It is not
customary in various languages of the world that every word should signify just
one meaning or that every linguistic style should have just one denotation. A
word or a linguistic style generally signifies multiple meanings. Ascertaining
the meaning of a word or a linguistic style depends on the construction of the
sentence, diction of the speaker, sequence of the discourse, the context and
other similar indicators. The way this is done is that the mind after reflecting
on various possibilities and at times almost spontaneously gives its verdict in
this regard. It is while pointing to this very aspect of a language on the basis
of which Imām Shāfi‘ī (d. 204 AH) while commenting on the general and the
specific of the Qur’ān has written in his book al-Risālah that the components of
a language can have more than one meaning. When its general or specific words,
styles or constructions form part of a discourse, then it is not necessary that
in all circumstances they are used in the same meaning for which they were
primarily coined. The Book of God has been revealed such that a word is
mentioned in its general sense but implies something specific and that a word
occurs in it in a specific sense but implies something general.
Thus neither can it be said about a specific word that it signifies with
certainty what it is used for nor can it be said about a general word that it
signifies with certainty all the entities it stands for.
One group of usūl scholars holds a
different view. However, in reality, it is Imām Shāfi‘ī who
holds the correct view. This is because it is not just a word but the occasion
and context in which it is used which makes a reader or listener decisively
gauge the meaning implied by it. I have written in my book Mīzān:
… There are many places in the
Qur’ān where the words are general; however, the context testifies with full
certainty that something specific is meant. The Qur’ān uses the word
النَّاس (people), but it does not refer to all the
people of the world; and many a time, it does not even refer to all the people
of Arabia: it refers to a group among them. It uses the expression
عَلَى الدِّيْنِ كُلِّهِ (on all the religions), and
it does not refer to all religions of the world; it refers toالمُشْركُوْن
(polytheists) but they do not refer to all those who are guilty of
polytheism. Similarly, the words إِنْ مِنْ أهْلِ الْكِتَابِ
(and from these People of the Book) do not refer to all the People of Book of
the world. It mentions the word الإِنْسَان (man) but
it does not refer to mankind. This then is a common style of the Qur’ān, and if
it is not taken into consideration while explaining and interpreting the Qur’ān,
a person can end up misunderstanding the whole purport of the Qur’ān. Thus it is
of paramount importance that the interpretation of words of the Qur’ān must
always remain subservient to its context and usage.
It is this very
nature of a language because of which the scholars and researchers of the Qur’ān
demand that if the intent of the speaker or writer needs to be gauged, then this
cannot merely be done by what words convey apparently; for this, delving deep
into them is necessary. The Prophet (sws) has done this very service to the Book
of God and through his sayings has explained the insinuation and implications
which would have been difficult to understand for people who are unable to
comprehend these subtleties of words and their meanings. Imām Shāfi‘ī rightly
insists that one must not ignore these explanations and elucidations of the
Prophet (sws) on the basis of what is apparently understood by words. The
Prophet (sws) has explained the Qur’ān; his explanations cannot be against the
Qur’ān. The Prophet of God is subservient to the Book of God. He explains it and
does not change or alter its meanings. Imām Shāfi‘ī has given many examples of
prophetic explanations and has repeatedly emphasized the fact that whatever the
Prophet (sws) has said about the directives of the Qur’ān, is merely their
explanation and nothing else; if these explanations are not accepted, then this
would not be regarded as following the Qur’ān; it would be regarded as deviation
from it because the speaker’s intention is only what is evident from the
explanations and elucidations of the Prophet (sws); this intent is not different
from these explanations and elucidations.
What can be
more true than what has been said by Imām Shāfi‘ī. However, the weakness in the
reasoning of the Imām lies in the fact that on most occasions he has not been
able to clarify how a particular prophetic statement can be invested with the
status of explanation of a Qur’ānic directive. Thus, it is a result of this that
he has accepted certain narratives that depict the knowledge and practice of the
Prophet (sws) which cannot be regarded as explanations of the Qur’ānic
directives in any way even though it could have been debated whether their
narrators even properly understood and reported the intent the Prophet (sws).
This is the real impediment in the mind of those who have differed with the view
of Imām Shāfi‘ī.
I have
attempted to exemplify the stance of the Imām in my book Mīzān because in
principle it is the correct stance. Readers can look up these discussions under
Mīzān and Furqān which forms part of the preface Fundamental Principles. It will
become evident from reading them that what has been mentioned in the narratives
as an explanation of the directives of the Qur’ān is actually the implication of
its words which the Prophet (sws) has unveiled through his elucidations. From
these explanations, the students of the Qur’ān should educate themselves in
delving deep into the meanings of a word and should dare not reject them or
regard them to be abrogation of the Qur’ān.
(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)
|