was a native speaker of that language. In the same way, the Quran and the hadith may be rendered into another tongue whenever someone needs their meaning conveyed through translation; similarly, a Muslim may read in the original languages whatever he requires from the writings and discourse of other nations and then translate them into Arabic. The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—ordered Zayd ibn Thābit to learn the script of the Jews so that he could read their writings to him and write on his behalf, for the Prophet did not feel secure in entrusting that task to the Jews themselves.

Thus, the early generations and the leading Imams did not condemn speech merely because it employed later technical terms such as al-jawhar (substance), al-ʿaraḍ (accident), al-jism (body), and the like. Their objection lay in the falsehood—whether in proofs or in rulings—that these expressions were used to advance, for such words contain ambiguous notions of affirmation and negation. Imam Aḥmad, describing the innovators, said: “They differ concerning the Book, oppose the Book, and are united in opposing the Book. They speak with ambiguous language and bewilder the common people with that ambiguity.”

When, therefore, one grasps the meanings intended by such phrases and weighs them against the Quran and the Sunnah—affirming whatever the Quran and Sunnah affirm and rejecting whatever the Quran and Sunnah reject—that is the truth. This is unlike the course pursued by the people of whims, who brandish these terms, in both negation and affirmation, concerning methods and issues alike, without offering the clarifying distinctions that mark the straight path. From such usage doubts arise.

For nowhere in the words of the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—nor in those of any of