one is treated like the other in its attribution to a created speaker, so that one utterance is attributed to the speaker of the other. How, then, could this be so when the attribution is to the Creator?

Indeed, when Musaylimah wrote to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ‘From Musaylimah, the Messenger of Allah, to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah,’ the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied, ‘From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Musaylimah the Liar.’ The expression ‘Messenger of Allah’ was identical in both speakers’ words, yet from one it was true—indeed, among the greatest truths—and from the other it was a lie—indeed, among the vilest lies.

Allah has also recorded in His Book evil statements made by the disbelievers, such as their saying:

‘Allah has taken a son.’

‘They have no knowledge of this, nor did their forefathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak nothing but lies.’

And their statements:

‘Ezra is the son of Allah,’

and

‘The Messiah is the son of Allah,’

along with other false statements that Allah has quoted from them. When we utter what Allah has quoted from them, we are uttering Allah’s speech. But if we were to quote those statements directly from them, we would be quoting their false and blameworthy speech.

For this reason, the jurists have said that whoever remembers Allah or supplicates to Him may do so while in a state of major ritual impurity, even if the wording matches the Quran, provided that he does not intend recitation.

They have also said that if someone uses Quranic wording during prayer solely to address another person, his prayer is invalid, because this constitutes human speech, and no human speech is permissible during prayer. If, however, he intends recitation as well as alerting someone else, his prayer is valid according to the majority, just as if he had