and in being Allah’s speech, Quran, and miraculous, as well as in other respects, although their meaning has been abrogated. Those who classify as ambiguous everything that is not acted upon—abrogated passages, oaths, and parables—do so because these are ambiguous, and people have not been commanded to know their details. Rather, general belief in them suffices, unlike passages that are acted upon, which require detailed knowledge.

This explains what is incumbent upon the entire community: they must know in detail what is to be acted upon so that they may act upon it. As for matters of which they have been informed, they are not obliged to have knowledge of them; rather, they must believe in them. Although knowledge of these matters may be commendable or a communal obligation, it is not an individual obligation, unlike knowledge of what must be acted upon. Every person must therefore know in detail the actions required of him, but is not required to have detailed knowledge of matters that do not require action.

It has been reported from Mujāhid and ‘Ikrima:

“The clear passages are those concerning what is lawful and unlawful; everything else is ambiguous, its parts confirming one another.”

According to this view, the ambiguous passages are what is mentioned in His words:

“a Book, consistent within itself, with recurring themes.”

What is lawful, however, differs from what is unlawful. This accords with Mujāhid’s view that scholars know its interpretation. Yet explaining “ambiguous” in this way, when the entire Quran is mutually consistent, whereas here He applies the description only to part of it, provides evidence of the weakness of this view.

Likewise, regarding His words:

“They follow what is ambiguous in it, seeking discord,”

if by “ambiguous” were meant