know, and deviation concerning His names and signs. Such, then, is the situation.

The confusion arises from the different meanings of the term ta’wīl. In the usage of later jurists, speculative theologians, hadith scholars, Sufis, and others, “ta’wīl” means diverting an expression from its more likely meaning to a less likely meaning on the strength of accompanying evidence. This is the ta’wīl they discuss in the principles of jurisprudence and in disputed questions.

When one of them says, “This hadith, or this text, is subject to ta’wīl,” or, “It is to be understood in such-and-such a sense,” another replies, “This is a form of ta’wīl, and ta’wīl requires evidence.” The person advancing such an interpretation has two obligations: to show that the wording admits the meaning he claims, and to establish the evidence that requires departing from the apparent meaning in favour of that meaning.

This is the ta’wīl over which they dispute in matters concerning Allah’s attributes: one writes to refute or condemn ta’wīl; another says, “The verses concerning the attributes must not be reinterpreted”; another says, “Rather, they must be reinterpreted”; and a third says, “Rather, ta’wīl is permissible: it is employed when doing so serves a benefit and omitted when refraining serves a benefit,” or, “It is appropriate for scholars, but not for others.” There are other such statements and disputes.

As for “ta’wīl” in the usage of the early generations, it has two meanings. The first is explaining speech and clarifying its meaning, whether this agrees with its apparent meaning or differs from it. Thus, in their usage, ta’wīl and tafsīr (exegesis) are close in meaning or synonymous.