he considers to be implications of a person’s position as part of that position itself, especially if the person does not deny what the reporter considers a necessary implication. In that case, the reporter is all the more ready to attribute it to him as his stated position.

There is no doubt that some people say:
“This Quran is Allah’s speech, and what lies between its two covers is Allah’s speech.”
They also say:
“Allah’s speech is preserved in hearts, recited by tongues, heard by ears, and written in copies of the Quran.”

This statement, in its general form, is true and agreed upon among Muslims. Yet some of these people, when asked whether the ink and the servant’s voice are eternal, deny this. They may instead remain silent, disliking either to affirm or deny anything concerning it, for fear that doing so might lead them into a religious innovation. Nevertheless, if any of them heard someone say, “The ink is eternal,” he would subject him to punishment for it and to painful torment.

As for the servant’s voice, some adherents of imams such as al-Shāfi‘ī, Ahmad, and others have discussed it. Some have said, “The sound that is heard is eternal.” Others say, “One hears two things: the eternal sound and the newly originated sound.” This is an error by the standards of sound reason, a religious innovation, and a reprehensible statement.

Imam Ahmad and the vast majority of his followers reject even less extreme claims. Indeed, Ahmad and the leading scholars among his followers denounced those who said, “The utterance of the Quran is uncreated.” How much more, then, someone who says, “The utterance of it is eternal”? And how much more someone who says: