Part 24

* Sufyan al-Thawri Abu ‘Abd Allah Ibn Sa‘id (97-161 A.H.) was one of the best scholars of hadith. His major works are al-Jami‘ al-Kabir and al-Jami al-Saghir. (Al-Zirikli, vol. 3, p. 158.]

Sibawayh, Abu Bishr ‘Amr Ibn ‘Uthman Ibn Qanbar (7-178), was the most celebrated grammarian and was author of the famous book al-Kitab, [Al-Fihrist, vol. 2, p. 1101]

Abu ‘Ubaydah (2-209 A.H.) was a very well-known grammarian of the school of Basrah. He wrote

Maja al-Qur’an (edited by Fu’d Sezgin) 2 vols., Cairo, 1962. For further information on Abu “Ubaydah’s point of view concerning the concept of majaz see the article by Wolfhart Heinrichs on

Two different accounts relating to this controversy have been passed down on Ahmad Ibn Hanbal’s authority. As for all other Muslim authorities, none of them, even among Ahmad’s early followers, claimed that the Qur’4n contains figurative speech: neither Malik nor al-Shafi‘l nor Abu Hanifah. Rather, the division of words into literal and figurative did not become widespread until the fourth century A.H. The earliest indications of this division began to appear in the third

7 Abual-Khattab, Mahfiiz bn Ahmad Ibn al-Hassan (?-510 A.H.) was a famous Hanbali scholar of figh. [Kitab al-Iman MZ, p. 102.]

* <Abd Allah Ibn Hamid (2-403 A.H.) was the Imam of the Hanbalites of his time. One of his books is Usiil al-Figh. [Kitab al-Iman MZ, p. 102.]

“" Al Balliiti, Mundhir Ibn Sa‘id (7-385 A.H.), was the chief judge of his time and a jurist in al-Andalus (Spain). [Al-Zirikl, vol. 8, p. 229.]

LITERAL MEANING AND FIGURATIVE MEANING 101

century A.H., although the basic linguistic usages of this division can possibly be found in the latter part of the second century A.H. Those who deny that Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others employed a division between literal and figurative usages have argued that when Ahmad used the phrase, min majaz al-lughah, he did not mean “figurative use of language,” but rather, “that which is permissible in linguistic usage.” In other words, it is permissible for one enjoying a position of power or prestige to say: “We did such and such” or “We are doing such and such,” and the like. According to these people, Ahmad did not intend by this to say that the word in question had been used to convey a meaning other than its original signification.

Another group, including Abu Ishaq al-Isfara’int'?, denied the use of figurative language, either in the Qur’an or anywhere else. Those who disagreed with Abu Ishaq claimed that their dispute with him was merely terminological. For if he granted that a word may be used to convey a meaning other than that which it conveyed originally and whose meaning may only be ascertained through the context, then this is a figurative use of language, even if he did not refer to it as such. His supporters, on the other hand, pointed out that those who classified word use into literal and figurative said that literal usage refers to words that are used to convey the same meaning that they conveyed originally, while figurative usage refers to words that are used to convey a meaning different from what they originally signified. The words asad, lion, and himar, donkey, for example, may either be used to refer to two kinds of beast, or to a valiant person and a dullwitted one, respectively. Moreover, this division into literal and figurative usages requires the word in question to already have been established as having a particular meaning. Once this has taken place, the word may either be used with its originally intended meaning, or with some other meaning. For this reason, it is widely agreed upon among those who employ such a division that any word that may be used figuratively must also have a literal meaning, though it is not necessary for every word used literally to have a figurative meaning. However, some who came later objected to this view, saying that a word established as having a particular meaning before it is used is neither literal nor figurative,

whereas if it is used to convey a meaning other than its original signification, then it has a figurative usage without any literal meaning.

All the foregoing would be correct were it known that Arabic lexical items were first established with certain meanings, then later were used in accordance with these same meanings, in which case their established meanings would precede their use. This would only be true in the case of someone who considered languages to be based on an agreed convention, such that a group of sensible, tational individuals had met together and agreed on what everything was to be called, then made such meanings generally applicable to all languages. This is a position that we know no Muslim to have taken prior to Abu Hashim al-Jubba’i."” Both Abu Hashim and Abu al-Hassan al-Ash‘ari were students of Abu ‘Ali alJubba’i. However, al-Ash‘ari retreated from the doctrines of the Mu‘tazilites, as he disagreed with them over matters such as al-qadr wal-wa ‘Id, predestination and the threat of damnation, the names and decrees of Allah, and the divine attributes. The contradictions he exposed in their doctrines have become well known. AlAsh‘ari and Abu Hashim disputed over the principle of mabda? al-lughat, the origin of languages. According to Abu Hashim, language is istilahiyyah, based on established convention, whereas al-Ash‘ari held that language is tawgqifiyyah, based on learning and experience. Later on, others delved into this issue as well, with some claiming that part of language is based on established convention, and part is based on experience. Moreover, there is a fourth view, referred to as bilwaqf, noncommittal.'*

What is intended here is that no one could say of the Arabs—nor for that matter of any nation in the entire world—that a group of scholars met together and established all the words to be found in their language, then proceeded to use those

' Abu ‘Alial-Jubba’7, Muhammad Ibn al-Wahhab (?-916 A.D.), was a famous Mu ‘tazilite scholar. [A/- Fihrist, p. 1025.]

“* Certain Muslim scholars, especially those of the tenth century, who dealt with the topic of mabda’ allughah, the origin of language, have identified several theories, The “naturalist theory” claims that language has its origin in a mundsaba tabi ‘lya, natural affinity, between expression and the things they signify. The “conventionalist theory” claims that language origin is based on social convention. The third theory, which Orthodox Muslims favor the most, is called the “revelationist theory.” It is based on the idea that language was originally revealed to man by Allah. The fourth theory is wagf, noncommittal, which states that neither the conventionalist nor the revelationist theories can really stand alone. Therefore, both of those theories must have equal possibilities. The essence of this footnote, concerning the origin of language, is based on Bernard G. Weiss, “Medieval Muslim Discussions of the Origin of Language,” ZDMG, 1974:33-41.

LITERAL MEANING AND FIGURATIVE MEANING 103