The first of the two is a group who adopt certain preconceived notions and then seek to force the wording of the Qur’an to fit those notions.

The second is a group who interpret the Qur’an solely on the basis of whatever an Arabic‐speaking person might conceivably intend by such wording, without any consideration for the One who spoke the Qur’an, the man to whom it was revealed, or the audience being addressed.

The former heed only the meaning they have in mind, paying no attention to the denotative force and clarity that the Qur’anic expressions themselves require. The latter concern themselves with the bare wording and with whatever, in their view, an Arab might mean by it, heedless of what is appropriate for the Divine Speaker and for the flow of the discourse. These interpreters often err in determining whether the wording can in fact bear that meaning in Arabic, just as the earlier group erred; while the first frequently misjudge the soundness of the meaning they ascribe to the Qur’an, just as the second do—although the first give precedence to meaning, whereas the second give precedence to wording.

The first group subdivides into two kinds: at times they strip a Qur’anic term of the sense it actually conveys and was intended to convey, and at other times they impose upon it a sense for which it offers no indication and that was never intended. In either case, the proposition they seek to negate or affirm may itself be false—so their error pertains both to the proof and to the conclusion—or it may be true, in which case their mistake lies in the proof alone, not in