Thus, knowledge of istiwā’ belongs to explanation: it is the interpretation that we know. Its manner, however, is the interpretation known only to Allah and unknown to us.

In the terminology of many later scholars, interpretation means diverting an expression from its more likely meaning to a less likely meaning. This is the interpretation that those who deny the divine attributes, divine decree, and similar matters claim to apply to texts of the Quran and Sunnah.

Their position is contradictory, for they have built it upon two unsound premises. They say that some apparent meanings must be reinterpreted, as in the saying, “I was hungry, but you did not feed Me,” and the saying, “The Black Stone is Allah’s right hand on earth,” and similar statements.

Then they place any text that contradicts their views in this category. At times, they treat an unsound meaning as the apparent meaning so that, elsewhere, they can declare the apparent meaning unsound. They are mistaken in both respects.

The implication of their words is that the speech of Allah and His Messenger, in its apparent meaning, constitutes disbelief and heresy, without Allah or His Messenger explaining the intended meaning. This position is manifestly unsound and lies at the root of the position of those who embrace disbelief and heresy.

As for the texts whose apparent meanings they claim constitute disbelief, careful consideration shows that the texts themselves clarify the intended meaning and dispel the doubt. The authentic hadith reads:

“‘My servant, I was ill, but you did not visit Me.’ He replies, ‘How could I visit You when You are the Lord of all worlds?’ He says, ‘Did you not know that My servant so-and-so was ill? Had you visited him, you would have found Me with him.’”

The very wording of the hadith explicitly establishes that Allah Himself does not fall ill; rather, it was His believing servant who fell ill.