The languages are the expressions set (made) for the meanings, so since the expressions' denotation for the meanings is benefited from the set up of the composer; it is inevitable to know the set (expression), then to know the denotation of the expressions. The setting is specifying an expression for a meaning in a way that if or when the first is uttered; the second is understood. The reason behind setting the language is that the human is in need of others of the humankind, because he can not independently possess all that he needs for his life of food, clothing, housing, weapon, for maintaining the body and protecting it from the heat, the cold and the aggression, therefore it was inevitable for him to get together with others of the humankind, and from here it was natural that the human meets with the other human, so the human is social by his nature. And this meeting between the people could not be cooperative, nor could it achieve the aim of fulfilling the satisfaction without knowing one another what is in them selves, so there was a need for something by which this acquainting occurs. And from here the setting of the languages came, because this acquainting to what is in the mind does not occur without an expression, a sign or a example. The expression is more beneficial than the sign and the example for its generality, since the expression includes the tangible and intelligible existents, and it includes the possible and impossible information, for the possibility of setting the expression for what is wanted from those meanings. It is different from the sign which can not be set for the intelligible, nor the absent, or the nonexistent. And it is different from the example, for it is impossible or difficult to have compatible examples for everything, because the solid examples are not adequate for the nonexistent, and supposedly it is adequate; it is difficult. Moreover the expression is easier than the sign and the example, because the expression is compounded from the letters occurred by the voice, and it naturally occurs by the human, so using it as a means for expressing what is in oneself is more apparent and more appropriate. Therefore the reason for setting up the languages was to express what is in the mind, and their subject is the expressions compounded from the letters. As for the things which these expressions are set for; they are the meanings in the mind without the external meanings, because setting up (an expression) for something is a branch of its imagination, so it is inevitable to imagining the image of the human (as an example) in the mind when setting up an expression for him, and this mental image is what the expression (human) is set for it, not the external essence, because the expression is set to express what is in the mind and not for the essence, so it is other than the thought. The thought is judging the reality, since it is transferring the reality by the senses to the brain with previous information to explain the reality. The expression is contrary to that, it was not set to denote the actuality of the reality, nor is it set to issue the judgment on it, but it was set to express what is in the mind, whether it corresponds the reality or it differs from it, because uttering the expression revolves with the mental meanings without the external meanings. If we saw something and thought that it is a rock; we utter the expression of the rock on it, then if we get closer to it and we thought it is a tree; we utter the expression of the tree on it, then if we thought that it is a human; we utter the expression of the human on it, so the external meaning did not change with the change of the expression, so it denotes that the set expression is not made for it, but it is made for what is in the mind. And also if we say Zaid is standing up, and we make this expression for the standing up of Zaid which exists externally, then Zaid sat down, or he walked, or slept; our uttering becomes null despite that it is not void, which shows that setting the expression is not for the existing reality but it is an expression for that which is in the mind, so it may be corresponding with the reality, or not corresponding with it. And the expressions were set to denote the attribution, the restriction, or for governing the words by adding them to each other, like the subjective and objective nouns and others, and to denote the meanings of the compounded words like standing up and sitting down. For example the expression: Zaid is standing up was made so the news of its denoted meaning will be benefitted from it, like the standing up or others, and the purpose of setting the expression is not to benefit the individual meanings of the expressions, i.e. imagining those meanings, but the purpose of setting the expression is benefitting the attribution so the expressing occurs, i.e. the aim of the setting is making the expression provides the attribution for the purpose of expressing what is in the mind.

As for the composer of the languages it is that all languages are conventional, they are set by the human, and not by Allah Ta'ala, and the people agreed on them. And the Arabic language is like the other languages, it is conventional and set by the Arabs and they agreed on it, and it is not divine from Allah Ta'ala. Because if Al-Baari' Ta'ala had set it and informed us about it; this informing would be thru one of His ways, i.e. by the revealing, or by creating a necessary knowledge in a sane person that Allah Ta'ala had set it for these meanings. As for the information thru the revelation; it is invalid because it necessitates that the sending of the Messengers precedes their knowledge in the languages so that they know the language that Allah Ta'ala had set, and then He reveals the mission to them, but the sending with the mission is belated, for the saying of Allah Ta'ala: We sent not a Messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people…) 4 Surat Ibraaheem, so by this it gets proven that the language is not a revelation from Allah. And as for informing the language thru creating a necessary knowledge; it is also invalid, because it necessitates knowing Allah Ta'ala by the necessity not by the acquisition of the knowledge, because the occurrence of the necessary knowledge that Allah had set the language necessitates the necessary knowledge in Allah Ta'ala, but knowing Allah Ta'ala is not by the necessity, but by the occurrence of the knowledge, so the knowledge in Allah is not by the necessity, but by the acquisition of the knowledge, and that proves that the language is not (tawqifiyah) informed to us by Allah, and this is proven, so it is set by the human, i.e. it is convention from the people. As for the saying of Allah Ta'ala: taught He And Aadam all the names …) 31 Surat Al-Baqarah, the meaning of this is the named things not the languages, i.e. He taught him the realities of the things and their qualities, it means He gave him the information that he uses to judge the things, because feeling the reality is not sufficient by itself to judge the thing and perceiving its reality, but it is inevitable to have previous information by which the reality is explained. So Allah Ta'ala had taught Aadam the names means the named things, so He gave him information by which he can judge the things that he feels. And as for expression of the Qur'an by the word "the names", it metaphorically said the name and meant the named thing, as the reality denotes, because Aadam got to know the things but did not know the languages, so every essence that is able to be known and discloses a reality is subject to the teaching and the knowledge, and the language is only a means for the expression and not more than that, and the context of the Aayah denotes that the meaning of all the names …) is the named things, i.e. the realities and the qualities. saying His for As And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages …) 22 Surat Al-Roum, it means your languages, so there is no denotation in it that the languages are set by Allah, because the meaning of the Aayah: and from the evidences on the power of Allah the differences in your languages, and it does not mean that Allah had set different languages. So the Aayah, i.e. the daleel is differences between the languages, not that Allah had set different languages. And as for His Ta'ala saying: These are nothing but names which you have devised, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority …) 23 Surat Al-Najm, Allah did not dispraise them for setting names, but He dispraised them for uttering the word lord for the idol and their belief that they are lords. Since the laat, the 'uzza, and manaat are proper nouns for idols, so the indication of their specialty in the dispraising without the other names is an evidence for it, so there is no denotation in these verses that the languages are revealed by Allah (tawqifiyah). And thus there is no shari'ahi daleel that the languages are (tawqifiyah) revealed by Allah Ta'ala, but the seen reality is that they are convention from the people, so they are set by the human, not from Allah Ta'ala.