Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
That which is connected to literal(الحَقِيقِي) and metaphorical…
That which is connected to literal(الحَقِيقِي) and metaphorical (الحَقِيقِي)
Literal meaning is upon three types
Impossible(difficult) reality حَقِيقَةٌ مُعْتَذِرَةٌ – like the one who takes an oath that he will not eat from this tree or this pot.
Abandoned literal meaning (وَحَقِيقَةٌ مَهْجُورَةٌ)– like the one who takes oath that he will not put his foot in the house of so and so.
This is used literal meaning (حَقِيقَةٌ مُسْتَعْمِلَةٌ): Its examples are many.
Its rulings : in the first two categories it will go towards the metaphorical meaning with every body’s consensus. What is meant from the tree its fruits or it profit and from the pot that which is halal from it.And from placing the foot general entry. And in the last division, if it doesn’t have known metaphorical meaning then the literal meaning is more preferred without any dispute
So if there is known metaphorical (majazi) meaning for it then a/c to Abu Hanifa R.a still the haqeeqi meaning is preferred.
And acting upon the general majazi is more preferred a/c to sahibayn
Because it is the literal meaning of this word. As opposed to the meaning of determination, such that it comprises of ghamus (false oath) and the contracted oaths all together. Because it is metaphorical and the metaphorical doesn’t compete with the literal meaning.
The meaning is carried upon that which is being contracted.(The contracted oath only).
Like in the statement of Allah SWT – he will take into account with that which you have contracted (means oath deliberately)
Because it is the borrowed meaning and the borrowed meaning will not compete with the original meaning (which is haqeeqi)
So as long as an action is possible with the literal meaning the metaphorical meaning will be dropped.
This is an ikhtilaaf b/w Imam sahab and Sahibain regarding how they look at haqeeqi and majazi.
Metaphorical meaning differs from the literal meaning in regards to the wording a/c Imam Sahab. According to the sahibain, it differs from the literal meaning with regards to the ruling.
It will go to the metophorical, even if it is not possible to act upon the literal meaning – a/c to Imam sahab
If the literal meaning is possible in itself, except that the action is prevented due to a barrier/obstacle, and then we will go to metaphorical meaning. And if it is not possible (literal meaning) the speech becomes futile according to them
For example : when the master says to his slave, whilst the slave is older than the master ‘This is my son’. According to Sahibain - It will not go to the metaphorical meaning, due to the impossibility of the literal meaning. According to Imam sahab – It will go towards the majazi (metaphorical) meaning – so the slave will be free (with that statement)
The literal and metaphorical meaning cannot be intended together in a single word at the same time or the same context, same moment. Like the statement of Allah SWT ‘or touching women’. When the metaphorical meaning is intended of the word malamistha, and it is intercourse, then the intention of literal meaning of the word is dropped and it is touching by hand.
When a word is used for something other than it is coined/created for then there must be (it is necessary) a connection between the literal and metaphorical meaning. Like a lion for a brave man. The connection between ruling the shariahs (ahkam al shariah) between taking the literal meaning and metaphorical meanings are of two types.
First : The connection between illah (which is the thing ruling revolves around) and the hukm(ruling)
Like the connection between purchasing and owning.
Second : The connection between the sabab(cause) and the hukm(outcome of the ruling)
Like the connection between when you own a slave and the ownership
Its ruling: In the first type the majazi is correct in either way (whether it you meant in illah or hukm - you accept from both sides)
In the second it is correct from one side (when you mention the sabab but you really meant the hukm but not the other way around)
For Eg If he says if I own a slave he is free and he intends by owning when he purchases, it will be correct. And if he says if I purchase a slave the he is free, and he intends by purchase ownership, it is also correct. The illah and hukm are interchangeable
If he says to his wife ‘I freed to you’ and intends divorce, it is correct.
Now if he says to his slave – I am divorcing and he intends with it freedom – it is not permitted.
There are 5 things due to which literal meaning is dropped.
Indication by custom: When the metaphorical meaning is known among the people, then the literal meaning will be left. Like the one who swears the oath that he will not purchase a head. The oath will be carried upon/considered on the heads of cow and sheep not on the heads of sparrows and pigeons.
The speech itself indicates it – so whoever he says every slave (I own) will be free. Not the mukatib slave.
The word slave – comprises the complete slave.
Indication from the context of speech– if the muslims says to a person of harbi (person with a war with usually non muslim) – inzil (meaning come down) – he comes down then he is safe
If the muslims says ‘ come down if you are man’( that means a challenge ) – if he comes down he is not safe.
An indication from the side of the speaker — like the oath of immediate action.
5.Indicating towards place of the speech or the context of the speech - When the place or context of speech doesn’t accept the literal meaning like the nikah of free person with wordings of which means selling, gifting, giving through charity and possession.
Benefit – every place in which the context is specific to a type of majazi will not need an intention.