[Right Column]

...revealed. It is not the custom of non-Arabs original: "al-Ajam"; referring here specifically to Persian speakers and generally to non-Arabic cultures to utilize language in this way. The Arabs expanded upon the use of figurative language tajawuz: the use of a word in a non-literal sense and metaphor isti'arah: a specific type of linguistic borrowing or metaphor far more than the non-Arabs did. This is due to the relative rigidity of the non-Arab languages compared to the flexibility of Arabic.

When the intended meaning of a metaphor is considered beautiful in Arabic, that same meaning in a non-Arabic language might cause the heart to recoil and the ear to reject it; the listener would find no affinity for it. Because they differ so greatly, translation is not a "substitution of equals" original: "tabdil bi-al-mithl", but rather a "substitution of opposites." Substitution is only permissible between equals.

Consider a third example: the word "eye" original: "al-'Ayn". One who interprets it often does so by its most obvious meaning, saying it refers to a "body" or "physical entity." However, in the Arabic language, this word is shared between the "seeing organ," a "spring of water," "gold," and the "sun." The word for "body" does not possess this shared range of meanings. The same applies to terms like "side" original: "janb" or "face" original: "wajh" when they are used to describe [God].

For this reason, we see the prohibition of substitution and the insistence on remaining within the Arabic language. If one were to argue: "If you claim this disparity exists in all words, it is incorrect, for there is no difference between your saying 'bread' Arabic: "khubz" and nan Persian: "nan", or between 'meat' Arabic: "lahm" and gosht Persian: "gosht"." And if you admit that this disparity only exists in some words, then why forbid substitution where there is equivalence, rather than only where there is disparity?

The answer is that the truth is indeed that this disparity exists in some cases, not all. Perhaps the word "hand" Arabic: "yad" and the word dast Persian: "dast" share similar metaphorical and literal usages in both languages. However, when language is divided into figurative and non-figurative uses, distinguishing the subtle nuances of disparity between them is not an easy or clear task for the general public. The points of disparity cannot be easily separated from the points of equivalence. Therefore, we act to "close the door" original: "hasm al-bab"; a legal principle of blocking the means to error as a precaution, especially since there is no dire necessity for substitution. Between closing the door and leaving the general public to fall into the pit of danger, which of the two is more decisive and cautious? Especially when the subject matter is the Essence of God and His Attributes.

[Left Column]

Indeed, no rational, religious person would deny that this matter is perilous, and that danger regarding the Divine Attributes must be avoided at all costs.

Consider how the Divine Law original: "al-Shar'" mandated the waiting period 'Iddah: the legally prescribed period a woman must wait after divorce or widowhood before remarrying for a woman who has had intercourse, in order to ensure the "clearing of the womb" and to guard against the mixing of lineages. This is a precaution for the sake of rulings on guardianship and inheritance. Yet, the scholars have said that the waiting period is mandatory even for the sterile woman, the post-menopausal woman, and the young girl. Among the Arabs, the secrets of the womb are known only to the Knower of the Unseen, for He alone knows what is in the wombs.

If we were to open the door to looking at individual details, we would be riding the back of danger. Mandating the waiting period where there is no possibility of pregnancy is a lighter burden than courting such risk. Just as the mandate of the waiting period is a legal ruling, the prohibition of substituting the Arabic language [of the Quran] is a legal ruling established by scholarly exertion Ijtihad: the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources. The path of caution is preferred. It is known that this is a precaution regarding the one who speaks about God Almighty, His Attributes, and what He intended by the words of the Quran—a precaution more worthy than the precautions regarding the waiting period or any other matter the jurists have cautioned against.

Furthermore, there is the matter of the one who handles the words of interpretation ta'wil: esoteric or deeper interpretation of scripture and the clarification of its meaning after setting aside the literal sense. This occurs in three scenarios:
1. The commoner acting on his own.
2. The scholar interacting with the commoner.
3. The scholar with himself, between him and his Lord.

As for the first: the commoner seeking interpretation independently is forbidden. It is akin to plunging into the drowning depths of the sea for one who cannot swim. There is no doubt of its prohibition. The "sea" of the knowledge of God is deeper and more hazardous than the sea of water. Death in the worldly sea is followed by nothing [but the afterlife], whereas the destruction in the sea of [false] knowledge removes eternal life. What a difference between the two dangers!

The second scenario is the scholar with the commoner. This is also forbidden. An example is the expert swimmer who, if he describes the mechanics of swimming to a person who is drowning, would only cause their heart and body to tremble more...