for this is the way of the Jahmiyyah, the Mu‘tazilah, and those philosophers and heretical Bātiniyyah who engage in reinterpretation.

The most adept philosophers, however, say:

“The sole purpose of the Messenger’s discourse—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is to evoke in the minds of the masses ideas that serve their worldly interests, even if these do not correspond to the truth.”

They say:

“The Messenger’s purpose—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is not to explain the truth and make it known, but to evoke in their minds ideas for them to believe.”

They regard the distinctive characteristic of prophethood as the power to evoke such imaginative representations. Thus, they say that the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—neither explained the truth nor enabled people to understand it; indeed, he did not even intend to do so. They disagree, however, over whether he knew things as they really are, holding two views.

Some say that he knew them but could not explain them. Those who hold this view may regard the Messenger as superior to the philosopher. Others say that he did not know them, or was not adept in knowing them, and that he knew only practical matters. These regard the philosopher as more perfect than the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—because practical matters are more perfect than theoretical ones.

Thus, these people regard the reports conveyed by Allah and by the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—as containing nothing but imaginative representations. The others say that he did not intend to evoke imaginative representations, but rather intended a meaning that could be understood through reinterpretation.

Many Jahmī speculative theologians agree with those philosophers that he could not openly declare the truth concerning divine oneness, and therefore addressed the masses in terms that would evoke images in their minds, as when they say: “Had he said: