Philosophy and scriptural interpretation › When interpretation becomes necessary

Section 13 distinguishes several cases. The law might be silent about the matter established by demonstration. Its apparent meaning might agree with the result. Or its apparent meaning might conflict. Only the third case creates the need for the interpretive move under discussion.

Interpretation, or ta'wil, draws a figurative meaning from an expression while respecting the conventions of Arabic speech. Averroes lists familiar relationships through which language can work figuratively, including resemblance, cause, and consequence. He is not giving an interpreter permission to assign any convenient meaning to any sentence.

The interpretive claim has two constraints. There must be a demonstrated result that warrants departing from the apparent sense. The proposed reading must also be possible within the language of the text. In section 14, Averroes adds that examining scripture as a whole will reveal apparent passages supporting, or approaching support for, the interpretation.

An everyday illustration can help isolate the linguistic point. In a hypothetical sentence, a person might call a ruler “the shield of the city.” Understanding the ruler as literally made of metal would miss a familiar figurative use. The possibility of figurative speech does not allow us to turn “shield” into any meaning we prefer. This is our illustration of linguistic constraint, not Averroes's own scriptural example.

The more difficult question remains philosophical: who has really demonstrated the disputed conclusion? A figurative reading cannot rescue a weak argument by calling it certain. Nor does the mere presence of metaphor in a language prove that a particular passage should be read metaphorically. The two sides of the proposed reconciliation require separate scrutiny.