on behalf of another, not one who originates it himself.

“The Messenger’s duty is only to convey the message.”

Thus His saying, “Indeed, it is the word of a noble messenger,” is equivalent to saying that it is conveyed by a messenger, transmitted by a noble messenger, brought by a noble messenger, or heard from a noble messenger. It does not mean that a noble messenger originated it or brought it into being, or originated or brought into being any part of it. If he originated it, he would not be a messenger with respect to what he himself originated and initiated; he is a messenger only with respect to what he conveys and delivers. It is well known that the pronoun refers to the Quran without qualification.

(Moreover, if either of the two messengers had originated its letters and composition, the other messenger could not have been their originator and composer. It is therefore untenable to say that it is attributed to the messenger because he brought its wording and composition into being. If this attribution could be based on the messenger’s having brought it, or any part of it, into being, we could say that it is the word of a human being. Yet this is the claim of al-Wahīd (“the solitary one”), whom Allah consigned to burn in Saqar.

If someone says:

“Al-Wahīd regarded all of it as the word of a human being, whereas we say that the Arabic speech is the word of a human being, but its meaning is Allah’s speech.”

They should be told:

“This is half of al-Wahīd’s claim. Furthermore, it is false on other grounds: the meanings conveyed by this composition are numerous and varied, whereas you regard