Furthermore, on their interpretation, nothing would be better than anything else: if one thing were better in being easier, the other would be better in carrying a greater reward.

Ibn ʿAqīl said:

“As for their claim that the Quran itself admits no differences in excellence or superiority, and that ‘better’ therefore cannot mean superior, this is not so. The affirmation of Allah’s oneness in Sūrat al-Ikhlās, including its denial that He can be partitioned or divided, is superior to Sūrat Tabbat, which condemns Abū Lahab and his wife. You may consider this in terms of praise being superior to censure, or in terms of inimitability: reciting other verses whose eloquence and clarity are manifest is superior. The fact that the Speaker is one does not preclude differences in excellence on another level, for reasons pertaining to the speech itself. Likewise, the One who sent Jonah and Abraham is one, yet Abraham is superior to Jonah.”

He said:

“As for their claim that ‘We bring one better than it’ refers not to an abrogating replacement but to an independent prescription, this is incorrect. The verb occurs in the jussive as the consequence of a condition, which conveys substitution and reciprocity. This is like saying, ‘If you honour me, I will honour you,’ or ‘If you obey me, I will obey you.’ Such wording requires the consequence to be a corresponding response and replacement, not an independently initiated act.”

I say:

The purpose here is to mention the position he defended—that some parts of the Quran are, in themselves, better than others—not to discuss the question of abrogation. Others besides these scholars have also explicitly stated that some parts of the Quran may be better than others. Among those who mentioned this was Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī in his book Jawāhir al-Qurʾān (The Jewels of the Quran). He said: