though some contain truth. If their interpretations are correct, this demonstrates that those firmly grounded in knowledge know the interpretation of the ambiguous texts, thus exposing their contradiction. If they are false, that leaves them even further from the truth.

Consider Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, who remained steadfast during the inquisition and became a standard by which Muslims distinguish adherents of the Sunnah from adherents of innovation. When he composed his book, “Refutation of the Heretics and the Jahmiyyah,” concerning the ambiguous passages of the Quran about which they expressed doubts and which they misinterpreted, he discussed their meanings verse by verse. These were the passages pursued by those who deviated, seeking discord and seeking their interpretation. He clarified and explained their meanings to expose the unsoundness of those deviant interpretations.

He established through rational and scriptural proofs that Allah can be seen, that the Quran is uncreated, and that Allah is above the Throne. He refuted the rational and scriptural arguments advanced by those who denied these matters, and clarified the meanings of the verses he himself called ambiguous, explaining them verse by verse.

Likewise, when they debated him and cited scriptural texts against him, he explained them verse by verse and hadith by hadith, exposing the unsoundness of the interpretations given by those who deviated and clarifying their meanings himself. Ahmad did not say that none but Allah understands the meanings of these verses and hadiths, nor did anyone say this to him. Rather, all the groups agree that their meanings can be known; they disagree only over what is intended, just as they disagree over verses containing commands and prohibitions.

Similarly, Ahmad would explain the ambiguous verses and hadiths cited as evidence by those who deviated among the Khawārij