I say: Judge Abū Yaʿlā took this argument from Abū al-Hasan al-Ashʿarī and others like him, who used it to argue that Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw his Lord. This argument is untenable, for it contradicts what the Companions and Successors unanimously agreed upon in interpreting this noble verse.

Moreover, Allah states that He speaks to human beings only in these three ways. If this meant that He sometimes speaks while being seen directly, sometimes while remaining veiled, and sometimes by sending a messenger, this restriction would have no point. There would be no distinction in this respect between Allah Most High and anyone else, and this restriction would exclude nothing. For a human speaker is either seen directly by the person he addresses or is not. If he is not seen, he either addresses that person himself or through his messenger. If the intended meaning were as claimed, these untenable consequences would follow.

Furthermore, His words:

“except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger” [al-Shūrā 51]

show that the first category is the revelation He imparts to the hearts of the prophets. This differs from speaking from behind a veil, which takes place through an audible voice, as when He addressed Moses, peace be upon him. Thus, whoever equates His speaking through revelation with His speaking from behind a veil, making both forms of speech