4.5. CLASSIFICATION IV: THE LITERAL (HAQIQI) AND THE METAPHORICAL (MAJAZI)
A word may be used in its literal sense, that is, for its original or primary meaning, or it may be used in a secondary and metaphorical sense. When a word is applied literally, it keeps its original meaning, but when it is used in a metaphorical sense, it is transferred from its original to a secondary meaning on grounds of a relationship between the two meanings. There is normally a logical connection between the literal and the metaphorical meanings of a word. The nature of this relationship varies and extends over a wide range of possibilities. There are at least thirty to forty variations in how the metaphorical usage of a word may relate to its literal meaning.The metaphorical usage of a word thus consists of a transfer from the original to a connected meaning. Once such a transfer has taken place both the original and the metaphorical meanings of a word cannot be assigned to it at one and the same time.
Words are normally used in their literal sense, and in the language of the law it is the literal meaning which is relied upon most. Hence if a word is simultaneously used in both these senses, the literal will prevail. When, for example, a person says in his will that ‘I bequeath my property to the memorisers of the Qur’an” or to “my offspring”, those who might have memorised the Qur’an but have forgotten it since will not be entitled. Similarly, ‘offspring (awlad)’ primarily means sons and daughters, not grandchildren. Applying ‘awlad’ to ‘grandchildren’ is a metaphorical usage which is secondary to its original meaning.
Both the Haqiqi and the Majazi occur in the Qur’an, and they each convey their respective meanings. Thus when we read in the Qur’an to ‘kill not [la taqtulu] the life which God has made sacrosanct’, ‘la taqtulu’ carries its literal meaning. Similarly the Majazi occurs frequently in the Qur’an. When, for example, we read in the Qur’an that ‘God sends down your sustenance from the heavens’ (Ghafir, 40:13), this means rain which causes the production of food. Some ulema have observed that Majazi is in the nature of a homonym which could comprise what may be termed as falsehood or that which has no reality and truth, and that falsehood has no place in the Qur’an. Imam Ghazali discusses this argument in some length and represents the majority view when he refutes it and acknowledges the existence of the Majazi in the Qur’an. The Qur’anic expression, for example, that ‘God is the light of the heavens and the earth’ (al-Nur, 24:35) and ‘whenever they [the Jews] kindled the fire of war, God extinguished it’ (al-Ma’idah, 5:67), God being ‘the light of the universe’, and God having ‘extinguished the fire of war’, are both metaphorical usages; and numerous other instances of the Majazi can be found in the Qur’an. As already stated, the Haqiqi and Majazi both occur in the Quran, and they each convey their respective meanings. But this is only the case where the Majazi does not represent the dominant usage. In the event where a word has both a literal and a metaphorical meaning and the latter is well-established and dominant, it is likely to prevail over the former. Some ulema have,however, held the opposite view, namely that the Haqiqi would prevail in any case; and according to yet a third view, both are to be given equal weight. But the first of these views represent the view of the majority. To give an example, the word ‘talaq’ literally means ‘release’ or ‘removal’ of restriction’ (izalah al-qayd), be it from the tie of marriage, slavery, or ownership, etc. But since the juridical meaning of talaq, which is dissolution of marriage, or divorce, has become totally dominant, it is this meaning that is most likely to prevail, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
The Haqiqi is subdivided, according to the context in which it occurs, into linguistic (lughawi), customary (urfi) and juridical (shar’i). The linguistic Haqiqi is a word which is used in its dictionary meaning, such as ‘lion’ for that animal, and ‘man’ for the male gender of the human being. The customary Haqiqi occurs in the two varieties of general and special: when a word is used in a customary sense and the custom is absolutely common among people, the customary Haqiqi is classified as general, that is, in accord with the general custom. An example of this in Arabic is the word ‘dabbah’ which in its dictionary meaning applies to all living beings that walk on the face of the earth, but which has been assigned a different meaning by general custom, that is, an animal walking on four legs. But when the customary Haqiqi is used for a meaning that is common to a particular profession or group, the customary Haqiqi is classified as special, that is, in accord with a special custom. For example the Arabic word raf (‘nominative’) and nasb (‘accusative’) have each acquired a technical meaning that is common among grammarians and experts in the language.
There is some disagreement as to the nature of the juridical Haqiqi, as some ulema consider this to be a variety of the Majazi, but having said this, the juridical Haqiqi is defined as a word which is used for a juridical meaning that the Lawgiver has given it in the first place, such as ‘salah’, which literally means ‘supplication’ but which, in its well-established juridical sense, is a particular form of worship. Similarly, the word ‘zakah literally means ‘purification’, but in its juridical sense, denotes a particular form of charity whose details are specified in the Shari’ah.
It would take us too far afield to describe the sub-divisions of the Majazi, as we are not primarily concerned with technical linguistic detail. Suffice it to point out here that the Majazi has also been divided into linguistic, customary and juridical varieties. However, there is one other classification which merits our attention. This is the division of the Haqiqi and Majazi into plain (Sarih) and allusive (Kinayah).
If the application of a word is such that it clearly discloses the speaker’s intention, it is plain, otherwise it is allusive. The highest degree of clarity in expression is achieved by the combination of the plain (Sarih) and the literal (Haqiqi) such as the sentence ‘Ahmad bought a house’, or ‘Fatimah married Ahmad’. The plain may also be combined with the metaphorical, as in the sentence ‘I ate from this tree’, while it is intended to mean ‘from the fruit of this tree’.
The ‘allusive’ or Kinayah denotes a form of speech , which does not clearly disclose the intention of its speaker. It can occur in combination with the literal or the metaphorical. When a person wishes, for example, to confide in his colleague in front of others, he might say ‘I met your friend and spoke to him about the matter that you know’. This is a combination of the literal and the allusive in which all the words used convey their literal meanings but where the whole sentence is allusive in that it does not disclose the purpose of the speaker with clarity. Suppose that a man addresses his wife and tells her in Arabic ‘i’taddi‘ (start counting) while intending to divorce her. This utterance is allusive, as ‘counting’ literally means taking a record of numbers, but is used here in reference to counting the days of the waiting period of ‘iddah. This speech is also metaphorical in that the ‘iddah which is caused by divorce is used as a substitute for ‘divorce’. It is a form of Majazi in which the effect is used as a substitute for the cause.
When a speech consists of plain words, the intention of the person using them is to be gathered from the words themselves, and there is no room for further enquiry as to the intention of the speaker. Thus when a man tells his wife ‘you are divorced’, the divorce is pronounced in plain words and occurs regardless of the husband’s intention. But in the case of allusive words, one has to ascertain the intention behind them and the circumstances in which they were uttered. Thus when a man tells his wife ‘you are forbidden to me’, or when he asks her to ‘join your relatives’, no divorce will take place unless there is evidence to show that the husband intended a divorce.
Legal matters which require certainty, such as offences entailing the hadd punishment, cannot be established by language which is not plain. For example when a person confesses to such offences in allusive words, he is not liable to punishment.
The jurists are in agreement that a word may be used metaphorically while still retaining its literal meaning, such as the word ‘umm‘ (mother) which the Arabs sometimes use metaphorically for ‘grandmother’ and yet still retains its literal meaning. But there is disagreement among the ulema of usul as to whether both the literal and metaphorical meanings of a word can be applied simultaneously. When, for example, a man orders his servant to ‘kill the lion’, could this also include a brave person? The Hanafis and the Mu’tazilah have answered this question in the negative, saying that words normally carry their literal meanings unless there is evidence to warrant a departure to another meaning. The Shafi’is and the ulema of Hadith have held, on the other hand, that the literal and the metaphorical meaning of a word can be simultaneously applied. They have thus validated either of the two meanings of the Qur’anic provision ‘or when you have touched women’ (al-Nisa’, 4:43), which could mean touching the women with the hand, or touching in the sense of having sexual intercourse. The text in which this ayah occurs spells out the circumstances that break the state of purity. Thus when a Muslim ‘touches a woman’ he must take a fresh ablution for the next salah. But according to the Hanafis, the Qur’anic ayah on this point only conveys the metaphorical meaning of ‘touching’, that is, sexualintercourse. Hence when a person is in the state of ablution, and then touches a woman by the hand, his ablution remains intact. For the Shafi’is, however, the key word in this ayah carries both its literal and metaphorical meanings simultaneously. Consequently the state of purity is broken, not only by sexual intercourse, but also by a mere touch such as a handshake with a woman who is not of one’s family.
The Homonym (Mushtarak)
A homonym is a word which has more than one meaning. Some ulema, including al-Shafi’i, have held the view that the homonym is a variety of ‘Amm. The two are, however, different in that the homonym inherently possesses more than one meaning, which is not necessarily the case with the ‘Amm. An example of the Mushtarak in Arabic is the word “ayn’ which means several things, including eye, water-spring, gold, and spy. Similarly the word ‘qur” has two meanings, namely menstruation, and the clean period between two menstruations. The Hanafis, the Hanbalis and the Zaydis have upheld the first, while the Shafi’is, Malikis and Ja’faris have upheld the second meaning of ‘qur‘.
The plurality of meanings in a homonym may be due to the usage of different Arab tribes and communities. Some used it for one meaning, others for the other. Otherwise a word may have acquired a metaphorical meaning which became literal in course of time. When Mushtarak occurs in the Quran or Sunnah, it denotes one meaning alone, not more than one. For the Lawgiver does not intend more than one meaning for a word at any given time. The Shafi’is and some Mutazilah have taken exception to this view as they maintain that in the absence of any indication in support of one of the two or more meanings of a Mushtarak, both or all may be upheld simultaneously provided that they do not contradict one another. According to a variant view, plurality of meanings on a simultaneous basis is permissible in negation or denial (nafy) but not in affirmation and proof (ithbat). If, for example, Ahmad says ‘I did not see a ‘ayn (ma ra’aytu ‘aynan)’, ‘ayn in this negative statement could comprise all of its various meanings. But if Ahmad says ‘I saw a ‘ayn’, then ‘ayn in this statement must be used for only one of its several meanings. This view, however, does not extend to commands and prohibitions which do not admit of affirmation or denial as such. The rule in regard to commands and prohibitions of the Shari’ah is that the Lawgiver does not intend to uphold more than one of the different meanings of a homonym at any given time. An example of a homonym which occurs in the context of a Qur’anic command is the word ‘yad’ (hand) in ‘as for the thief, male or female, cut off their hands’ (al-Ma’idah, 5:38). ‘Hand’ in this ayah has not been qualified in any way, hence it can mean ‘hand’ from the tip of the fingers up to the wrist, or up to the elbow, or even up to the shoulder; it also means left or right hand. But the ulema have agreed on the first and the last of these meanings, that is, the right hand, up to the wrist To illustrate the homonym in the context of a prohibitory order in the Qur’an we refer to the word ‘nakaha’ in sura al-Nisa’ (4:22) which reads, ‘and marry not women whom your fathers had married (ma nakaha aba’ukum)’. ‘Nakaha’ is a homonym which means both marriage and sexual intercourse. The Hanafis, the Hanbalis, al-Awza’i and others have upheld the latter, whereas the Shafi’is and the Malikis have upheld the former meaning of nakaha. According to the first view, a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man is forbidden to his children and grandchildren; a mere contract of marriage, without consummation, would thus not amount to a prohibition in this case. The Shafi’is and Malikis, however, maintain that the text under discussion only refers to the contract of marriage. Accordingly a woman who has entered a contract of marriage with one’s father or grandfather is unlawful for one to marry regardless as to whether the marriage had been consummated or not .
To determine which of the two or more meanings of the Mushtarak is to be upheld in a particular locution, reference is usually made to the context and circumstances in which it occurs. If it is a locution that pertains to the Shari’ah, then determining the precise purport of its words must also take into consideration the general principles and objectives of the Shari’ah. The Mushtarak is in the nature of Mushkil (difficult) and it is for the Mujtahid to determine its correct meaning by means of research and ijtihad; it is his duty to do so in the event where Mushtarak constitutes the basis of a judicial order The mujtahid will normally look into the context. When, for example, a homonym has two meanings, one literal and the other juridical, and it occurs in a juridical context, then as a rule the juridical meaning will prevail. With words such as salah and talaq, for example, each possesses a literal meaning, that is ‘supplication’ and ‘release’ respectively, but when they occur in a juridical context, then their juridical meanings will take priority. As such, salah would be held to refer to a particular form of worship, and talaq would mean ‘dissolution of marriage’.
Finally it will be noted in passing that Mushtarak as a concept is not confined to nouns but also includes verbs. In our discussion of commands and prohibitions in a separate chapter, we have shown how a word in its imperative mood can impart more than one meaning. We have also discussed and illustrated the words of the Qur’an that occur in the imperative mood, but the juridical value that they convey can either be an obligatory command, a recommendation, or mere permissibility.
by M. H. Kamali
Comments
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.