speak—or, alternatively, that He speaks only figuratively—whereas they say that He truly speaks. In substance, however, their position is the same as his. He also denies the divine names, as do the Bātiniyyah and the philosophers.

Another point is the invalidity of the claim that it emanated from the active intellect or something else. This involves even greater disbelief and misguidance than the preceding view.

Another is the refutation of the Ashʿarī claim that Allah’s speech is a meaning, and that this Arabic text was created to signify it—whether they say that it was created within some body, that He inspired Gabriel with it, or that Gabriel took it from the Tablet. For this Arabic text must have had a speaker who first uttered it. This agrees with the view of those who say that it is created, but differs from it in two respects.

First, the latter say that what is created is Allah’s speech, whereas the former say that it is speech only figuratively. This is worse than the position of the Muʿtazilah; indeed, it is the position of the pure Jahmiyyah. Yet the Muʿtazilah agree with them in substance.

Second, they say that Allah has speech subsisting in His essence, whereas the Khilqiyyah say that it does not subsist in His essence. Thus, the Kullābiyyah are outwardly better than them; in reality, however, they have not affirmed any speech of His other than what is created.

The point is that the verse refutes this, and that “the Quran” is a name for the Arabic text, as indicated by His words:

“When you recite the Quran.”

Furthermore, His words, “has brought it down,” refer back to His words, “And Allah