And “the latter” considered only the wording and what, in their view, an Arabic speaker might intend by it, without considering what befits the Speaker or the context. They often err in judging whether the wording can bear that meaning in Arabic, just as the former do. Likewise, the former often err in judging the soundness of the meaning by which they interpret the Quran, just as the latter do. Nevertheless, the former begin by considering the meaning, while the latter begin by considering the wording.

The former fall into “two categories”: sometimes they strip the Quran’s wording of the meaning it signifies and is intended to convey; at other times, they impose upon it a meaning that it neither signifies nor is intended to convey. In either case, the meaning they seek to deny or affirm may be false, so their error concerns both the evidence and the conclusion. Or it may be true, so their error concerns the evidence, not the conclusion.

Just as this has occurred in interpreting the Quran, it has also occurred in interpreting hadith. Those who have erred in both the evidence and the conclusion—such as various groups among the people of innovation—adopted a doctrine contrary to the truth upheld by the balanced community, whose members do not collectively agree upon misguidance, such as the Muslim community’s early generations and its imams. They then turned to the Quran and interpreted it according to their own views. Sometimes they cite verses as evidence for their doctrine, although those verses provide no such evidence; at other times, they interpret what contradicts their doctrine in ways that distort the words away from