affirmation, but rather concerning negation. The Messenger and the polytheists agreed in affirming Allah’s divinity. The Messenger denied the divinity of anything besides Allah, whereas they affirmed it. No one, whether Muslim or polytheist, uttered this statement except to affirm Allah’s divinity and deny the divinity of anything besides Him. The polytheists, however, affirmed the divinity of others alongside Him. As for gods without qualification in this sense, this was not something they believed in such that they would give expression to it. How, then, can anyone say that this is the meaning for which they originally coined this expression in their language?

As for the assertion:

“We do not concede any change in signification. At most, a contextual indicator diverts the expression from what it would signify when unqualified to another meaning.”

The reply is: This is a fallacy. When qualified, the expression is not unrestricted. It does not entail universal negation when it is unrestricted and unqualified. With qualification, however, the statement is: “There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.” As for the expression without qualification, how can it be said that it has been diverted from what it would have entailed had it been unrestricted? Had it been unrestricted, it would have entailed universal negation. Qualification therefore removes the unrestrictedness that would entail this. This is what a change in signification means: if the expression had a particular signification when unrestricted, that signification would cease, and it would acquire another when qualified and accompanied by an exception.

According to the majority, who affirm general applicability, the exception excludes from the expression something that would otherwise have fallen within its scope. According to those who suspend judgment, it excludes something that could otherwise have fallen within its scope. On either view, the expression does not exclude something that has already fallen within its scope, but rather something that would have fallen within it but for the exception. The exception