I say: What difference is there, then, between the way these Bātinīs interpret the Quran and the patently false interpretation of the hadiths concerning Jesus’ descent and the Dajjāl given by the Qādiyānīs, (Muhammad ʿAbduh), and his followers?! How could Sayyid Rashīd—may Allah have mercy on him—remain silent about this, indeed offer a new justification on their behalf by saying that the hadiths were transmitted in meaning rather than word for word?! I would dearly like to know: does this require rejecting the meanings reliably reported from the Companions, let alone those mass-transmitted from them?!

For example, if it has been mass-transmitted from the Companions that the Prophet ﷺ forbade something, such as the meat of domesticated donkeys, this is certainly transmission by meaning. Does that require rejecting the prohibition they conveyed through some form of interpretation, so that this prohibition is rendered inoperative, as though it had never been issued at all?! O Allah! This is indeed manifest error. We ask Allah Most High to protect us from it.

Here is another example of the interpretive approach with which some contemporary writers from al-Azhar have been afflicted. Shaykh (Muhammad Fahīm Abū ʿUbayyah) says in his notes on Nihāyat al-Bidāyah wa-l-Nihāyah (1/71):

“Has Jesus, peace be upon him, remained alive until now? And will he descend to earth to renew the call to Allah’s religion in person? Or does Jesus’ descent mean the triumph of the true religion and its renewed spread at the hands of sincere people working to rid human society of evil and sin? There are two views (!), each held by a group of scholars (!).

The same question is asked about the Dajjāl, the False Messiah: Is he a being of flesh and blood who spreads corruption and threatens people, and who possesses the means to entice, intimidate, and corrupt, until there is raised up