Tillar ma'nolarga o'rnatilgan (belgilangan) ifodalardir, shuning uchun ifodalarning ma'noni anglatishi tuzuvchining o'rnatishidan foydalanadi; shu sababli ifodani bilish, so'ngra ifodalarning ma'nosini bilish zarurdir. O'rnatish — ma'no uchun ma'lum bir ifodani belgilashdir, shunday qilib birinchisi aytilganda yoki paydo bo'lganda, ikkinchisi tushuniladi. Tilni o'rnatishning sababi shundaki, inson o'zining hayoti uchun zarur bo'lgan narsalar — oziq-ovqat, kiyim-kechak, uy-joy, qurol, tanasini saqlash va uni issiq, sovuq hamda tajovuzdan himoya qilish uchun — ularni o'zi mustaqil ravishda ta'minlay olmaydi. Shu sababli u insoniyatning boshqa a'zolari bilan birlashishi zarur bo'ldi va shundan kelib chiqib, inson insonga uchrashishi tabiiy bo'ldi. Demak, inson tabiatan ijtimoiydir. Odamlarning bu uchrashuvi hamkorlikka ega bo'la olmas edi va bir-birlarining ichidagilarini bilmasdan turib, rozilik va maqsadga erishish mumkin emas edi. Shuning uchun bu tanishuvni ro'yobga chiqaradigan biror narsaga ehtiyoj tug'ildi. Shundan tillarning o'rnatilishi paydo bo'ldi, chunki ongdagi narsani bilish ifoda, belgi yoki misolsiz amalga oshmaydi. Ifoda belgi va misoldan ko'ra foydaliroqdir, chunki u umumiyroqdir: ifoda seziladigan va aqlga sig'adigan mavjudotlarni ham, mumkin va mumkin bo'lmagan ma'lumotlarni ham o'z ichiga oladi, chunki istalgan ma'nolardan xohlanganiga ifoda belgilash mumkin. U aqlga sig'adigan yoki g'oyib bo'lgan, yoki mavjud bo'lmagan narsalar uchun o'rnatilishi mumkin bo'lmagan belgidan farq qiladi. Shuningdek, u misoldan ham farq qiladi, chunki har bir narsa uchun mos misollarni keltirish imkonsiz yoki qiyin, chunki aniq misollar mavjud bo'lmagan narsalar uchun yetarli emas, va agar hatto yetarli deb faraz qilinsa ham, bu qiyindir. Shuningdek, ifoda belgi va misoldan osonroqdir, chunki ifoda ovoz orqali hosil bo'ladigan harflardan tuzilgan bo'lib, u insonda tabiiy ravishda paydo bo'ladi; shu sababli uni o'zidagini ifodalash vositasi sifatida ishlatish yanada ravshan va munosibroqdir. Demak, tillarni vaz' qilishning sababi ong ichidagini ifodalash bo'lib, ularning mavzusi harflardan tuzilgan ifodalardir. Bu ifodalar qo'yilgan narsalarga kelsak, ular tashqi ma'nolarsiz, ong ichidagi ma'nolardir, chunki biror narsaga ifoda qo'yish uning tasavvurining bir shaklidir; shuning uchun insonga ifoda qo'yganda uning (masalan, "inson" degan) suratini ong ichida tasavvur qilish muqarrardir va ifoda aynan shu ruhiy suratga qo'yiladi, tashqi mohiyatga emas, chunki ifoda ong ichidagini ifodalash uchun vaz' qilingan, mohiyat uchun emas; shu bois u fikrdan boshqadir. Fikr haqiqatga hukm chiqaradi, chunki u haqiqatni sezgilar orqali oldingi ma'lumotlar bilan birga miyaga yetkazib, uni tushuntiradi. Ifoda esa bunga zid: u haqiqatning vujudini ko'rsatish uchun ham, unga hukm chiqarish uchun ham vaz' qilinmagan, balki ong ichidagini ifodalash uchun vaz' qilingan, u haqiqatga mos kelsinmi yoki unga zid bo'lsinmi. Chunki ifodani talaffuz qilish tashqi ma'nolarsiz, ruhiy ma'nolar atrofida aylanadi. Agar biror narsani ko'rib, uni tosh deb o'ylasak, unga tosh ifodasini aytamiz; so'ng unga yaqinlashib, uni daraxt deb o'ylasak, unga daraxt ifodasini aytamiz; so'ng uni inson deb o'ylasak, unga inson ifodasini aytamiz. Demak, ifodaning o'zgarishi bilan tashqi ma'no o'zgarmadi, bu esa qo'yilgan ifodaning unga emas, ong ichidagi narsaga qo'yilganini bildiradi. Va agar biz "Zayd turibdi" desak va bu ibora tashqarida mavjud bo'lgan Zaydning turishi uchun aytilgan bo'lsa, so'ngra Zayd o'tirdi, yoki yurdi, yoki uxladi desak, bizning gapimiz bekor bo'ladi, garchi u batamom puchga chiqmasa ham. Bu esa shuni ko'rsatadiki, iboralarni vaz' qilish mavjud haqiqat uchun emas, balki ongda bo'lgan narsani ifodalash uchundir; shuning uchun u haqiqatga mos kelishi ham, mos kelmasligi ham mumkin. Iboralar nisbatni, cheklashni yoki so'zlarni bir-biriga qo'shish orqali ularni boshqarishni, masalan, ega va to'ldiruvchi kabi otlarni va boshqalarni bildirish uchun, shuningdek, "turmoq" va "o'tirmoq" kabi birikkan so'zlarning ma'nolarini bildirish uchun vaz' qilingan. Masalan, "Zayd turibdi" iborasi vaz' qilindiki, undan uning bildirgan ma'nosi, ya'ni turish yoki boshqa narsa haqidagi xabar foyda bersin. Iborani vaz' qilishdan maqsad esa iboralarning alohida ma'nolarini, ya'ni o'sha ma'nolarni tasavvur qilishni foyda qilish emas, balki nisbatni foyda qilishdir, ya'ni ibora nisbatni ta'minlab, ongdagi narsani ifodalashga xizmat qilsin, degan maqsaddir.

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.

Tillarning tuzuvchisiga kelsak, barcha tillar muvāḍaʿa (kelishuv asosida belgilangan) bo‘lib, ularni inson belgilagan va odamlar ularga kelishib olgan, Allah Ta’ololo tomonidan belgilanmagan. Arab tili ham boshqa tillar kabi muvāḍaʿa bo‘lib, arablar tomonidan belgilangan va ular unga kelishib olgan; u Allah Ta’ololo tomonidan ilohiy (tavqīfiy) emas. Chunki agar Al-Bāriʼ Ta’ololo uni belgilagan va bizga xabar bergan bo‘lsa, bu xabar Uning yo‘llaridan biri orqali bo‘lishi kerak edi, ya’ni vahiy orqali yoki aqli sog‘ bo‘lgan insonda zaruriy bilimni paydo qilish orqali, ya’ni Allah Ta’ololo bu til ma’nolarni shunday ifodalashi uchun belgilaganini bilishi kerak edi. Vahiy orqali xabar berish esa to‘g‘ri emas, chunki bu shuni talab qiladiki, Payg‘ambarlar risolat bilan yuborilishdan oldin, Allah belgilagan tilni bilishlari uchun ular tillarni bilgan bo‘lishlari kerak edi, so‘ngra Allah ularga risolatni vahiy qilgan bo‘lar edi. Holbuki, risolat bilan yuborish keyinroq sodir bo‘lgan, Allahning: «Biz hech bir payg‘ambarni o‘z qavmining tilida (bayon qilsin deb) yubormadik» (Ibrohim surasi, 4-oyat), degan so‘zi bu buning isboti. Shunday ekan, til Allahdan vahiy emas, deb isbotlanadi. Zaruriy bilim yaratish orqali tilni xabar qilish ham to‘g‘ri emas, chunki bu shuni talab qiladiki, Allah Ta’ololoni zaruriy ravishda, bilimni egallash orqali emas, balki bilish yuzaga kelishi bilan biladigan bo‘ladi. Chunki Allah tilni belgilaganini bildiruvchi zaruriy bilim, Allah Ta’olologa oid zaruriy bilimni talab qiladi. Holbuki, Allah Ta’ololoni bilish zaruriy emas, balki bilimni egallash orqali bo‘ladi. Demak, Allahga oid bilim zaruriy emas, balki bilimni egallash orqali hosil bo‘ladi. Bu esa til Allah tomonidan tavqīfiy ravishda bizga xabar qilinmaganini isbotlaydi va bu isbotlangan. Demak, u inson tomonidan belgilangan, ya’ni odamlarning kelishuvidir. Allahning: «Odam alayhissalomga barcha ismlarni o‘rgatdi…» (Baqara surasi, 31-oyat), degan so‘ziga kelsak, bu yerda nazarda tutilgan narsa — ismlangan narsalar, tillar emas. U Uni U ta'lo Odamga narsalarning haqiqatlari va xususiyatlarini o'rgatdi, ya'ni unga narsalarni baholash uchun foydalanadigan ma'lumotni berdi, chunki narsaning haqiqatini his qilishning o'zi uni baholash va haqiqatini anglash uchun yetarli emas, balki haqiqat izohlanadigan oldingi ma'lumotga ega bo'lish zarurdir. Shunday qilib, Allohu Ta'olo Odamga nomlarni, ya'ni nomlangan narsalarni o'rgatdi, shu tariqa unga his qilayotgan narsalarini baholay oladigan ma'lumot berdi. Qur'onning "nomlar" so'zi bilan ifodalangan joyida esa ism ma'noda aytilib, mazmunda nomlangan narsa nazarda tutilgan, haqiqat shuni ko'rsatadi, chunki Odam narsalarni bilgan, ammo tillarni bilmagan. Shuning uchun bilinishi mumkin bo'lgan va haqiqatni ochib beradigan har bir mohiyat ta'lim va bilimga bo'ysunadi, til esa faqat ifoda vositasi bo'lib, undan ortiq emas. Oyatning mazmuni ham "barcha nomlarning ma'nosi" (…) nomlangan narsalar, ya'ni haqiqatlar va xususiyatlardir, degan ma'noni bildiradi. "Va Uning belgilaridan osmonlar va yerning yaratilishi hamda tillaringizning turlichaligidir…" (30-sura, Ar-Rum, 22-oyat). Bunda "tillaringiz" degani, tillar Alloh tomonidan belgilangan degan dalil yo'q, balki oyatning ma'nosi Allohning qudratiga dalil bo'lgan tillaringizning turlichaligidir, degan ma'nodadir. Demak, oyatda dalil tillar o'rtasidagi farqdir, Alloh turli tillar belgilaganligi emas. Alloh Taolo aytgan: "Bular faqat sizlar va ota-bobolaringiz o'ylab topgan nomlardir, Alloh ularga hech qanday hujjat nozil qilmagan…" (53-sura, An-Najm, 23-oyat). Bunda Alloh ular nomlar qo'yganliklari uchun ularni qoralamagan, balki butga "rabb" (Rabb) deb nom berib, ularni xudo deb e'tiqod qilganliklari uchun qoralagan. Lot (al-Laat), al-‘Uzza va Manat degan atamalar butlar uchun xos ism bo‘lgani uchun, ular faqat shu nomlar bilan zikr qilingan va ularning xoslanishi ularni qoralashda boshqa nomlarsiz zikr etilgani dalil bo‘ladi. Shuning uchun bu oyatlarda tillarning Alloh tomonidan vahiy qilingan (tavqifiyya) ekanligiga hech qanday dalolat yo‘q. Demak, tillarning Alloh Ta’olo tomonidan vahiy qilingan (tavqifiyya) ekanligiga shar’iy dalil yo‘q, balki ko‘rinib turgan haqiqat ularning xalqlardan kelib chiqqan kelishuv (istilohiy) ekanligidir, ya’ni ular odamlar tomonidan belgilangan, Alloh Ta’olo tomonidan emas.