I say:

Among the aforementioned adherents of the school from whom Ibn Aqīl related this view was Judge Yaʿqūb al-Barzabīnī, who stated in his work:

“A tenth proof: These letters, in their very identity, form, meaning, and function, are the same as those in the Book of Allah Most High and in His names and attributes. The Book, with its letters, is eternal; the same therefore applies here.”

He said:

“If it is objected, ‘We do not concede that those have sanctity while these have none,’ the reply is: ‘We do not concede this; rather, these too have sanctity.’

“If it is objected, ‘Were they sacred, menstruating women and women experiencing postnatal bleeding would have to be prohibited from touching and reciting them,’ the reply is: ‘They may have sanctity without such women being prohibited from reciting or touching them. This is like part of a verse: a woman is not prohibited from reciting it, yet it has sanctity and is eternal. She is not prohibited from reciting or touching it because of the need for instruction, just as a child is permitted to touch the written Quran without ritual purity because of the need to teach him.’

“If it is objected, ‘Then, if someone swears by them, his oath must be binding, and if he acts contrary to his oath, he must be deemed to have broken it,’ the reply is: ‘Our position here is exactly the same as concerning the letters of the Quran.’

“If it is objected, ‘Does not correspondence with them in these respects establish that they are identical? Do you not see that when someone utters a word intending to address a human being, its form may correspond to that of something in the Book of Allah Most High—for example, when he says, “O David,” “O Noah,” “O John,” and so forth? It corresponds to these names found in the Book of Allah, even though