Part 30

It has been related on the authority of Hassan al-Basri that: “On the Day of Resurrection the fire will die down for them just as al-ihalah, the hot sun,'” dies down, so they walk along until Allah causes the earth to swallow them up.” On the authority of Muqatil we read that: “A wall shall be built between them in which there is a gate. Inside the gate there is mercy, while on the outside there is torment and punishment. They remain in the darkness, then someone says to them, ‘Tum back behind you, and seek light.” Some have said that Allah’s mockery of them is His way of seeking to win them over. Others have said that this is a description of how their mockery [of Allah] has caused them to fall, and how their deception and cunning has now come back on their own heads. Others have interpreted it to mean that the appearance of things in this world is the opposite of what has been concealed in the life to come. Still others have said that it refers to the way Allah has caused them to remain ignorant and to fall into error in the things they have done. All these interpretations are valid, and in all of them the derision they suffer is spoken of literally.'*

A well-known example cited by those who affirm that figurative language is used in the Qur’4n is the verse that reads: “And ask the village . . .” (12:82). It has been said that what is meant here by qaryah, village, is its inhabitants. The word “village” is assumed to be occurring in the idafah, annexation, ahl al-qaryah, the people of the village. The first term [ahl] of the idafah is omitted, and the second

"7 Al-ihdlah signifies, among the pre-Islamic Arabs, the sun goddess that they worship or the great serpent. It also signifies the sun or the hot sun. This word is derived from the verb ’alaha, he worshiped. See E. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, vol. 1, pp. 82-83, and Ibn Manziir, Lisan al-

term [al-qaryah] assumes the meaning of the whole phrase, as in the above verse. To this one might reply that the words “village,” “city,” “river,” “drainage pipe,” and so on, contain reference both to a condition and a place in a single word. Hence, in a given use of the word, reference might be to the al-hal, condition, namely, the inhabitants or the al-mahall, place. Likewise, in the case of the word for “river” or “canal,” one might say: hafrtu al-nahr, / dug the canal, referring to the place where the water flows, or jara al-nahr, the canal flowed, referring to the water in it. If one says: I laid the drainage pipe, wad ‘tu al-mizab reference is made to the location of the pipe, whereas if one says: the drainage pipe flowed, jara a/- mizab, reference is made to the water it contains. These examples resemble the usage of the word village, al-garyah, in the verse mentioned above. Allah says: “Allah sets forth an example of a village that dwells secure and content . . . ” (16:112); and “How many a village have We destroyed! Our punishment came upon them at night or while they slept for their afternoon rest. When our punishment took them no cry did they utter but this: ‘Indeed we did wrong” (7:4-5); and “Did the people of the villages then feel secure against the coming of Our punishment by the night while they are asleep?” (7:97), thus referring to the inhabitants of the villages with simply the word “villages.” Allah also says: “And how many a village, stronger than your village [Makkah] [Oh, Muhammad] which has driven you out, have We destroyed and there was no help for them” (47:13); and “And these villages We have destroyed when they did wrong and We appointed a fixed time for their destruction” (18:59); and “Or the like of him who passed by a village all in ruins to its roots . . .” (2:259), referring not to the inhabitants, but to the place. However it must also be noted that this place was once inhabited, and a place is not called a village unless it was built for the purpose of being dwelt in. The word qaryah, village, is derived from the noun qari, which means collecting. Hence one might say: qaraytu al-ma’a fil-hawd, 7 collected water in the basin.

A counterpart to this can be seen in the word insan, person, which includes within it references to both the body and the, soul, while interpretation of the word’s meaning sometimes points to one aspect and sometimes to the other. Thus, if a village’s inhabitants are subjected to torment, the village itself may be said to have been destroyed, just as if a village is destroyed, it brings great torment upon its inhabitants. Whatever evil befalls one of them likewise befalls the other, and this is equally true with respect to the body and the soul. Thus, in the verses that

LITERAL MEANING AND FIGURATIVE MEANING 125

contain the clauses “And ask the village . . .” (12:82) and “A village which was secure ...” (16:112), the word “village” refers to its inhabitants without assuming that any words have been omitted or implied. This interpretation, however, is based on the assumption that language includes figurative usages, of which there are none in the Qur’an. In fact, the division of languages into literal and figurative usages is a later innovation that was never advocated by the pious ancestors. As for those who came later, they took two positions on the issue. The dispute over this question is not merely a disagreement over words; rather, it may be said that this very division is invalid, and that there is no way to distinguish between one and the other. All distinctions that have been cited in this regard have been shown to be false, and whenever anyone mentions a particular distinction, it is nullified by the next person. The situation here is similar to that of the logicians who claim that the permanent qualities that inhere in certain entities may be classified as follows: those that are internal ‘to the entity’s essence, which is stable and unchanging from without; those that are external to the entity and yet a permanent part of its essence; and permanent qualities that are necessary to the entity’s existence. They thus mentioned three distinctions, all of which are false because the entire division is baseless and has nothing to do with the truth. What they have considered to be the internal qualities can be considered external, and vice-versa, as we have demonstrated elsewhere.

We have already demonstrated the falsehood of the view that if a word conveys its meaning without the aid of a surrounding context, it is to be considered a literal usage, whereas if its meaning is only conveyed with the aid of such a context, it is to be considered figurative. For there are no words that convey their meanings in isolation from surrounding contexts, nor are there any words that require all sorts of contexts without distinction. The most widely used examples to demonstrate the existence of figurative language are the words asad, ion, himar, donkey, and bahr, sea, and the like to describe, in a metaphoric manner, the valiant person, the dull-witted person, and a liberal, generous person, respectively. But such words are only used in a conditioned manner—that is, in conjunction with other words that qualify their meanings when they are used in a literal sense. This may also be seen in what Abu Bakr al-Siddiq said about Abu Qatadah when someone else wanted a slain man to be despoiled: “A lion of Allah who fights on behalf of Allah and His Messenger will give you his spoils.” By saying: “a lion of Allah who fights on behalf of Allah and His Messenger,” he is describing him as

being strong enough to engage in jihad, to strive in the Cause of Allah, on [Allah’s] behalf, and he has referred to him in such a specific manner that there could be no ambiguity. Similarly, the Prophet (pbuh) once said: “Khilid is a sword of Allah, which Allah has unsheathed against the polytheists.”

Someone might say that verbal contexts are established by linguistic convention, and the manner in which they convey their meanings is literal, where adverbial [circumstantial] contexts are figurative. To this one might reply that a word is only used in such a way that it is conditioned by verbal contexts. However, the circumstance that reflects the state of both the speaker and the listener must be taken into consideration in all speech. For if the speaker is known, then the listener will derive from the things he says meanings that would not be apparent if the speaker were not known. For example, the listener who knows a person’s customary manner of speaking will be better able to interpret what the speaker means. This is especially so since a given word conveys its meaning in a way that is conscious, intentional, and voluntary. For the speaker intends for a given word to convey a particular meaning. And if a speaker customarily employs a specific word to express a specific meaning, then this forms part of his personal “Janguage.” For this reason, whoever has paid careful attention to the words of the Prophet and what he meant by them will have come to know his customary manner of speaking, and will be able to discern more of what the Prophet intended to say than would someone else.

Therefore, if a word from the Qur’an or a hadith is mentioned, one must deliberately call to mind counterparts to this particular word and what Allah and His Messenger meant by them. In this way the listener or reader may become familiar with the language peculiar to the Qur’an and the hadith, and the particular manner in which Allah and His Messenger address Allah’s servants. Furthermore, if the same word also has numerous parallels in the speech of others, then one can conclude that a given manner of expression is common to both the Prophet (pbuh) and his people. At the same time, however, one must not interpret the Prophet’s words in light of customs or ways of speaking that came into existence only after the time of the Prophet and his Companions; this is an error into which many people have fallen. Such people may not realize that a given usage or manner of speaking was nonexistent during the time of the Prophet. And while it is permissible to employ the principle of al-qiyas, analogy, in the use of language,