such definitions. They had not devised them, nor had the foreign Greek books been translated into Arabic for them. These definitions arose only after their time, among innovators from the dialectical theologians and philosophers. Since their emergence, disagreement and ignorance have spread among them to an extent known only to Allah.

Likewise, in “medicine,” “arithmetic,” and other disciplines, you will not find the leading authorities laboriously devising these definitions composed of genus and differentia, except for logicians who have incorporated this into those disciplines.

The same applies to “grammarians,” such as Sībawayh, whose book has no equal in the world and contains the wisdom of the Arabic language. In it, he did not laboriously devise definitions of the noun, the subject of a verb, and similar terms, as others did. When grammarians undertook to define the noun, they proposed numerous definitions, all of which they themselves found open to criticism. Likewise, the efforts of later grammarians to define the subject of a verb, the subject and predicate of a nominal sentence, and similar terms were not undertaken by anyone whom they regarded as a leading authority or an accomplished practitioner of the discipline.

The same applies to the definitions that some jurists laboriously devise for ritual purification, impurity, and other terms in common use among them. Likewise, the definitions laboriously devised by those studying the principles of jurisprudence—for such things as reports, analogical reasoning, knowledge, and so forth—were undertaken only by those who were not leading authorities in the field. To this day, not one of their definitions has escaped objection. The same applies to the definitions of the dialectical theologians.