but they do not know it in detail, for they do not know how it is or what its true reality is, since it is unlike what they have known and witnessed in this world. Accordingly, it is valid to say that they know its ta’wīl, meaning that they understand its explanation; and it is also valid to say that they do not know its ta’wīl. Both readings are true.

On the reading that denies them this knowledge, may it also be said that the clear passages have a ta’wīl whose details they do not know? For His words, “None but Allah knows the ta’wīl of its ambiguous passages,” do not indicate that anyone other than Him knows the ta’wīl of the clear passages. Rather, it may be said that some clear passages, too, have a ta’wīl known only to Allah, and that the ambiguous passages were specifically mentioned only because those people sought knowledge of their ta’wīl. Alternatively, it may be said that they do know the ta’wīl of the clear passages, but do not know the time, place, or manner of its realization.

Many of the early generations said: “The clear passages are those to be acted upon, while the ambiguous passages are those to be believed in but not acted upon.” Thus, many transmitted reports state: “We act upon its clear passages and believe in its ambiguous passages.” Likewise, Ibn Mas‘ūd and others are reported to have said concerning the words of the Most High:

“Those to whom We have given the Scripture recite it as it should be recited.”

He said: “They regard as lawful what it declares lawful, regard as unlawful what it declares unlawful, act upon its clear passages, and believe in its ambiguous passages.”

The statements of the early generations on this subject indicate that ambiguity is relative: something may be unclear to one person but not to another. Everyone must therefore act upon what has become clear to them and entrust to Allah what remains unclear to them, as in the words of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b (may Allah be pleased with him) in the report narrated by