And we do not dispute that “general wording” may, in principle, be intended in a restricted sense even without this contextual indication; with it, that possibility is stronger still. Our dispute, however, concerns the “apparent meaning.” We say that this less likely possibility does not prevent the wording from apparently conveying a general meaning, as explained above. Generality therefore remains its apparent meaning, even though another meaning is possible. The remaining “responses” establish that the “vision” occurs on occasions other than these two.

The fourth response: Even if we assumed that the “hadith concerning twice each day” contradicted the authentic texts cited earlier, which are general in both wording and meaning, we should not set aside what those hadiths indicate on the strength of a hadith like this. This is for the reasons already mentioned: first, its chain of transmission is open to criticism; moreover, such a restriction would exclude most of those encompassed by the general wording, which is either inadmissible or far-fetched. It would also entail making an exception to the operation of the effective cause without any impediment being present or any condition being absent—which the majority hold to be inadmissible—or without any apparent impediment, which is far-fetched and cannot be accepted without strong evidence.

The fifth response: Even if we assumed that no vision occurs except on these two occasions, on what basis could we conclude that women do not see Allah on either of them? Suppose we conceded that they do not see Him on Friday: on what basis could we conclude that they do not see Him twice each day?

As for the objection, “This is higher, and that is lower; how, then, can the one who grants the higher withhold the lower?”—there are several responses: