riding, sitting, in a fine state or the like, or in the most beautiful form.” For in Arabic, when either of two nouns could be the subject or the object, their normal order cannot be changed unless there is no risk of ambiguity. Thus, they say “Moses struck Jesus” only when the first noun names the one doing the striking. They may, however, say the equivalent of “Moses ate the pears” with the object preceding the subject, since the meaning is clear in that arrangement.

Accordingly, expressions such as “in the most beautiful form” and “in a fine state” can relate only to the nearest preceding referent. If the object comes later and is nearest to the phrase, the phrase relates to it. If the intention is to relate it to the subject, the subject must be placed later or explicitly mentioned again, as in “I came to him while I was in the most beautiful form,” or “The ruler came only when I was in the most beautiful form,” and similar expressions.

This makes clear the difference between this wording and someone’s saying, “I entered the ruler’s presence in the finest state.” His entering the ruler’s presence suggests that he was the one moving from one place to another, while the ruler was adorning himself to receive him. Do you not see that, had he said, “I saw the ruler in the finest state,” or “in the most beautiful form,” this could only be understood to mean that it was the ruler who was in the finest state and most beautiful form? Each expression must therefore be understood according to its own construction and given its due. The two cannot be treated as analogous when they differ in what they specify.

Fifth, as for his statement under the first interpretation, “The meaning would be that Allah adorned his person and beautified his form when he saw his Lord,”