, for the Mu‘tazilah agree with us on the distinction between the two cases, so we need not elaborate. As for his statement, ‘Establishing the beginninglessness of Allah’s speech by this method runs counter to consensus,’ we reply: We have explained in al-Mahsūl that introducing a proof not mentioned by those whose agreement constitutes consensus does not violate that consensus.”

I say: The point is to recognize that he abandoned the well-known argument that, if He brought speech into being within Himself, He would be a locus for originated events—even though this is the mainstay of Ibn Kullāb, al-Ash‘arī, and their followers—because he regarded this principle as weak. Had he believed it sound, it would have sufficed, sparing him the need for this method he introduced.

The purpose here is not to discuss the question of the Quran, which is treated extensively in its appropriate places. Rather, the aim is to draw attention to the acknowledgment by eminent scholars that this principle is weak.

As for the weakness of the argument he relied upon concerning the Quran, this is explained elsewhere. Establishing its first premise calls for discussion that does not belong here, since its main basis is a command given as a test and a liar’s statement.

His opponent says: This is an outward presentation of a command and a statement; in reality, however, the statement here does not indicate a meaning within the speaker.

Thus Allah, exalted is He, says of liars:

“They say