and His wisdom? Even supposing that it conveyed that meaning, everyone would necessarily know that what he has cited has no apparent import calling for reinterpretation; indeed, it falls far short of that. How, then, can the revealed texts and their apparent meanings be reinterpreted on that account?! The most that someone resorting to such reinterpretation can claim is that rational arguments conflict with revealed texts. Yet we have explained that this argument has no connection whatsoever with rational proof. Rather, besides being based on transmitted wording, it is a bare assertion—indeed, a false one—as we shall explain.

Sixth:

He should be asked: This definition you gave of “generosity,” when you said, “Whoever gives to gain honor, to be praised, or to do what befits him is seeking a return, not being generous”—from whom did you transmit this explanation?! Who among the interpreters of the revealed texts or the scholars of Arabic has mentioned it—or, for that matter, anyone versed in any other language? Even that would not avail him unless he explained the meaning of this Arabic word in the language of the Arabs. It is well known that no scholar of the revealed texts or the Arabic language has said this. It therefore amounts to a fabrication falsely attributed to the texts and the language.