This is supported by their own statement:

“A word widely known in the language and used by specialists and ordinary people alike cannot have been coined to designate a subtle meaning understood only by a select few.”

This is one of the arguments used by those who deny states against those who affirm them. They said:

“What is commonly understood in the language is that motion means a body’s being in motion. As for their claim that motion is something that causes a body to be in motion, only specialists understand this meaning, let alone know that the word ‘motion’ was coined to designate it. The word ‘motion’ is widely known and used by specialists and ordinary people alike; its meaning therefore cannot be something inconceivable to those addressed by it.”

Precisely the same argument can be put to these deniers who call their negation monotheism. They may be told: This ‘one’ that you affirm—which cannot be pointed to, within which nothing can be distinguished from anything else, and so forth—is something that only some people, indeed very few, can conceive. Even those who have conceived it disagree over whether it can exist in external reality. Some of them say, “Its existence in external reality is impossible.”

If that is so, and the word ‘one’ is widely known in every language—more widely known than the word ‘motion’—then what this term denotes in ordinary language cannot be a meaning conceived by only a few people, who themselves disagree over whether it can exist in external reality. If this meaning is not what is intended by the terms wāhid (“one”) and ahad (“one”), then revelation conveyed in the Arabic language cannot be cited as evidence for it.