If it is said, “The contextual indication is the rational proof showing that the false meaning cannot have been intended,” the first response is: this does not indicate the intended meaning of the wording. If it establishes anything, it establishes only that another meaning cannot have been intended. Indicating that an unintended meaning is excluded is not the same as indicating the intended meaning. Rational and scriptural evidence may establish that He did not intend two particular meanings, without establishing what He did intend.

The wording He used must indicate the intended meaning, either on its own or together with a contextual indication. If it does not, it would not constitute speech used to convey meaning, for some meaning must have been intended by it. Thus, if neither indeterminate nor ambiguous expressions indicate the intended meaning, and that meaning cannot be understood from them, they cannot be categories of speech.

This is especially so given their two positions. The first is that the meaning of an ambiguous expression is unknown, in which case the wording has not indicated the intended meaning. The second is that it admits several possible meanings, none of which can be affirmed with certainty. On this supposition, too, the intended meaning is unknown. It follows that the Quran has not indicated the intent of the Lord, glorified and exalted is He, either on its own or together with a contextual indication.

This position is akin to saying that it has no meaning, or that it has a meaning that cannot be known. The falsity of this has already been established. It is of the same kind as the statements of heretics