Therefore...

Therefore, the verbal word in the form of command and prohibition cannot be considered originating from will or abhorrence; rather, there is something in the human being which is the intrinsic word. ^8 This argument is also incorrect because in the above assumption, there is no absolute will and abhorrence in relation to the action – to bid or forbid. Without any doubt, in such an assumption the Bidder or Forbidder has a motive, such as giving trial to His servant and the like.

Regardless of His motive, it is His desire or abhorrence, and it is the origin of His command and prohibition.

Yet another argument of the proponents of intrinsic word ( kalām-e nafsī ) is that in terms of verbal derivation, the speaker ( mutakallim ) is the one from who the word or speech ( kalām ) emanates and not the one who originates the word or speech, for the agent of movement creates the movement in someone than himself and yet he is not called the mover ( mutaḥarrik ); rather mutaḥarrik is that which the movement emanates from.

Meanwhile, since the verbal word’s emanation from God is impossible, it must be said that beyond the verbal word is another word which is no other than the intrinsic word.[^9] The criticism to the above argument is that in terms of derivatives, one cannot make an analogy. For example, a person is called “killer” who is the agent of killing of another person; the beater is he who is the agent of beating another person; the helper is he who is the agent of helping another person.

One can never consider killing, beating and helping accidental to the agents of those actions. It is true that the said actions originate from their respective agents, yet it is not accidental existence ( qiyām-e ‘arūḍī ) but rather emanative existence ( qiyām-e ṣudūrī ). The existence of the origin of their derivatives, therefore, is sometimes in the form of emanative existence as well as accidental existence at other times.

The existence of movement in the mover is an accidental existence while the existence of beating in the beater is an emanative existence. The existence of word or speech in the speaker is of the latter case.