Second: Even if we concede that their interpretation diverts it from its apparent meaning, they have evidence for that from the Book and the Sunnah, either connected

The Shaykh :"Second: Even if we concede that their interpretation, meaning that of the Salaf, diverts it from its apparent meaning, they have evidence for that from the Book and the Sunnah, either connected or disconnected. It is not merely the doubts claimed by the one who diverts it that serve as proofs and certainties by which he reaches the negation of what Allah has affirmed for Himself in His Book, or on the tongue of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)" This means that if we hypothetically concede that the speech is diverted from its apparent meaning, it is only due to evidence. And if it is due to evidence, then its diversion is correct. We do not deny ta'wil (figurative interpretation) absolutely; rather, we only deny the ta'wil that is what? That has no evidence for it. As for that which has evidence, we accept it and consider it an interpretation of the speech. Thus, the answer comes from two angles:
The first angle is denial, meaning denying that we have diverted it from its apparent meaning. What is its basis? The apparent meaning of speech is what comes to mind from its meaning, and this varies according to the variations in compositions and sentences.
Second: Even if we hypothetically concede that we have diverted it from its apparent meaning, we have not diverted it from its apparent meaning except for evidence. And if its diversion from its apparent meaning is for evidence, it is not blameworthy, but rather obligatory. It is not tahrif (distortion of a text's meaning), but rather interpretation. Thus, the denial and the second, which is concession, we refute sometimes by denial and sometimes by concession.