false by the self-evident dictates of reason, just as it contradicts the Book and the Sunnah. We know that when the Torah is translated into Arabic, it does not become the Quran; indeed, its meanings are not those of the Quran. We know that when the Quran is translated into Hebrew, it does not become the Torah revealed to Moses. We also know that the meaning of the verse on debt is not the meaning of the Verse of the Footstool, nor is the meaning of “May the hands of Abū Lahab perish” the meaning of “Say, ‘He is Allah, One.’”

They said: Whoever regards commands and prohibitions as attributes of speech rather than types of speech holds a position whose falsity is self-evident. This is akin to the position of those who profess the unity of existence. Whoever holds that existence is one and the same entity, both necessary and contingent, makes a claim whose falsity is self-evident. The same applies to whoever regards the meanings of speech as a single meaning that is command, prohibition, and statement.

Rather, speech is divided into non-declarative utterances and statements. Non-declarative utterances are divided into requests to act and requests to refrain from acting; statements are divided into negative and affirmative statements. Likewise, that which exists is divided into the necessary and the contingent. The contingent is divided into a living entity subsisting in itself and an entity subsisting in another. What subsists in another is divided into that which requires life and that which does not require life.

Thus, the term “one” may signify oneness in kind or oneness as an individual entity. Saying “Speech is a single meaning” is like saying “Existence is one.” If the speaker means that it is one kind, one genus, one category, or the like, this is not the same as meaning that it is a single entity, a single essence, and a single individual. For this is a willful denial