invalidates the very basis of the text from yet another angle: in the ḥadīth the Prophet ﷺ employed the conditional particle ay—one of the tools of generalization—then reinforced it with the particle mā, which is likewise used to emphasize universality (1). He also placed an indefinite noun within a conditional clause, which by itself denotes generality, and he made the nullity of the marriage contingent upon a fitting description that necessitates the ruling whenever it is present, namely, her contracting the marriage herself. He then pointed out the rationale for the nullity—her encroachment upon the authority of her guardian—and confirmed the judgment of invalidity three times over. To restrict all of that to a situation that occurs only rarely, if ever, in the real world subverts the very purpose of the text (2). If you examine most of the Jahmiyyah’s interpretations, you will find them of this nature, and even more egregious.

Eighth: Interpreting a word that has a manifest meaning—one understood by both the elite and the masses when it is uttered unqualified—and substituting for it a hidden sense accessible only to a handful of speculative theologians. An example is their interpretation of the word al-aḥad (the One), which ordinary people and scholars alike understand to mean the Essence devoid of any composition of two meanings whatsoever (3). Even if the existence of such an entity outside the mind were hypothetically possible, it could be known only after a very long and difficult chain of premises (4). How, then, when it is impossible in external reality and exists merely as a mental supposition, after which one then seeks proof for its extra-mental existence? It is inconceivable that a term so widely current among all people would be coined for a meaning buried in such obscurity. You will encounter further examples of this, Allah willing.

Ninth: An interpretation that leads to stripping away a meaning of the highest exaltedness