rather, they used the term in its established conventional sense, referring to those who discuss religion by a method other than that of the messengers.

Those engaged in the study of the principles of jurisprudence may define speech as what consists of two or more letters, or what is composed of “letters”—that is, distinct sounds established by convention. They also hold two views on whether a single letter combined with others may itself be called speech. Similarly, most of their speculative theologians say that a body is a composite, and that the smallest composite consists of two substances. They likewise hold two views on whether a single substance forming part of a composite may itself be called a body. This, however, is terminology peculiar to them.

Likewise, grammarians have conventionally agreed to call a single expression, such as a noun or a particle, a “word,” although in the language of the pure Arabs, “word” is found only as a designation for a complete sentence—unless there is an instance that does not come to mind at present.

Since people agree that speech belongs to the one who composes its wording and meanings, even if he learned its vocabulary from someone else, every doubt concerning this issue is dispelled. It must therefore be stated without qualification that human speech is created, just as one states without qualification that this poetry is the speech of so-and-so, and that this discourse is the speech of so-and-so—not the speech of those who previously used those words and their constituent letters. Human speech belongs to those who originated and first produced it, composing its wording and meanings, even though they may have learned its words and letters from one another, and even if they had heard those words from Allah Most High.