Among such purported instances of “composition” is the claim that a physical body is put together either from discrete substances or from matter and form.
Most people of sound reason reject both versions of this claim, as has been set out in detail elsewhere.

What concerns us here is that the speech of the prophets may only be interpreted according to their own language—the idiom with which they were accustomed to address humankind. It is not permissible to devise a new technical vocabulary foreign to their usage and then read their words through its lens.

Even if some group were to invent a special jargon for private discourse—and suppose, for argument’s sake, that they were allowed to do so—they would still have no right to recast the Prophet’s language in that jargon or to force his statements into its mould.

A clear illustration is the prophets’ report that Allah says, speaks, calls out, confides, that He said such-and-such, spoke with such-and-such words, and called out to Moses, and so forth.

In their language, and in the language of all nations, a “speaker” is the one in whom speech inheres, who speaks by his own power and will. Their idiom never counts as a “speaker” someone who merely brings into being speech detached from himself, nor someone in whom speech subsists without power or volition on his part.

Accordingly, if anyone chooses to apply the word “speaker” to one who produces speech outside himself, or to one in whom speech exists apart from his power and will, he has no warrant for forcing the prophets’ statements to fit that novel usage.

Rather, when the term is left unqualified, a “speaker” is simply the one who, by his own power and choice, utters speech that subsists in his very being.