The point is that anyone with even the slightest intelligence and knowledge of the language necessarily knows that the interpretation he has proposed is false. The statement, “Just as a verbal noun can properly be attached to its object, it can also be attached to its subject,” holds true only for verbal nouns derived from transitive verbs, such as “strike,” “kill,” “eat,” “make someone laugh,” “make someone weep,” “cause death,” and “give life.” Thus, one may say, “Zayd ate, and I was pleased by the eating of the food,” just as one says, “I was pleased by making this wicked man weep,” or “I was pleased by making this believer laugh,” or “by Allah’s causing laughter.”

“To laugh,” however, is an intransitive verb: its verbal noun cannot conceivably be attached to an object. Laughing is like rejoicing, marveling, grieving, and feeling elated. Thus, when one says, “I was pleased by Zayd’s laughter, weeping, joy, sorrow, elation, or amazement,” the person mentioned cannot conceivably be an object who is being made to laugh, weep, rejoice, or grieve. This is perfectly clear and admits of no obscurity.

Moreover, not only is the invalidity of this interpretation self-evident, but its internal contradiction is equally self-evident.