a metaphor for the change in their character. I said: the first interpretation is more fitting for the context." I say: there is no harm in combining the two interpretations as we mentioned, rather it is what is most apparent from the two ḥadīths. And Allāh knows best. Some contemporary interpreters have suggested that the transformation of some Jews into apes and swine was not a literal physical transformation, but rather a moral one! This contradicts the apparent meaning of the verses and ḥadīths concerning them, so do not pay attention to their claim, for they have no evidence except rational improbability, which indicates weak faith in the unseen. We ask Allāh for safety. Fourth: Then the ḥāfiẓ said: "In this ḥadīth, there is a severe warning against those who try to make permissible what is forbidden by changing its name, and that the ruling revolves around the cause, and the cause for the prohibition of wine is intoxication. So wherever intoxication is found, prohibition is found, even if the name does not remain. Ibn al-ʿArabī said: It is a principle that rulings are related to the meanings of names, not their labels, refuting those who interpret it literally!"

- "I am no more capable of leaving that for you than you are of kindling a flame from it for me. Meaning the sun." Narrated by Abū Jaʿfar al-Bakhtarī in "Ḥadīth Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn Mulāʿib" (47/1-2) and Ibn ʿAsākir (11/363/1, 19/44/201) through the route of Abū Yaʿlá and others, both from Yūnus ibn Bukayr, who informed us from Ṭalḥah ibn Yaḥyá, from Mūsá ibn Ṭalḥah, who said: ʿAqīl ibn Abī Ṭālib told me: "The Quraysh came to Abū Ṭālib and said: Have you seen Aḥmad? He is harming us in our gatherings and in our mosque, so stop him from harming us. He said: O ʿAqīl, bring Muḥammad to me. So I went and brought him to him, and he said: O my nephew, your cousins claim that you are harming them in their gathering and in their mosque, so stop..