our spears. This, then, is a spurious interpretation that runs counter to the wording’s true and apparent sense, for the one who kills is the person who actually carries out the killing, not the one who enlisted him. For that reason, people more entitled to truth and accuracy than they were replied, “By the same token, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions would have been the ones who killed Ḥamzah and the martyrs who fell with him, since they brought them forward until they placed them under the swords of the idolaters.”

A similar case is ʿUrwah b. al-Zubayr’s statement when he narrated ʿĀʾishah’s report: “Prayer was first prescribed as two rakʿahs, two rakʿahs; later, the resident’s prayer was lengthened while the traveller’s prayer was left as it was.” He was asked, “Then why did ʿĀʾishah pray in full while travelling (1)?” He answered, “She interpreted it as ʿUthmān did” (2).

His point was not that ʿĀʾishah and ʿUthmān interpreted the verse on shortening the prayer contrary to its outward meaning. Rather, he meant that each of them relied on a proof that, in their view, permitted praying in full, and they acted upon that proof; their action itself constituted their interpretation. Acting in accordance with an evidential command is, in fact, its interpretation—just as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ interpreted the Almighty’s words, “So glorify the praise of your Lord and seek His forgiveness” (al-Nasr 3) by fulfilling them, saying: