and that He has created an explanatory expression … (1), then if you say that this expression is literally His speech, your argument against the Muʿtazilah collapses. For your strongest argument against them is your assertion that He cannot speak with speech that He creates in something other than Himself, just as He cannot know through knowledge subsisting in another, exercise power through power subsisting in another, or will through a will subsisting in another. If, however, you say that it is speech figuratively, it follows that ‘speech’ applies literally to meaning but figuratively to wording. The falsity of this is self-evident in every language.”

As for “the third group,” they did not reject either premise, but asked their opponents to clarify what they meant and explained that this does not establish the truth of their position. Rather, they said: “If you say that letters and sounds are temporally originated, meaning that they must be created by Him and separate from Him, this demonstrates the falsity and inconsistency of your position; this assertion is not conceded. If you mean that they are not eternal, that is conceded, but this terminology is newly introduced.”

These fall into “two groups.” One group said: “What is temporally originated is what is created and separate from Him. Thus, when we say that letters and sounds can only be temporally originated, this is equivalent to saying that they can only be created. In that case, this Muʿtazilite would have refuted his own position