subsisting in Allah’s essence—as when one says that He spoke, created, and provided, according to the majority who hold that these acts subsist in His essence—then his subsequent phrase, “in something acted upon,” is inappropriate. For it is an act subsisting in Allah’s essence, not in something acted upon.

If, however, he means an act separate from Allah, then everything separate from Allah is something acted upon. This is like saying, “something acted upon within something acted upon,” or “an act within an act.” This cannot serve as an argument, because once it is known that the letters are something acted upon, and that they are an “act” in the sense of something acted upon, they are created, whether or not they exist within something like themselves.

If it is said that he meant an act within a human being, who is something acted upon, the reply is that both are things acted upon. Moreover, this only indicates that people’s voices and their ink are created; it does not indicate that the letters belonging to Allah’s speech are created.

Abū al-Qāsim said: “Al-Junayd said in his Responses to the Questions of the Syrians: ‘Reliance upon Allah is the heart’s action, and affirmation of His oneness is the heart’s speech.’”

Abū al-Qāsim said: “This is the position of the scholars of theology: speech is the meaning subsisting in the heart, whether a command, a prohibition, a statement, or a request for information.”

I say: When he cited the source of this statement in the words of Abū al-Qāsim al-Junayd, it contained no evidence for his contention. Thus, the reports cited from the great shaykhs contain nothing both authentic and explicit in support of the contention by which he opposes the authentic hadiths and the consensus of the early generations.