And when the Muʿtazilah laid down the principle that the divine threat (waʿīd) must take full effect and that whoever enters the Fire will never leave it, they allegorically interpreted everything that conflicted with their principles (1).

And when the Murjiʾah asserted that faith is nothing but knowledge, and that it neither increases nor diminishes, they re-interpreted whatever opposed their principles.

And when the Kulābiyyah established that nothing connected to Allah’s power and will subsists in Him—calling this “the occurrence of accidents”—they re-interpreted everything that contradicted that doctrine.

And when the Jabariyyah maintained that the servant’s power has absolutely no effect on any act, and that the movements [ق 8 أ] of people are like the blowing of the wind or the swaying of trees, they re-interpreted everything that ran contrary to that.

Thus, in reality (2), this is the yardstick of reinterpretation for all the sects—even for the blind followers in subsidiary matters, the adherents of the imams who first adopt the school and then seek its proofs. Their sole criterion for what is to be re-interpreted and what is not is whether the text opposes or accords with the school. Whoever examines the statements and doctrines of the various sects will see this plainly; and Allah grants success.

Each of these groups will allegorically construe one scriptural proof while leaving its counterpart—or one even more (3) susceptible to reinterpretation—upon its outward sense, for they possess in fact no universal (4), consistently applied rule whereby they can distinguish (5) what is to be re-interpreted from what is not. All they have is the school itself, its maxims, and the words of their shaykhs. Consequently, none (6) of them can adduce a textual argument against