and with whatever meaning an Arab might conceivably intend, without reflecting on what suits the One who speaks or on the flow of the discourse. Yet these interpreters often misjudge whether the wording can actually carry that meaning in Arabic—just as the previous group did. Likewise, the first group frequently err regarding the soundness of the meanings with which they explain the Qur’an, and the others err in the same way, even though the first start from meaning while the second start from wording.

Commentary

What is required of a person is to examine the wording and also the clues that surround it: the condition of the one who uttered it, the addressee, the recipient of the revelation, and similar factors. This is something everyone understands. Speech even varies according to the speaker’s tone of voice; if someone speaks harshly, eyes reddened, veins bulging, hair bristling, that is nothing like someone who speaks calmly. The first seems to be throwing sparks, the second does not.

Here the Shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—divides people into two categories: one that considers the meaning but tries to bend it to what they themselves want, and another that attends only to the wording. The latter hold no prior creed; they focus solely on the literal expression, ignoring circumstances and contextual indicators. Thus, these look to meaning, those to wording—and by “the first group” he means the faction that already has a settled belief.

The first group itself falls into two types. Sometimes they strip a Qur’anic expression of what it actually signifies and was meant to convey; at other times they force upon it what it never signified and was never meant to convey. In both cases, the meaning they seek either to deny or to affirm may be false, so their error lies both in the evidence they cite and in the conclusion they draw.