clarify one another. They dispute with him only the claim that such a departure from the apparent meaning is obligatory on the basis of what a person considers rationally established. He has offered no proof for this. As for a meaning that self-evident reason and sensory perception show was not intended by the speaker, this does not fall within this category according to one of the two views, as explained above.

Yet this author has maintained the opposite. As we shall relate, he has maintained that departing from the apparent meaning of the Book and the Sunnah is obligatory on the basis of what he calls rational proofs, while maintaining that such a departure is not obligatory on the basis of evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. His position thus contradicts the consensus of the early generations of the Muslim community and its leading scholars. It also conflicts with the position of most speculative theologians and most Jahmīs, for they also deem interpretation obligatory when there is a conflict with clear scriptural evidence. Allah willing, we shall discuss what he has said.

The fourth point is to say: Granted that interpretation is obligatory when there is a conflict with sensory perception and self-evident rational truths—just as the scope of general wording is restricted on this basis, according to those who call this restriction, in statements such as the Most High’s words:

“and she has been given of all things”
[al-Naml 23]

and

“destroying everything”
[al-Ahqāf 25]

and the like—