Part 27

Mention has been made of those who distinguish between literal and figurative usages by saying that in literal usage, the meaning is conveyed without the aid of asurrounding context; whereas in figurative usage, the meaning is understood only through the surrounding context. Or they may say that a literal usage involves the use of a word in an absolute, unrestricted sense; whereas a figurative usage conveys the intended meaning only through restrictions on the word. Or, some say that the literal meaning is that which springs to mind when a word is used in an absolute sense; whereas the figurative meaning does not readily come to mind when the word is employed in this manner. Still another might say that figurative meaning may legitimately be denied, whereas literal meaning may not.

In response, one might just ask: What is meant by a word’s being accompanied by, or stripped of, a surrounding context? If what is meant by “context” is the surrounding words—as, for example, when a noun is used together with a construct phrase or is accompanied by a definite article, or is restricted by virtue

of its being a subject or object of a verb, or the subject or predicate of a nominal sentence—then there is virtually no noun in connected speech that is not conditioned by a context. The same applies to verbs; for if one means by its being conditioned by a context that it must have a subject, or that it may be conditioned by a direct object, or adverbs describing time, place, purpose, or compliment objects of accompaniment and circumstance, then a verb is never used in an absolute manner. In the case of particles, the same principles apply even more forcefully, since a particle is used precisely because of the meaning of some other word in the utterance. Hence, generally speaking, there is no noun, verb, or particle in any complete utterance that is used without some restrictions that preclude its being understood in an absolute sense. Hence, if the context is what prevents a word from being understood in an absolute, unrestricted sense, then there is no word whatsoever in the language that people speak that is free from all restrictions. This is true whether the Arabic sentence in question is nominal or verbal. Therefore, both in Arabic and other languages, the single word has always been used within a conditioned context, namely, the complete sentence, be it a nominal, verbal, or exclamatory sentence—that is, if the vocative sentence is to be considered a third category.

As for the abstract noun, verb, or particle that occurs because of a meaning that is neither a noun nor a verb, this has never been called a word in the speech of the Arabs; rather, calling this a kalimah, word, is simply a grammatical term. For example, one category of words has been labeled fi‘l, verb, which they [the grtammarians] divided into past tense verbs, present tense verbs, and commands. However, Arabic speakers never placed such labels on words; rather, such appellations were agreed upon by grammarians, who named a given type of word on the basis of the meaning it conveyed. A word expressing the idea of a fi‘l, action, occurring in the past was called a fi‘l madin, past tense verb, and so it was for other types of words. Whenever the term kalimah, word, appears in the Qur’an or the hadiths—or for that matter in any of the Arabs’ speech, be it poetry or prose—-what is intended is the meaningful linguistic unit referred to by grammarians as the complete sentence. An example may be seen in the following Qur’anic verses. Allah says: “And to warn those who say ‘Allah has begotten a son.” No knowledge have they of such a thing nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths. They utter nothing but a lie” (18:4-5); and “And may the word of those who disbelieve the lowermost, while it was the

LITERAL MEANING AND FIGURATIVE MEANING 113

Word of Allah that became the uppermost . . .” (9:40); and“. .. Come to a word that is just between us and you . . .” (3:64); and “And he made it a Word lasting among his offspring . . .” (43:28); and “. .. And made them stick to the word of piety and they were well entitled to it and worthy of it . . .” (48:26); and the saying of the Prophet (pbuh): “The most truthful word ever uttered by a poet is that of Labid, who said: ‘Indeed, everything apart from Allah is falsehood and futility.” The Prophet also said: “There are two words that are light on the tongue but weighty in the balance, and precious to the Most Merciful One: Praise be to Allah and Praise be to Allah Almighty!” He also said: “A man who speaks a word pleasing to Allah does not suspect where his word will lead him, but through it Allah shall decree His favor toward him until the Day of Resurrection. A man who speaks a word evoking Allah’s displeasure likewise does not suspect where his word will lead him, but through it Allah shall decree His wrath against him until the Day of Resurrection.” Similarly he states: “I have uttered four words after you which, were they weighed against what I have said from today onward, would be ranked as follows: Praise be to Allah for the number of His creatures, praise be to Allah for the weightiness of His throne, praise be to Allah for His soul’s good pleasure, praise be to Allah for the ink in which His words are inscribed!” Thus, if every noun, verb, and particle found in the language occurs with some sort of restriction, then it is not permissible to say of the term ‘literal’ that it refers to the meaning conveyed by a word that is used in an absolute sense, stripped of all surrounding context.

If someone were to say that he was speaking of some contexts and not others, then one would reply by asking him to specify the distinction between those contexts that accompany a literal usage, and those that accompany a figurative usage. However, he would not be able to provide any sort of sound, reasonable division between these two alleged contexts. Evidence for what is said may be seen in the fact that people disagree concerning something with general meaning that is then used with a more specific meaning. Is its use then literal or figurative? Likewise in the case of the words lafz al-’amr, command, if they are used to mean al-nadb, mandate or commissioning, is this an example of literal or figurative meaning? Concerning this question two opinions have been held by most sects: the followers of Ahmad (Ibn Hanbal) hold two different views, as do the followers of al-ShafiT and Malik.

There are those who believe that this dispute has to do with contiguous specification, such as that found in the use of adjectives, conditionals, and words expressing purpose and apposition. Concerning this someone has related the views of those who make a distinction. For example, a group of scholars who have composed works on the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. However, this is a view that no one is known to have taken; that is, no one is known to -have considered a general word that has been conditioned with adjectives, purposes, and conditions to be figurative. The person relating this view believed that it applied to contiguous specification, whereas thinkers, such as those mentioned above, were only (dealing with a general word made more specific through a noncontiguous word or phrase. In the case of a contiguous word or phrase, however, they do not refer at all to a general word made specific, for the contiguity prevents it from being general to begin with. This is a view shared by many religious scholars; moreover, it is the correct view. It cannot be said that what has been restricted by a condition or an adjective is included within general terms that have been rendered specific. Rather, thus when it is conditioned, it is said to be a contiguous specification, which is not included within absolute specification.

In general it may be said that if the above situation is an example of usage, then the qualification of a verb by a direct object, or by an adverb of place, time, or manner will be considered to have figurative meaning as well, as would anything, for that matter, that was conditioned in any way. In this case, however, virtually all speech would have to be considered figurative. And if this were the case, what room would be left for literal meaning?

One might claim that a distinction is to be made between contiguous and noncontiguous contexts such that a word accompanied by a contiguous context has a literal meaning, whereas a word accompanied by a noncontiguous context is figurative. To such a person one might reply: By “contiguous” do you mean that which is contained in the word itself, or what was in existence at the time it was spoken? If by it you mean what is contained within the word itself, then what is known about the state of the speaker or the listener must then be considered the noncontiguous context. For example, the definite article would be used with those things that are known to both the speaker and the listener, as with the Prophet (pbuh) because he is known to Muslims as the Messenger of Allah, and-we say alSiddiq, the Truthful One, to refer to the Caliph Abu Bakr. And if someone said to his friend: “Go to the Amir, the Judge, or the Governor,” he would use the definite

LITERAL MEANING AND FIGURATIVE MEANING 115

article to indicate that both he and his friend are familiar with the person to whom reference is being made. Moreover, this is said to be an example of figurative speech. Likewise, a pronoun is used to refer back to a known entity that is not mentioned, as, for example, when Allah says: “Indeed We have revealed It [the Quran]. ..” (98:1) and“. . . until it [the sun] was hidden in the veil [of the night]” (38:32). But no one claims that these are examples of figurative speech. Moreover, if one says of a valiant person: “This lion did such and such today,” or to a dullwitted person: “This donkey said such and such today,” or of a learned or a generous individual: “This sea [of knowledge] expounded on such and such a topic today,” then in all such cases what we have is literal usage, since the word is accompanied by a garinah lafziyyah, verbal context, such that there remains no possibility of it being figurative.