As for interpretation in its third sense—diverting an expression from its more likely meaning to a less likely one—this technical usage was not yet known in the time of the Companions, nor even among the Successors or the four imams. Nor was this terminology current during the first three generations. Indeed, I know of none of them who restricted the word “interpretation” to this meaning. However, when this restricted usage became widespread among many later scholars, they assumed that this was what “interpretation” meant in the verse. They consequently came to believe that the ambiguous passages of the Quran had meanings contrary to what is understood from them. Thereafter, they divided their religion and split into sects. Yet the ambiguous passages in question, which occasioned the revelation of the verse, do not outwardly indicate any unsound meaning; rather, the error lies in the hearer’s understanding.

Admittedly, it may be said that this wording alone does not fully explain what is intended. But there is a difference between its not indicating the intended meaning and its indicating the opposite of that meaning. It is the latter that is denied. Indeed, nothing in the Quran indicates falsehood at all, as has been explained at length elsewhere.

Yet many people claim that the apparent wording of a verse conveys a particular meaning—either a meaning they themselves believe, or a false meaning that therefore requires reinterpretation. Their claim is false: the verse indicates neither their belief nor that false meaning. This is exceedingly common. These are the people who hold that the Quran frequently requires interpretation in its newly introduced sense: diverting an expression from what it signifies to something contrary to what it signifies.