direct the negation at what the name denotes, and sometimes at the name itself—even though it applies linguistically—when what is truly intended by that name is absent from it but present in something else. An example is His saying:

“O People of the Scripture, you have no ground to stand on until you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.”

He thus denied that what they stood upon amounted to “anything,” although the word “thing” originally encompasses everything that exists, whether true or false. This is because whatever offers no benefit ultimately amounts to falsehood, which is nothingness, and so becomes like something nonexistent. Indeed, when something has an intended purpose but fails to fulfil it, its nonexistence would be even more fitting than that of something that has never existed, since it may cause harm. Thus, whoever speaks falsehood has said nothing, and whoever does nothing beneficial has done nothing.

Another example is the Prophet’s saying, when asked about soothsayers, “They are of no account.” In the two Sahīh collections, ‘Ā’ishah reported:

“Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was asked about some soothsayers, and he said, ‘They are of no account.’”

Hadith scholars likewise say of certain narrators, “He is of no account,” or of certain hadiths, “It is of no account,” when they are of no use in transmission because of evident falsehood, whether deliberate or inadvertent.

It is also said of someone whose character and similar qualities depart from what humanity requires: “This is no son of Adam, no human being. He has neither humanity nor decency. He is a donkey—or a dog.” Such language is likewise used of someone endowed with qualities that are