the active intellect.

The Mu‘tazilah’s position is therefore far better than theirs.

It may be said to him:

If the Quran contains demonstrations beyond the capacity of human reason, why must it be something produced by Allah? What prevents it from being speech that Allah Himself speaks? The only objection to this is what is asserted by those who deny the divine attributes. Yet your position on affirming and denying them is contradictory: you sometimes affirm them and sometimes deny them. You have no evidence for denying them except arguments whose invalidity is already known, whereas conclusive proofs require their affirmation. Alternatively, the objection rests on what is asserted by those who deny His acts and the matters that subsist in Him which He chooses and has power over, such as speaking to someone. Yet you yourselves have demonstrated the invalidity of the argument used by those who deny these things.

He said:

“It has thus become clear to you that the Quran—which is Allah’s speech—is eternal, and that the wording which conveys it is created by Him, glorified and exalted, not by human beings.”

He may be told:

Nothing you have mentioned entails that the Quran—which is Allah’s speech—is eternal. At most, what you have said would establish that knowledge is eternal. But the Quran is not merely knowledge—neither its letters nor its meanings.

As for its letters, this is obvious. As for its meanings, speech has two kinds of meaning: non-declarative and declarative.

Non-declarative speech includes commands and prohibitions, which involve a request or an act of will in the sense of love, and the like.

As for declarative speech, is its meaning a kind of knowledge, or is it a distinct reality other than knowledge? There are two well-known positions on this.

Thus, if nothing in your account can be eternal apart from knowledge, then it is not the case that