>>17971359
One is the ability to speak, which is always eternal and part of God's indivisible essence that is shared with nothing else at all. And the other (the Quran) is an act of speech, which has been instantiated in time. This is the traditional understanding which I personally subscribe to. There's nothing eternal being shared with anything in that view so your criticism cannot apply to begin with. Within Sunni Islam creeds however you have something of a middle ground like with the Asharis where they believe in an eternal act of speech that's fundamentally tied to the essence, which is distinct from the letters, sounds, words and anything created that was conveyed to the prophet. They affirm only the latter to be created but not the former, (which is like we believe completely uncreated). Both however believe that the book in our hands and the voices we recite with are created. The main difference is that we believe the Quran was recited as is by God, while for them they believe it was more like completely abstract "concepts" being passed down. Your criticism for that reason also doesn't even apply to them.