'Abd al-'Azīz, Abū al-Qāsim al-Tabarī, al-Lālakā'ī, Abū Muhammad al-Baghawī, the author of Sharh al-Sunnah (Commentary on the Sunnah), and others. This is also one of the two views held by the followers of Abū al-Hasan al-Ash'arī, adopted by Abū Bakr ibn Fūrak and others. The second view, which is the one widely attributed to Abū al-Hasan, is that names fall into three categories: sometimes the name is identical with what it names, as with “the Existent”; sometimes it is distinct from what it names, as with “the Creator”; and sometimes it is neither identical with nor distinct from what it names, as with “the All-Knowing” and “the All-Powerful.”

Those who said that the name is identical with what it names did not mean that the verbal expression composed of letters is the very person named by it, for no rational person would say this. Hence the objection: if the name were identical with what it names, anyone who said “fire” would burn his tongue. Some people imagine that this is what they meant and denounce them for it, but this misrepresents their position.

Rather, they say that the verbal expression is the act of naming, whereas the name is not the verbal expression but what is intended by it. When you say, “O Zayd! O 'Umar!” you do not intend to call out to the verbal expression; rather, you intend to call the person named by it. You have mentioned the name, and what is intended by that name is the person it names.

There is no doubt about this. When statements are made about things and their names are mentioned, as in:

“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,”

“and the Seal of the Prophets,”

“And Allah spoke to Moses directly,”

the meaning is not that the verbal expression itself is the Messenger or the one to whom Allah spoke. Likewise, when one says, “Zayd has come,” “I bear witness concerning 'Amr,” “So-and-so is upright,” and similar statements, the names are mentioned, but what is intended by them is what they name. That is the purpose of the speech.