with the meaning of naming, as in the Prophet’s statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ‘Allah has ninety-nine names,’ and elsewhere. Whenever it denotes the thing named, it is merely a supplementary element, effectively redundant, as though He had said in this verse, ‘Glorify your Lord, the Most High,’ meaning: declare Him free of all imperfection.”

He said:

“When the name is a particular name, such as Zayd or ‘Amr, it is used in speech as I have explained to you. You say, ‘Zayd is standing,’ intending the person named, and you say, ‘Zayd consists of three letters,’ intending the naming itself—in the sense of keeping your Lord’s name from being given to an idol or image, so that it is called ‘a god’ or ‘a lord.’”

I say:

No attestation is known for what they have stated, whether in eloquent speech or otherwise. Nor is the word ism (‘name’), spelled ‘alif, sīn, mīm,’ known to denote the thing named. Rather, it denotes the name, which they call ‘naming.’

As for his statement that when you say ‘Zayd is standing,’ Zayd denotes the person named: Zayd is not the word spelled ‘alif, sīn, mīm.’ Rather, Zayd is what the expression ‘Zayd’ names. Thus, ‘Zayd’ can denote either the person named or the expression itself. Likewise, ism, spelled ‘alif, sīn, mīm,’ can denote this expression itself or its meaning: an expression such as ‘Zayd,’ ‘Amr,’ or ‘Bakr.’ These are the names denoted by the word ism; the word ism does not denote the individuals themselves. I know of no sound attestation for this, let alone for its being the original meaning, as these people claim.