Part 28

Someone might say that contiguous contexts are more general or comprehensive than this, including within them the situation existing at the time a statement was made. To this one might reply: This view places you in an even more difficult position than before. For anyone who speaks figuratively must accompany what he says with the surrounding situation that clarifies what he means to say, since otherwise it would not be possible to speak figuratively.

Someone might say: I deem it permissible to delay the elucidation [of the intended meaning] until such time as this is needed. To this one might reply that most people do not deem it permissible for someone to utter a word that conveys a particular meaning when he does not intend that meaning, unless his intent is obvious. However, they do deem it acceptable for one to delay the elucidation of the meaning that was not conveyed by the word, such as mujmalat, general concepts. We also declare that if you permit the declaration [of the intended meaning] to be delayed, then this elucidation may occur within a complete sentence, through acts of the Messenger [of Allah] or in some other way. Thus, this delayed clarification would stand alone, without needing to be accompanied by anything else. Hence, if you consider this to be figurative speech, then that which requires elucidation in order to become effective, as it were, must also necessarily be figurative. Allah says: “Take sadaqah, a/ms, from their wealth in order to purify and sanctify them with it . . .” (9:103).

Someone might say: Now, even supposing such a thing to be logically possible, it is nevertheless not found in Islamic law and everything that has been mentioned

with regard to it is false. For there are those who claim that in the case of an expression whose actual meaning is not apparent on the surface, the elucidation of the actual meaning may be delayed. Such people support their position by referring to Allah saying: “. . . Allah commands that you sacrifice a cow . . .” (2:67). They claim that the cow mentioned in this verse was actually a specific cow, though its specification was not revealed until later. However, this is contrary to what has been reported in detail on the authority of the pious ancestors, such as the Companions and their Successors, to the effect that they commanded the people to slaughter a baqarah mutlaqah, unspecified cow. And if they had taken one of their cows and slaughtered it, then they would have been rewarded for their action. But instead they were steadfast with their opinion, so Allah was severe with them. The reference made in the verse is indefinite, since the statement has no restrictions placed upon it. Moreover, the Qur’anic context indicates that Allah condemns them for asking what particular cow was meant, whereas if what was commanded had been specified, they would not have been considered blameworthy. Moreover, such a thing never happened before with respect to the commands of Allah or His Messenger. That is, it had never happened that Allah commanded His servants to do a specific thing, then proceeded to render the command incomprehensible to them time and time again rather than mentioning, from the beginning, those distinguishing features by which it could be identified. It has been argued that Allah delays the clarification of terms such as ‘prayer,’ ‘zakah’ and ‘pilgrimage,’ and that such terms had meanings in the common language that differed from those found in Islamic law. However, this claim is incorrect; for Allah only commands the people to perform ritual prayers after they are familiar with what they mean, and the same applies to zakah and pilgrimage. Allah never delays the elucidation of any of the commands He gives to believers. This entire issue has been treated elsewhere as well.

As for the claim that literal meaning is that which first springs to mind when a term is used in an absolute sense, it is utterly groundless. It is claimed that if a word is used only in a conditioned sense, then what first comes to mind in every situation in which it is used is whatever meaning is indicated in that particular situation. If, on the other hand, the term is said to be used in an absolute manner, it must be remembered that no word is ever used in people’s speech in an entirely absolute way; hence, in such a case it makes no sense even to ask whether something comes readily to mind or not.

LITERAL MEANING AND FIGURATIVE MEANING 117

It also must be asked: What “mind” is being referred to here? What first springs to the mind of the Arab who understands the Arabic language will not be the same thing that first comes to mind of the Nabatean'* who has come to use certain [Arabic] words to convey meanings they did not originally bear. And herein lies an error that has been made by many people. For they have grown accustomed to words being used to convey certain meanings, whether in the speech of the common people among whom they live or that of the learned. If they then hear these same words being used in the Qur’an or the hadiths, they assume that the words are being used to convey the same meanings to which they have grown accustomed, and they interpret the words of Allah and His Messenger in accordance with their knowledge of the Nabatean language [dialect] and their present customs. And this is among the things that have introduced error into various sects. Hence, we are duty bound to be familiar with the language, customs, and conventions that were set down in the Qur’an and in the Sunnah [words and deeds] of the Prophet. We also need to know how the Companions understood such terms when they were used by the Prophet. For it was through their language, customs, and conventions that they were spoken to by Allah and His Messenger—not through realities that came into existence at a later time.

Moreover, as we have shown elsewhere, there is no part of the Qur’an or the hadith that Allah and His Messenger have not made clear to their hearers and readers such that they would need some other source of information to elucidate their meanings. It has also become clear that what some people speak of as a word that is used in an absolute sense, without any restrictions, does not exist in outward speech, but only in the mind of the speaker or the hearer, just as what logicians refer to as an abstract concept free of all restrictions has no existence outside the

' Historically the Nabatean people lived and ruled in Petra until approximately 105 A.D. There were two major branches of Nabateans, the Nabat of al-Sham (Syria) and the Nabat of al-‘Iraq. The Nabateans were known to be people of agriculture and are credited with developing the Arabic writing system that the Arabs inherited and developed further. Later on, the term “Nabatean” applied to mixed people who spoke a vernacular form of Arabic that did not adhere to the strict rules of literary Arabic. This is the dialect that Ibn Taymiyyah refers to as al-Lughah al-Nabatiyyah, the Nabati language or dialect. A form of poetry that does not adhere to the strict rules of literary Arabic, known as al-Shi‘r al-Nabati, was found primarily in Arabia and is still popular today. For more information see The Rise of the North Arabic Script and its Kur’anic Development, With a Full Description of the Kur?an Manuscripts in the Oriental Institute by Nabia Abbott, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938; “Nabat” by D, F. Grafand T. Fahd and; “Nabati by P. G. Emery. E/2, vol. 7, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992,

human mind. Likewise it may be said that the division of knowledge into tasawwur, imagination, and tasdiq, assent, where imagination is the naive conceptualization of meaning free from all restrictions, does not exist. Nor do the simple, absolute basa’t, elements, that go to make up classes and categories. As for their claim that at the foundation of being there must necessarily be an absolute existence unrestricted by any affirmed matter, it is false. For such abstract, absolute properties must be known to the person who looks into these sciences, and because of the supposition that they in fact exist, some sects have gone astray into rational and perceptual concepts. Rather, if scholars of Islam refer to “absolute” and “conditioned” entities, they mean that a particular entity either is or is not conditioned by a particular restriction. For example, they say that the word “neck” is used in an absolute sense in the “verse of atonement through an oath” but conditioned in the “verse of killing.” That is, it is free of the restriction that would be placed on it by belief. For otherwise the verse would have read“. . . freeing of a neck . . .” (4:92), thereby being described as a single neck that exists and that can be set at liberty. As for those who argue for the possibility of an utterly absolute entity, they say that such an entity is neither described as being one or many, as existing or as not existing, nor as possessing any other qualities. Rather, it is considered to be reality in and of itself. This notion is mentioned by al-R4zi, who adopted it from Ibn Sind and other would-be philosophers. Elsewhere we have treated the subjects of absolute and conditioned uses of language, universals and particulars, and so on, and have elucidated the errors of thinkers such as those mentioned above.

What is meant here is the use of a word that is free from all restrictions, which, as we have asserted above, does not exist. Hence, no one utters any type of word but that it is conditioned in some manner and integrally connected with other words in the utterance, such that these restrictions render it impossible for one to understand or use the word in utter isolation. It has also become clear that someone who distinguishes between literal and figurative uses of language has no reasonable basis for such a distinction. It follows likewise that there is no word in the Qur’an or the Sunnah whose meaning is not elucidated by some sort of restriction, nor do these books contain any words that are used figuratively. Rather, they are to be understood in their entirety as bearing literal meaning. Thus, when many later Muslim thinkers claimed that the Qur’an contained figurative speech and cited Qur’anic verses to support their claim, their opponents were able

LITERAL MEANING AND FIGURATIVE MEANING 119

to refute their claims employing the very same verses. One of the best-known verses cited is: ““... A wall on the point of falling down...” (18:77). Commenting on this verse they said: A wall is not a living being, and therefore cannot be possessed of a will; therefore, the use of the word iradah, will, here in reference to the condition of the wall must be figurative. To this we would reply that the word iradah, will, has been used to refer to the kind of propensity that is accompanied by awareness and feeling, namely, the propensity or inclination of a living entity; but it has also been used to describe propensities that involve no feeling or consciousness, namely, those of an inanimate object. This is a wellknown and widespread use of language. One might say, for example, ‘This roof wants to fall down;’ ‘This ground needs to be plowed up;’ ‘This plant needs to be watered;” ‘This fruit is ready to be picked;’ ‘This robe needs to be washed;’ and the like.