A talk by some students of knowledge regarding the induction by scholars of grammar, spelling rules, or the rules of Qur'anic recitation

The questioner : There was something called the absolute object, the object for the sake of which, the active participle, the passive participle; was it so? This is what existed. Now it exists in abundance. Did it exist, for example, in their time? These are rules of ikhfa (concealment), these are rules of idgham (merging), this is such and such? Likewise, the spelling rules now—for example, did they actually say that "anna" is written with a kasrah if it is kasrah or if what precedes it is kasrah, and so on of these matters? It was not so. But the scholars looked at the foreignness of tongues and found that the best solution is, meaning, an inductive process for something that exists, not innovation, not innovation, but an inductive process. So they established these grammatical rules, and spelling in the same way, saying when it is written with a dammah, when it is written with a kasrah, when it is written with such and such. It is an inductive process for existing things, and they came out with these rules. In the same way, the issue of terminology, for example, yes, indeed, and so on. It may be, my Shaykh, what is at the head of it?

The Shaykh : The principles of jurisprudence.

The questioner : And the principles of jurisprudence, yes. They, for example, regarding their recitation and tajwid, what do we say... we compare it with the tajwid and recitation now, we compare their language with our language, meaning, with the establishment of these rules, only then are we proceeding. How would it be without these rules?

Another questioner: Yes.

Another questioner: Yes.

The questioner : So, is it said in the same way about tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship) and the names and attributes? Yes.