Therefore it is not permissible to say that this wording is to be “interpreted,” in the sense of diverting it from the more probable meaning to a less probable one—much less to claim that such an interpretation is known only to Allah. The only time the word “interpretation” may be used is where it denotes turning the text away from an apparent sense that applies to created beings, for in that case there is no doubt that whoever understands the “apparent sense” in this way must necessarily provide an interpretation that opposes it.

However, when these people declare, “It has no interpretation that contradicts the apparent sense,” or, “It should be allowed to run upon the apparent meanings it conveys,” they fall into inconsistency. If, in the same context, they intend one thing by “apparent sense” here and another meaning there without clarification, that is mere obfuscation. And if by “apparent sense” they mean the bare wording—that the text is to be taken solely on the face of the words, with no grasp of the meaning—then their denial or affirmation of interpretation contradicts itself, because whoever affirms an interpretation or