Chapter Nine (1)
On the obligatory duties binding upon the interpreter—duties without which (2) his interpretation is unacceptable

Since the default rule for speech is to keep it upon its literal and apparent sense, diverting it from that sense removes it from its original meaning (3). Whoever makes such a claim must therefore furnish proof that permits him to depart from that origin. Four conditions are incumbent upon him, and his claim cannot stand without them:

First: He must show that the wording, in the very construction in which it appears, is capable of bearing the meaning he proposes. If he fails to do so, he is lying about the language and fabricating a usage of his own, for a term may not carry that meaning in Arabic at all, and even if it can, it may not bear it in that specific syntactic context.

Many of those who resort to interpretation show no concern for this requirement; once they can manage (4) to attach the wording to their desired sense by any possible means, they assert that sense. Their sole aim (5) is to repel an aggressor: however they can fend him off, they will. The texts have attacked their false principles, so by whatever device they can parry those texts, they will parry them (6). Their purpose is not to draw guidance, knowledge, or direction from the revelation, for they have already laid down as a premise that verbal proofs yield neither certainty (7), nor knowledge, nor true understanding.