than this address? If the speaker has disclosed and clarified the meaning, how can anyone say that the apparent meaning must be reinterpreted, when reinterpretation means diverting an expression from its apparent meaning to another? Is it permissible to divert this statement, taken in its entirety, from the meaning that the speaker has made clear?

Indeed, were someone to tell him, “Reinterpreting this hadith is disbelief and misguidance,” that would be justified, since reinterpretation means diverting it from its apparent meaning to another. The meaning expressly clarified by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, is that “I was hungry” means “My servant was hungry,” and “I was ill” means “My servant was ill.” If it were permissible to divert it from this meaning, that would entail that Allah Himself was the one who was hungry and ill. That is outright disbelief.

Yet this author of Ta’sīs al-taqdīs quoted only part of the hadith, as though that were all he had heard. If the hadith contained only the wording he quoted, his argument would have some validity, and it could be said that the hadith should be reinterpreted. But that is not the case. His claim that reports frequently require reinterpretation stems from their scant knowledge of them: they do not distinguish true reports from false ones. They often hear false reports and regard them as true, though they have been altered and distorted—whether through additions, omissions, or changes in grammatical inflection—as we have found them doing. The need for reinterpretation then varies accordingly. This cannot occur