during the reading, the speech of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—which subsisted in him when he spoke it and was an attribute of his, or not?”

He should be told:

“If you mean that the hadith itself, considered as such, is the speech of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—which subsisted in him when he spoke it and was an attribute of his, then yes: this hadith, considered as such, is the speech of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. But if you mean that the movements and vocal sounds particular to the reader are what subsisted in the Messenger, that is not so. Likewise, if you mean that the very movements, vocal sounds, and attributes that subsisted in the Messenger himself passed from him and came to subsist in the reader, that is not so.”

Statements such as “This is that,” “It is not that,” “This is the very same as that,” and “It is not the very same as that” are ambiguous. Someone who transmits another person’s words just as he heard them and writes them in a book may say: “These are the very words of so-and-so; these are his words themselves; these are his selfsame words.” He means that the very words that person spoke are what he has conveyed from him and what is written in the book, without any addition or omission.

Thus, if someone says of what he hears from the reciter, “This is the very speech of Allah,” or “This is Allah’s selfsame speech,” or “This is Allah’s speech itself,” or says of what lies between the two covers of the Quran, “This is Allah’s selfsame speech; this is the very speech of Allah,” he is speaking truthfully.