identifying what is shared and what is distinct. One group therefore said:

“What is recited and heard resembles the speech of created beings, so it is created.”

The other group said:

“This human speech resembles Allah’s speech, so it must be uncreated.”

Thus Ibn Aqīl related in Kitāb al-Irshād (The Book of Guidance), concerning some who held that the Quran is created:

“A specious objection was put to one of their imams, who said: ‘The least indication in the Quran that it originated is its resemblance to our speech, whereas what is eternal does not resemble what originates. Clearly, this cannot be denied. When someone says to his servant John, “O John, hold firmly to the Scripture,” his words match the words of Allah—glory be to Him—so closely that a listener cannot distinguish between them through his senses alone. Only when each speaker explains his intention can the listener distinguish between them, relying on the speaker’s explanation rather than his own senses.

“‘If they resemble one another to this extent, how can something that resembles what originates and serves the same purpose be claimed to be eternal? Moreover, if speech may be claimed to be eternal despite being perceptible to a created being, then resemblance may also be affirmed on the strength of the apparent meanings of the verses and transmitted reports, with nothing to prevent it. Since both we and you have resorted to denying resemblance, fearing the rejoinder that the Quran would thereby be subject to origination, you must likewise recoil from affirming eternity where resemblance exists. Indeed, the resemblance between the two has seemed so compelling to some of your companions that they say the speech is one and the same, and that the letters are uncreated. How, then, can one and the same thing be said to be both eternal and originated?’”