2. Ahl al-taḥrīf wa’l-taʾwīl (the people of distortion and allegorical interpretation): they force the messengers’ words into meanings that run contrary to what the messengers actually intended, then claim that this is what the messengers meant—even though nothing in the wording supports such a meaning; on the contrary, the wording points to the very opposite.

3. Ahl al-tajhīl (those who declare the text unknowable): they maintain that these words carry no meaning known to the Messenger or to anyone else; only Allah knows it. Both of these positions are held by certain groups who nonetheless venerate the messengers, yet the unsoundness of each view has been demonstrated elsewhere.

As for those who say that the messengers—and others—do grasp the meaning Allah clarified for them in His speech, while Allah has reserved for Himself knowledge of another matter unknown to them, just as He has kept the unseen knowledge of the Hour to Himself, this is the position of the early generations (al-salaf) and the leading imams; its full discussion lies in another place.

The point at hand is that discourse about prophethood is sometimes concerned with prophethood as a class, and at other times with the identity of a particular prophet. Heraclius, emperor of Byzantium, did not need to affirm prophethood in the abstract, for he was one of the People of the Book, and they already acknowledge the reality of prophethood: they affirm the prophethood of Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the prophets of the Children of Israel, and the Christians additionally affirm the Messiah and the Gospel.

Those who need to recognize a specific prophet divide into two kinds:

• The first kind know that a prophet is to be sent and may even know some of his distinguishing traits, yet they still need to pinpoint his very person. Heraclius and others from the People of the Book belonged to this group; they knew that a prophet would be sent, and their remaining need was to identify him