Section

Those who ascribe a corrupt meaning to the plain wording of the texts, and then reject that wording on account of it, fall into error on two fronts:

1. They construe the text as bearing a corrupt meaning that the language itself does not support, then reject it and declare, “Its apparent sense is not intended.”

   • One example is the Divine saying: “Son of Adam, I was ill and you did not visit Me; Son of Adam, I asked you for food and you did not feed Me; Son of Adam, I asked you for water and you did not give Me drink….” The ḥadith is related by Muslim.

   They claim that the outward sense of the ḥadith is that Allah becomes ill, hungry, and thirsty, which is a corrupt notion and therefore cannot be meant.

   We answer: If you gave the text its due, you would see that this corrupt notion is not its outward sense, for the ḥadith’s own context rules it out. The continuation states plainly: “Did you not know that My servant so-and-so was ill and you did not visit him? Did you not know that My servant so-and-so asked you for food and you did not feed him? And that My servant so-and-so asked you for water and you did not give him drink?” This makes it explicit that Allah, exalted be He, did not become ill, hungry, or thirsty; rather, those states befell one of His servants.

   • Another example is His words about Noah’s ark: “…sailing under Our Eyes” (Q 54:14).

   They say: The apparent sense of the verse is that the ark is sailing inside Allah’s Eye, and that this is a corrupt meaning and therefore not intended.

   We reply: Your assertion that the verse’s apparent sense is that the ark sailed inside Allah’s Eye