two statements is greater than the gap between foot and ankle (3).

Moreover, some among you cite His words,
“Indeed, it is surely the word of a noble messenger” (4),
and insist that what is meant here is the verbal formulation itself. This interpretation is not only self-contradictory; it is even more unsound than the stance of the Muʿtazilah. For if the Quran were ascribed to the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—because he originated its letters, then in one place Allah has attributed it to a messenger who is Gabriel and, in another, to a messenger who is Muhammad. He says in one passage,
“Indeed, it is surely the word of a noble messenger, one mighty in power, secure with the Lord of the Throne” (5),
and in another,
“Indeed, it is surely the word of a noble messenger (40); and it is not the word of a poet—how little you believe!” (6)

It is self-evident that if Gabriel produced its wording, Muhammad certainly did not—and if Muhammad produced it, then Gabriel certainly did not (7, 8). Your position is therefore untenable. The only reason Allah attributes the Quran to the messenger is that he conveyed and delivered it, not that he authored or initiated it. Hence He said “the word of a messenger,” and not “the word of an angel” or “the word of a prophet.” By using the title “messenger,” He indicated that the speech is conveyed on behalf of Another (9), just as He, Exalted is He, said: “O Messenger, convey what has been revealed….”