Arab tili bir kelishuvdir. Arablar kelishib olganlar, shuning uchun ular ma'lum so'zlarni ma'lum ma'nolar uchun belgilaganlar, xuddi "osmon", "yer", "suv" iboralarini ma'lum ma'nolarni ifodalash uchun belgilaganlari kabi; xuddi "al-quru'" iborasini hayz va tuhr uchun belgilaganlari kabi; xuddi "al-jawn" iborasini qora va oq uchun, "al-saleem" iborasini chaqilgan kishi va sog' kishi uchun belgilaganlari kabi va boshqalar. Arab tili Arablar uchun kelishuv bo'lgani sababli, uni bilishning yo'li ularning o'zlaridan olishdir. Shunday ekan, agar ular: "Falon ibora falon ma'no uchun belgilangan", yoki: "Falon ma'no falon ibora uchun belgilangan", desalar, ularning gapi qabul qilinadi va tasdiqlanadi, unda bahs yuritilmaydi, chunki kelishuv shubhasizdir. U ular kelishib olgan narsadir, aql masalasi emas va idrok bilan bog'liq ham emas. Shu sababli Arablar til haqida aytgan har bir gap tasdiqlanadi. Arablar deganda esa, haqiqiy sof Arablar (al-aqhaah) nazarda tutiladi. Ular tilning buzilishidan oldin Arab tilida so'zlashgan kishilardir, ularning ba'zilari hijriy to'rtinchi asrgacha qolganlar. Ular cho'lda yashaganlar va ularning tili buzilmagan, shuning uchun tildan ulardan olish mumkin. Ulardan olishning yo'li esa sahih rivoyat orqali bo'ladi. Shu boisdan Arab tilini bilishning yo'li mutavotir va ahad naqllaridir. Mutavotir naql aniq va shubhasiz bilinadi, agar shubha bo'lsa, u qabul qilmaydi, xuddi javhar (mohiyat) ni shunday deb atashni, 'aroz (sifatlar)ni shunday deb atashni va boshqa nomlar, masalan osmon (al-samaa'), yer (al-ardh), issiqlik (al-harr), sovuqlik (al-bard) va boshqalarni bilganimiz kabi. Bu bilimni biz aniq tavotur orqali idrok etganmiz. Aahaad esa biz tomonidan ma'lum bo'lmagan va mutawotir sifatida naql qilinmagan narsadir, shuning uchun unda ehtimollikka erishish yo'li yakka-yakka kishilarning naqlidir, masalan, al-Xaleel, al-Asma'iy va ularga o'xshash tilshunos va tadqiqotchilardan rivoyat qilingan so'zlar kabi. Arab tilining aksariyat so'zlari mutawotir, eng kam qismi esa aahaaddir. Arab tilini bilishning yo'li shudir: arablardan mutawotir yoki aahaad yo'li bilan naql qilinadi, bundan boshqa yo'llar yo'q. Aql esa arab tilini bilishda foydali emas va uning qiymati yo'q, chunki masala tilni belgilagan kishilardan naql qilinishidir, bu idrok masalasi emas. Aql faqat mavjudotning zarurligini va yo'qning mumkin emasligini isbotlashda mustaqil ish yurita oladi.

The Arabic language is a convention the Arabs agreed on it, so they set specific words to denote specific meanings, as they set the expression the sky,the earth, the water" for the denotation of specific meanings, and as they set the expression al quru' for the menses and the purity, and as they set the expression al jawn for the black and for the white, and the expression al saleem, for the stung person and for the sound one, and so on. Since the Arabic language is a convention for Arabs; the way to know it is taking it from them. So if they say: "The so and so expression is set for the so and so meaning" or they say: "The so and so meaning is set for the so and so expression"; their saying will be accepted and approved, and will not be argued, because the convention is indisputable, and it is something they agreed on it, and not a mental issue nor is it related to the perception, and therefore whatever the Arabs say about the language will be approved. And what is meant by the Arabs, is the real genuine Arabs (al aqhaah) whom used to speak the Arabic language before the corruption of the Arabic (speaking) tongue and some of them remained until the fourth Hijry century, they used to live in the desert and their language did not get corrupted, therefore the language can be taken from. And the way to take from them is through the authentic narration, from here the way to know the Arabic language is the mutawaatir and aahaad transference. The mutawaatir transference is known by certainty and undoubted if suspicion exists, i.e. it does not accept doubt, like our knowledge in naming the essence (jawhar) as such, and the qualities ('araqh) as such, and the other names like tha sky (al samaa'), the earth (al ardh), the heat (al harr), the cold (al bard), and others. We perceived this knowledge through the decisive tawaator. And the aahaad is what is not known by us, and it is not transferred as the mutawaatir, so the way of obtaining the probability in it is the transference of the individuals, like the expressions narrated from the authors and researchers of the language like al Khaleel, al Asma'y, and the likes. And most of the expressions of the Arabic language are of the mutawaatir, and the least are of the aahaad. This is the way of knowing the Arabic language; it is the narration from the Arabs by either the tawaator or the aahaad, and there is no other than these ways. As for the mind; it is not beneficial in knowing the Arabic language, and it has no value because the issue is the transference from those who set the language, it is not a perception issue, and because the mind can only perform independently to proof the necessity of the existents, and the impossibility of the nonexistent.

Aql ikkala ehtimoldan birining yuz berishiga mustaqil ravishda yo'l topa olmaydi. Tillar esa aynan shunday: ular o'zlari uchun belgilangan narsa bilan chegaralangan, chunki ehtimollarning aniq bir ma'nosi uchun aniq bir ibora qo'yilgan, va aql muallif tilni shunday yoki boshqacha ma'no uchun shunday yoki boshqacha ibora bilan belgilaganini mustaqil ravishda idrok eta olmaydi, chunki bu muallifdan naql (rivoyat) orqali kelishiga bog'liqdir. Shu sababli tilni bilishda aqlning o'rni yo'q, uning bilimi muallifdan naqlga bog'liqdir. Ma'rifat sifatida aytilgan so'zga kelsak: aql aniqlaydiki, aniqlangan ko'plik ot umumiylikni bildiradi, chunki undan istisno qilinishi mumkin, degan gap to'g'ri emas. Bu bilim naql orqali kelgan bilimdir, chunki bizga istisno matnda zikr qilinganni chiqarib tashlashi naql qilingan va shundan biz aniqlangan ko'plik ot umumiylikni bildirishini tushunganmiz. Demak, aql muallif bu ibora shu ma'no uchun qo'yilgan deb mustaqil hukm qilmagan, balki muallifdan naql qilingan narsadan bu ibora shu ma'noni berishini tushungan. Bunga o'xshash: Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Ikki xalifaga bay'at berilgan bo'lsa, ulardan keyingisini o'ldiringlar" degan so'zlari, Muslim rivoyat qilgan, sababli Islom davlatining bir necha bo'lishining joiz emasligini tushunish. Islom davlatining ko'pligi joiz emasligini aql belgilamaydi, balki shariat buni keltirgan, demak bu shar'iy hukm, aqliy hukm emas, aql uni faqat shar'iy matndan tushungan. Tilda ham xuddi shunday: aniqlangan ko'plik ot umumiylikni bildirishi aqldan emas, balki arablarning qo'ygan vaz'idan, ya'ni ularning kelishuvlaridan, aqldan emas. Umuman olganda, tilni bilishning yagona yo'li sifatida aql o'zi yetarli emas. Tilni bilishning faqat ikki yo‘li bor: biri tawātur, ikkinchisi āhād. Boshqacha aytganda, tilni bilishning yo‘li faqat naql (rivoyat)dir.

And mind could not be guided independently to the occurrence of either of the two possibilities, and the languages are of this kind, because they are limited to what they were set for, since a specific expression was set for a specific meaning of the possibilities, and the mind could not independently perceive that the author of the language had set this or that expression for this or that meaning, because it depends on the transference from the author, therefore the mind has no role in knowing the language, but its knowledge depends on the transference from the author. And as for what was said: that it is known by the mind that the definite plural noun denotes the generality because the exception could be included in it, the matter is not like that, but it is a knowledge that came through the transference, because it is transferred to us that the exception is excluding what the text mentions, so from that we understood that the definite plural noun denotes the generality, so the mind did not independently judge that the author set this expression for this meaning, but the mind understood from what was transferred from the author that this expression brings out this meaning, it is like the understanding that the existence of Islamic states is not permissible for the saying of the Messenger (SAW): of pledge the given were khalifahs two If allegiance; do kill the latter of them" compiled by Muslim. So non permissibility of the multitude of the Islamic state is not set by the mind, but the shari'ah brought it, so it is a shari'ahi verdict, not mental verdict, and the mind only understood it from the shari'ahi text. And likewise is the language, so being the definite plural for the generality is not from the mind, but it is from the set up of the Arabs, so it is of their conventions and not from the mind. And the mind alone is not a way to know the language at all. But there are only two ways to know the language, one of them is the tawaator and the other is the aahaad, in other word the way to know the language is the narration only.