he finds in the works of the distorters are interpretations that one knows with absolute certainty could never have been intended by the Speaker—even though a poet, a belle-lettrist, or a stylist deliberately aiming at obfuscation might regard such twists as linguistically possible. Hence, it is imperative that the meaning adopted by the interpreter be one for which the wording may (1) legitimately be employed in the very language in which the discourse was delivered; that the meaning itself be allowable to attribute to Allah and not negate or nullify any of His perfect attributes; and that there be contextual indicators surrounding the text which (2) show that this meaning is indeed what the wording was meant to convey. Failing that, the claim that it was intended is nothing but a lie against the Speaker. We shall now present a number of examples (3).

First example: Their interpretation of the words of the Exalted: “He created the heavens and the earth in six days; then He istawā over the Throne” (Quran 7:53) as meaning “He turned to His creation.” This is nothing but their own contrivance, assigning the word istawā the sense of “turned to His creation.” No authority on the Arabic language has ever said this. The lexicographers have listed the meanings of istawā, yet not one of them has ever included “turning to the creation” among its senses. Search the lexicons that cover the face of the earth (4): do you find a single one of them citing this usage on the authority of (5) the language? Furthermore, istiwāʾ of a thing—whether expressed absolutely, or with the preposition ilā (toward) or ʿalā (upon)—necessarily presupposes the existence of the subject itself and of that toward which or upon which the istiwāʾ is directed. One cannot say, “He istawā toward a non-existent thing,” nor “He istawā upon it.” Thus, this interpretation is sheer fabrication