“as though a jinn had touched him!” On this basis, he restricted such touch to one who violates Allah’s law, stating (p. 22): “It would not touch anyone (sic: not in the accusative!) (1) except through departing from the prescribed path!”

Even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that the matter is as he says, this would not, in the view of the scholars, establish his claim of negation, since there may be other evidence for entry, as in this authentic hadith. Yet the man imagined that, by rejecting the verse’s indication of entry, he had established its negation. That is not the case, even if we were to concede his rejection; so how could it be, when this authentic hadith and the previously cited hadith of Ya‘la refute him? By means of these two hadiths, the verse is explained, and his figurative interpretation of it is invalidated.

One instance of the man’s ignorance and inconsistency is that, after interpreting the verse figuratively—meaning that there is no touch in the literal sense—he went on to say (p. 93): “The language unanimously agrees that touch means madness.” Yet he interpreted it according to his own whim, saying that it means from outside, not from within. He said: “Do you not see, for example, how electricity shocks one who comes into contact with it from the outside ...” and so forth, of his absurdities. Thus, he entered into details concerning a matter of the unseen by analogy with observable material things. This contradicts the Salafi methodology which was previously quoted from him. Moreover, he deliberately ignored what is well known in medical science: that there are germs which destroy from within, such as Koch’s bacillus in its third stage! Thus, there is no rational objection to jinn entering a person’s body from outside and carrying out their activity and harm within it, just as there is no objection to their leaving it for some reason or