from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” This is the discrepancy mentioned in His words:

“Indeed, your speech is conflicting.”

“Turned away from it is whoever is turned away.”

Mutual consistency here means that the discourse is harmonious and coherent, with its various parts confirming one another. If He commands something, He does not command its opposite elsewhere; rather, He commands that same thing, something comparable to it, or something that entails it. If He forbids something, He does not command it elsewhere; rather, He forbids that same thing, something comparable to it, or something that entails it—provided there has been no abrogation.

Likewise, if He affirms something, He does not state its opposite; rather, He affirms it or affirms something that entails it. If He denies something, He does not affirm it; rather, He denies it or denies its necessary consequences. This contrasts with inconsistent discourse, whose parts contradict one another: it affirms something on one occasion and denies it on another, or commands and forbids it at the same time. It also treats equivalent things differently, praising one and condemning the other.

Thus, inconsistent statements here are those that contradict one another, whereas mutually consistent statements are those that agree. This consistency concerns meanings, even when the wording differs. When the meanings agree with, reinforce, harmonize with, bear witness to, and entail one another, the discourse is mutually consistent. This contrasts with contradictory discourse, whose parts oppose one another.

Mutual consistency in this general sense does not conflict with perfection of composition in its general sense; rather, it confirms it. For speech