his departures from al-Shāfi'ī’s principles and explicit statements. The innovators have sometimes attributed to him views of which he is innocent, such as the claim that there is no Quran in the codex and no prophet in the grave; likewise, qualification in professing faith, denial of the power to create in pre-eternity, declaring ordinary people unbelievers, and requiring them to know the proof.” He said:

“I have examined those of his books that I have examined, and found them all contrary to what has been attributed to him.”

I say: These questions warrant discussion, but this is not the place for it. The point here, however, is that he included the question of the verbal forms of expressions among those matters in which Abū al-Hasan differed with al-Shāfi'ī and in which al-Shāfi'ī’s followers set aside his view. This is the question of speech, and his position on it is that of Ibn Kullāb:

“Allah’s speech is a single meaning subsisting in Allah Himself, exalted is He: if expressed in Arabic, it is the Quran; if expressed in Hebrew, it is the Torah; and if expressed in Syriac, it is the Gospel. Allah did not speak the Arabic Quran; indeed, it is not Allah’s speech. Rather, He created it in certain bodies.”

The majority of people, both adherents of the Sunnah and adherents of innovation, say that the falsity of this position is self-evident: the meanings of the Quran are not the meanings of the Torah; the meanings of the Torah rendered into Arabic are not the Quran; the Quran, when translated into Hebrew, is not the Torah; and the essential nature of a command is not that of a declarative statement.