is eternal; and no part of what is eternal precedes another, for precedence and subsequence are attributes of that part of it which comes into being in time.’”

I say:

He has thus treated this expression as univocal, denoting a shared meaning like other univocal terms. In each instance, however, it has a distinctive element determined by its particular context, as in his example of blackness. Yet this very point refutes his argument for figurative language.

He said:

“Among the proofs of figurative language is what its proponents claim to be one of their strongest arguments against those who deny it: the words of the Most High,

‘Monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is frequently mentioned would surely have been demolished,’

and His words,

‘Then they found there a wall that wanted to collapse, so he set it upright.’

In Arabic, salawāt means either supplications or the prescribed acts of prayer. Neither can be described as being demolished, and an inanimate object cannot possess will.

If it is said:

‘It was part of Arabic usage to call a place of prayer a prayer. Indeed, the words, “And the places of prostration belong to Allah,” have been explained as referring to the bodily parts used in prostration. Moreover, although a wall has no will, it is not impossible for Allah to produce will in it without bringing particular structures into existence.’

The reply is:

‘This is a claim about the original assignment of meanings to words, for prayer is not known to have originally meant