their proper places.

Error predominates in both groups. The former fall short in understanding the Quran, resembling those of whom it was said:

“Among them are unlettered people who know the Scripture only through mere recitation.”

The latter transgress, resembling those who displace words from their proper places.

Some later scholars framed the issue using an offensive label, saying:

“Allah cannot speak without intending any meaning, contrary to the Hashwiyyah.”

Yet no Muslim has ever said that Allah speaks words devoid of meaning. The dispute is only whether He speaks words whose meaning is not understood. There is a vast difference between denying that the speaker intends a meaning and denying that the person addressed understands it.

He then advanced an argument inconsistent with his own principles, saying:

“This would be purposeless, and purposelessness is impossible for Allah.”

Yet he holds that nothing Allah does is in any way reprehensible and that He may do anything. Nor can he say, “Purposelessness is an imperfection and is therefore excluded from Him,” because the dispute concerns letters, which, in his view, are created and belong to the category of acts. According to him, an act may possess any quality whatsoever. Thus, his position rests on neither authentic transmitted evidence nor clear reason.

The source of discord between the two groups, and the point at which their minds become bewildered, is that those claiming to provide ta’wīl erred both in asserting that the scholars know the ta’wīl and in claiming that ta’wīl means their own interpretation, which is a displacement of words from their proper places. For the former, owing to their knowledge