Some whose knowledge of the Interpretation (Taʾwīl) of the scholars of interpretation was weak, and whose transmission of the sayings of the Predecessors (Salaf) among the scholars of Exegesis (Tafsīr) was scarce, also claimed that "al-Raḥmān" Figuratively means: Possessor of Mercy, and "al-Raḥīm" Figuratively means: the Merciful, (1) then he said: They may derive two words from one root with a single meaning, due to the breadth of their language. He said: They did the like of that when they said: nadmān and nadīm, then he cited as evidence the verse of Burj ibn Mushir al-Ṭāʾī:

And a drinking companion who adds sweetness to the cup, ... I served wine to him when the stars had sunk low. (2)

And he cited as evidence similar verses regarding nadīm and nadmān, thus distinguishing between the meaning of al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm in Interpretation through his statement: "al-Raḥmān is the Possessor of Mercy, and al-Raḥīm is the Merciful," even though he neglected to clarify the correct Interpretation of their two meanings. Then he illustrated that with two words coming with a single meaning, returning to what he had made into two meanings and treating it as an example of what carries a single meaning despite differing words.

And there is no doubt that the Possessor of Mercy is the one for whom mercy is affirmed and for whom it is correctly an attribute; whereas the merciful one is described as one who will show mercy, or has shown mercy which has passed from him, or is currently showing it.

Thus, there is no indication for him in it that mercy is an attribute for Him, like the indication that it is an attribute for Him when He is described as Possessor of Mercy. Where, then, is the meaning of "al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm" according to his Interpretation compared to the meaning of two words derived from a single root with differing words and identical meanings? But when a statement lacks a sound Root/Principle to rely upon, its defect becomes obvious.

If someone were to say to us: Why did He place the name of Allah that is "Allah" before His name that is "al-Raḥmān", and His name that is "al-Raḥmān" before His name that is "al-Raḥīm"?

It is said: Because it is the custom of the Arabs, when they wish to give news about a subject, to mention his name first, then follow it with his attributes and descriptions. This is what is required by rule: that the name precede its description and attribute, so that the listener knows whom the news is about. When that is the case—