in what they attribute to them. What is reported from them is that those firmly grounded in knowledge know the meaning of ambiguous texts.

The second view is reported from Jābir ibn Abd Allāh, who said: “Clear texts are those whose interpretation scholars know, while ambiguous texts are those whose knowledge is beyond the reach of scholars, such as the coming of the Hour.”

It is well known that Muslims agree that no one but Allah knows when the Hour will come. If this is what is intended by the term “interpretation,” then the meaning is that no one but Allah knows the time of its realization. This is true, but it does not indicate that the meaning of the discourse concerning it is unknown. Likewise, if “interpretation” means the actual realities of things, and it is said that no one but Allah knows how those realities are, we have already discussed this. It has also been noted that, according to those who pause at His words:

“And no one knows its interpretation except Allah,”

this is what “interpretation” must mean. But to understand “interpretation” as explanation and knowledge of the meaning, while pausing at “except Allah,” is unquestionably wrong and contrary to the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of Muslims.

Those among later scholars who say this contradict themselves: they make this statement and also say things that contradict it. This view conflicts with faith in Allah and His Messenger in many ways and necessarily impugns the Messenger’s mission. Undoubtedly, those who expressed it did not reflect upon its implications or its true nature. Rather, they stated it without qualification, their principal aim being to rebut the interpretations that the people of innovation give to ambiguous texts.

Their intended aim is sound, and every Muslim agrees with them on it. But we do not counter one falsehood with another, nor refute one innovation with another, nor should one reject the interpretation