of the four schools and others, nor al-Thawrī, al-Awzā'ī, al-Layth ibn Sa'd, or anyone else. The term does occur in the words of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, but with a different meaning, just as it occurs in the words of Abū 'Ubaydah Ma'mar ibn al-Muthannā with a different meaning. Nor is the division of speech into literal and figurative found in the writings of the leading authorities on grammar and language, such as Abū 'Amr ibn al-'Alā', Abū 'Amr al-Shaybānī, Abū Zayd, al-Asma'ī, al-Khalīl, Sībawayh, al-Kisā'ī, and al-Farrā'. None of them knew of this distinction as something received from the Arabs.

Anyone who investigates this matter knows it with certainty, just as it is known with certainty that the Arabs did not speak using the terminology of the grammarians, who classified one expression as a subject, another as an object, and a third as a verbal noun, and classified some words as declinable and others as indeclinable. This is known to be the grammarians’ terminology, but it is terminology whose meaning is sound, unlike the terminology adopted by those who use the terms “literal” and “figurative.”

The latter is a later convention, and its meaning is unsound in this respect: there is no actual distinction between the two that would warrant assigning one term to this and another to that. Rather, whatever meaning they assign exclusively to the term “literal” is also found in what they call figurative, and whatever meaning they assign exclusively to the term “figurative” is also found in what they call literal. They cannot provide anything that distinguishes the two categories.

Nor are they being required to supply what is said to constitute a real definition, composed of genus