and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,” and this caller to prayer says it, and that caller to prayer says it, and someone other than a caller to prayer says it, people say that what is written here is the name of Allah and the name of His Messenger, just as those named are Allah and His Messenger.

Likewise, when someone says:

“Read in the name of your Lord,”

and says:

“Board it in the name of Allah,”

and says:

“Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High,”

and says:

“In the name of Allah,”

in all these cases, what is mentioned is Allah’s name, even though the mentions and those who make them are many. Thus, a single report from a single informant concerning what he reports, and a single command from a single commander concerning the prescribed action, are like a single name designating its bearer. The case of a compound expression is analogous to that of a single word. It is one with respect to its reality and to the identity of what is intended, even though those who mention that name and report are many, and their movements, voices, and other attributes are many.

As for someone saying, “If you say that this is Allah’s very speech, then you have affirmed indwelling, whereas you declare the adherents of indwelling and union to be unbelievers,” this is an invalid analogy.

It is like a man claiming that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, dwells in his very person within the body of someone reading his hadith. People reject his claim and say that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, does not dwell within anyone else’s body. He then says: “You say that the hadith narrator reads his words, and that what he reads is the speech of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. By saying this, you have affirmed indwelling.” It is well known that this is utterly unsound.