One of the fundamental concepts in Usul Al-Fiqh (Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence) is understanding the meaning of a particular Arabic word or expression (لَفْظ lafzh), because the Islamic texts i.e. Qur’an and Sunnah are in Arabic.

Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “Deducing the sharia rules from the Qur’an Al-Kareem and the Sunnah An-Nabawiyah rests upon knowledge of the Arabic language, knowledge of its categories (disciplines) and its Dalalat (implications and indications). That is because the Qur’an and the Hadith have come in the Arabic language.”[1]

Iyad Hilal says, “Unless the text of the Qur’an and Sunnah is correctly understood, no ruling can be deduced from it. The linguistic structure of the text in Qur’an and Sunnah varies from one style to another. Some examples of these linguistic styles are: Dhanni (speculative text), Qata’i (definitive text), ‘Aam (general text), Khass (specific text), Haqiqi (literal text), and Majaazi (metaphorical text). The rules to distinguish and differentiate between these styles are an important subject in Usul al-Fiqh.”[2]

Arabic word meanings in sharia are those known at the time of revelation

A very important principle in ijtihad (extracting new rules) in relation to Arabic word meanings is that in order to derive a hukm (rule), the Arabic meaning MUST have been known to the Arabs at the time of revelation i.e. to the Prophet ﷺ and the sahaba. For someone centuries later to bring a new meaning to an Arabic word, and then use this meaning in ijtihad or even in ‘aqeeda is not permissible and is rejected.

Al-Shatibi says, “Among the assumptions is that it is necessary in the understanding of the sharia to follow what was known to the unlettered people, and these are the Arabs in whose language the Qur’an was revealed. If there was a continuous usage (‘urf) in the language of the Arabs, it is not valid to deviate from such meaning in the understanding of the sharia. If there was no such usage, it is not valid to apply meanings for its understanding that were not known to the Arabs.”[3]

As an example, the Ahmadiyya re-interpret the clear-cut verse which refers to the Prophet ﷺ as the final seal of the Prophets خَاتَمَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ to mean the best of the Prophets. Allah (Most High) says,

مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَآ أَحَدٍۢ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَـٰكِن رَّسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَ خَاتَمَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah and the Final Seal of the Prophets.”

The Ahmadiyya say, “the phrase Khatamun Nabiyyin idiomatically means the Best of the prophets,” which is completely false, because خاتم (khaatam) does not have a metaphorical meaning of ‘best’. This was the case at the time of revelation and even today. This is an example of corruption that Ibn Al-Qayyum discusses,

والاصطلاحات لا مُشَاحَّة فيها إذا لم تتضمَّن مفسدة

“There is no dispute over the terms (الاصطلاحات) if they do not contain any corruption.”[4]

This means it is not permissible for the terminologists to transfer the word from its meaning in the language completely, rather it is required that the original meaning remain. As an example, if a husband said to his wife: ‘If I say: You are divorced three times, I did not mean divorce by it, but rather my purpose was for you to stand and sit’, then that is not to be taken into account, rather the divorce takes place.

Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “the Haqiqa Al-‘Urfiya Al-Lughawiya (customary meaning) is specific to the (original) people of the language upon whose language is relied upon for proof or evidence. So it is not permissible today to transfer an Arabic word that had been originally or initially been placed down and set down for a specific meaning, to a new meaning, so as to make a Haqiqh ‘Urfiya Lughawiya from it.”[5]

The categories of Arabic words

The scholars of usul defined many categories of words and expressions. For the sake of this discussion, we will deal with five broad categories of words in relation to the meaning of an individual or singular worded expression (Lafzh Al-Mufrad).[6]

Linguistic Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Lughawiya)
Customary Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-‘Urfiya)
Technical Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Istilahiyya)
Sharia Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Ash-Shar’iya)
Metaphorical Meaning (Al-Majaz)

Linguistic Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Lughawiya)

This is the original dictionary meaning of a word designated by the pure Arabs (العرب العاربة Al-Arab al-Ariba).

If there are multiple linguistic meanings then the word is called a mushtarak (homonym). Specifying the mushtarak to one of its meanings requires a qareenah that specifies that meaning. If no qareenah is found, then it is obligatory to understand the word according to all of its linguistic meanings.

Examples include:

asad	أَسَد	lion
bid’ah	بِدْعَة	innovation
hukm	حُكْم	judgment
gha’it	غائِط	low place
salah	صَلاَة	supplication (du’a)
wazir	وَزِير	assistant

In origin we always use the clear (واضِح wadih) linguistic meaning unless there is an indication (قَرِينَة qareenah) to transfer (نَقْل naql) the word to another meaning.

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Rashta (b.1943) says, “In terms of the etymology – the original linguistic usage of the word is the basis. When a human being pronounces a word, they intend the meaning the word is originally used to indicate. If the speaker intends something other than the original meaning then they will give an indication (qareenah).”[7]

In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) between the different meanings, in origin the linguistic meaning will take precedence over the metaphorical meaning. In non-sharia texts, the linguistic meaning will take precedence over the customary and sharia meaning.

Customary Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-‘Urfiya)

If the meaning of a word transfers (naql) from its linguistic meaning to a new meaning due to custom (‘urf), then it is called a customary meaning. This happens across all languages where the meaning of some words changes over time, with the original meaning lost completely.

An example is the word Al-Gha’it (الغائِط) which linguistically means a low place in the earth. Over time its meaning changed to mean human excretion or going to the toilet. This was its meaning at the time of revelation, and so when we find Al-Gha’it in the Qur’an it needs to be understood not as a low place but as going to the toilet. Al-Gha’it is found twice in the Qur’an in the verses related to the breaking of wudu’. Allah (Most High) says,

أَوْ جَآءَ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلْغَآئِطِ

“or have relieved yourselves”[8]

Therefore, it is going to the toilet that breaks the wudu’, and not a low place.

We need to reiterate that in order to use the customary meaning of a word in interpreting the Qur’an and Sunnah, this meaning MUST have been known at the time of revelation. Allah (Most High) says,

قَالَ قَآئِلٌۭ مِّنْهُمْ لَا تَقْتُلُوا۟ يُوسُفَ وَأَلْقُوهُ فِى غَيَـٰبَتِ ٱلْجُبِّ يَلْتَقِطْهُ بَعْضُ ٱلسَّيَّارَةِ إِن كُنتُمْ فَـٰعِلِينَ

[Another of them] said, ‘Do not kill Yusuf, but, if you must, throw him into the hidden depths of a well where some caravan may pick him up.’[9]

Although caravan (سَيّارَة) has a customary meaning nowadays which means car, we cannot under any circumstances interpret this verse to mean a car! This would be completely ludicrous and outside the bounds of the Arabic language, but this is what the Ahmadiyya have done as discussed previously.

It is also what Christoph Luxenberg, a German ‘scholar’ of Arabic has done by claiming that the Arabic word Houri (حُورِ) doesn’t mean a woman of paradise, but instead means a white grape or raisin! This is in reference to the verse where Allah (Most High) says,

كَذَٰلِكَ وَزَوَّجْنَـٰهُم بِحُورٍ عِينٍۢ

“so it will be. We shall wed them to maidens with large, dark eyes.”[10]

According to Christoph Luxenberg this would translate as “We shall wed them to white grapes with eyes”! Angelika Neuwirth also refutes this argument commenting, “an interpretation that ignores the fact that already in Syriac literature, such as in the Hymns of Ephrem, grapes within a paradisiacal context are not to be taken in the literal sense but rather stand allegorically for sensory pleasures, above all the erotic.”[42]

In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) in a sharia text, the customary meaning will take precedence over the linguistic meaning as shown above.[11] In fact this is the same in the western legal systems.

The word ‘gay’ linguistically means joyful and carefree, but now has a well-established customary meaning of being someone who has relations with their own gender. If someone was arrested and came before the court for distributing leaflets saying “I hate gays”, but in their defence said they meant gay as joyful because they hate happy people, then the judge would reject this. This is because it’s clear and well-established that the predominant meaning of gay in today’s reality is not joyful and carefree, and this is not the first meaning which comes to mind when someone hears that word.

Technical Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Al-Istilahiyya)

This is actually a subset of the customary meaning and is also referred to as Al-Haqiqah Al-‘Urfiyah Al-Khaassah (Specific Customary Meaning) or simply (الاِصْطِلاحات istilahiyyat). These are technical terms which are used to apply to specific areas of knowledge such as grammar, government, military and medicine etc.

Sharia texts

With regards to sharia texts then for a technical term (اِصْطِلاح istilah) term to be used to derive a rule, it needs to have been known at the time of revelation, the same as with the customary meaning.

An example of an istilah term in the sharia texts is the word hukm which means both judging and ruling. The origin of the verbal noun حُكْم (hukm)[12] as used by the Pure Arabs is the ‘bit’ of a horse.[13] A ‘bit’ is a piece of metal or synthetic material that fits in a horse’s mouth and aids in the communication between the horse and rider. It’s part of the bridle and allows the rider to connect with the horse via the reins. Al-Qurtubi says,

(الْحَكِيمُ) الْمَانِعُ مِنَ الْفَسَادِ، وَمِنْهُ سُمِّيَتْ حِكْمَةُ اللِّجَامِ، لِأَنَّهَا تَمْنَعُ الْفَرَسَ مِنَ الْجَرْيِ وَالذَّهَابِ فِي غَيْرِ قَصْدٍ

“(Al-Hakeem) is the one who prevents corruption, and from which it is called the “hikmah (حِكْمَة) of the bridle” (bit), because it prevents the horse from running and going unintentionally.”[14]

There are many words derived from حُكْم such as حِكْمَة (wisdom), حَكِيم (ruler), حاكِم (judge) and حُكُومَة (government), but all can be linked back to this origin of a ‘bit’ which is about controlling and guiding.

Allah (Most High) also says,

يَـٰدَاوُۥدُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَـٰكَ خَلِيفَةًۭ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَٱحْكُم بَيْنَ ٱلنَّاسِ بِٱلْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ ٱلْهَوَىٰ فَيُضِلَّكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ

Oh Dawud! We have made you a khaleefah on the earth, so judge between people with truth and do not follow your own desires, letting them misguide you from the Way of Allah.[15]

The term khaleefah (successor) in this ayah is explicitly linked to the term hukm, and so the meaning here will include both ruling and judiciary. Imam Al-Razi (d.1210) in his Tafseer says one of the meanings of this ayah is:

إنّا جَعَلْناكَ مالِكًا لِلنّاسِ ونافِذَ الحُكْمِ فِيهِم

“We have made you a ruler (malik) over people and an enforcer of judgment (hukm) among them.”[16]

A contemporary interpretation of this ayah is from Sayed Khatab who says, “The word hukm here is a verb that commands the leader to ‘Judge’ and to ‘Rule’ with justice. These Qur’anic texts indicate that the term hukm has both governmental and legal connotations. Thus, the word hukm is to rule and to judge according to the law. This implies that, if the judge is also the ruler or governor, he is commanded to rule and to judge on the basis of the law. This was the case with the Prophet; he was the judge and the ruler. If the ruler is not the judge (the two positions are separate), the Qur’an commands both the ruler and the judge to observe their duties on the basis of the law. This means that, whether the term hukm is to judge or to rule, the law stands sovereign over the rulers and the judges.”[17]

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah says, “the term Hukm is not a homonym (mushtarak) in the definitions Qadaa’ (execution) and Sultaan (Authority), but is a linguistic reality (haqeeqah lughawiyah) when it holds the meaning of Qadaa, and is a specified common reality (haqeeqah ‘urfiyah khassah) i.e. istilah in the meanings of Ruling and Authority.”

Since the istilah term was known and in widespread use at the time of revelation, the word hukm in the Qur’an and Sunnah means judging and ruling so the commands will apply to both.

Another example is the word wazir which linguistically means helper. Ibn Khaldun says, “The wazirate is the mother of governmental functions and royal ranks. The name itself simply means ‘help’.[18] However, it also has a istilah meaning which is assisting a ruler i.e. a minister. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Whoever among you is appointed to a position of authority – if Allah wills good for him – He will give him a righteous wazir who will remind him if he forgets and help him if he remembers.”[19]

The sahaba also used wazir in this context of governmental affairs. During the contracting of the bay’a to Abu Bakr at the Saqifa (portico) of Banu Sa’ida, Abu Bakr said to the Ansar, نحن الأمراء وأنتم الوزراء “We are the Amirs and you are the Wazirs!”[20]

In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) in a sharia text, the technical meaning will not take precedence over the linguistic meaning because it’s a specific meaning only applied to some specific situations. The linguistic meaning on the other hand is general and applies generally. The context of the sharia text will determine which meaning is intended, as mentioned in the discussion above on the word hukm.

Non-Sharia texts

The classical scholars introduced many new technical terms (الاِصْطِلاحات istilahiyyat) into Islamic Jurisprudence (فِقْه fiqh) in order to teach Islam to later generations. Muhammad Hussein Abdullah says, “It is possible for the people of any particular skill, art or expertise, and in any time period to set terminological conventions (الاصطلاحات istilahiyyat), utilising the worded expressions (أَلْفاظ alfazh) of the language and transfer them to specific meanings associated to their field.”[21]

These words in their technical meaning were not known in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and the sahaba, so are not found with this meaning in the Qur’an and hadith. Examples are ‘aqeeda (creed) and tawhid (monotheism) which are related to belief, ‘amm (general), mushtarak (homonym), madhhab (school of thought) and istinbat (deduction) related to fiqh, and siyada (sovereignty), hukumiyyah (government), qanun (law), diwan (accounts) and dawla (state) related to ruling.

These technical meanings exist in every language and civilisation. As an example, the word domain linguistically means a field of action or a territory ruled by a government. It also has an istiliahi meaning in the field of IT where it specifies the location and usage of a particular website, e.g. IslamCiv.com.

There is a well-established sharia maxim (qa’ida) related to this which is:

لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح

There is no dispute over terminology

which can be expanded to:

لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح بعد الاتفاق على المعنى

There is no dispute over terminology after agreement on the meaning.[22]

This principle essentially means that when discussing technical or specialised terms (الاصطلاحات istilahiyyat), minor differences in wording or the precise label used are not important as long as the underlying meaning is agreed upon. As long as the core meaning or concept is understood, the specific terminology used to express it should not be a point of contention. This is a principle which should be borne in mind when discussing the Islamic culture, because many modern-day disputes and controversies have arisen due to disputes over the misunderstanding of terminology.

Case Study: Is Islam an ideology?

Hamza Yusuf at the time of the Arab spring in 2011, was heavily criticised for saying Islam is not an ideology because his opponents equated the foreign western term ‘ideology’ with deen. In their view someone who says Islam is not an ideology is effectively saying Islam is not a deen or way of life. This is highly problematic. The term ‘ideology’ in Arabic is idiyulujiyyah (أَيديُولُوجِيَّة) which is clearly not an original Arabic word. There is also another Arabic term mabda’ (مَبْدَأ) which some translate as ideology because this means basis or principle. In either case both words are new technical terms (istilahiyyat) which are not found in the Islamic texts and therefore have no sharia implications as the maxim states, لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح “There is no dispute over terminology”.

Hamza Yusuf explains his position and why he doesn’t accept the foreign term ‘ideology’ or even describing Islam with the word ‘thought’ (fikr). This is a perfectly valid viewpoint once someone focuses on the meaning of what he is saying and not the term itself.

“In my previous blog on Egypt’s “revolution,” I wrote, “Islam is not a political ideology and hence does not offer a political solution per se.” This caused great consternation in some people, and several uncouth remarks were made in response to that statement…

It appears from the comments I received that the reason so many people had trouble with that sentence I wrote is because they did not understand the term “ideology” in my usage, as it has several possible usages. An Arab poet once wrote, “Only the wearer knows what’s under his cloak, and only an author knows what’s the meaning of his book.” Some people responded defending my statement and clearly showed me that many people did understand what I meant by that term. However, “disambiguation” for others was clearly necessary. So, let me explain my usage of the ambiguous term “ideology” and why I think it has nothing to do with Islam. It comes from a French term that was used in the revolutionary period to articulate a new way of thinking not encumbered by metaphysics, religion, or tradition. Napoleon derogatively referred to the proponents of ideology as “ideologues.” While it has a neutral meaning, as in “world-view,” most educated Westerners would view it pejoratively. Islam is wahy, a revelation from God, not an ideology.

Islam shares nothing with what can be called an ideology if we understand the term both etymologically and in modern usage. Indeed, there are several Islamophobic websites now which claim that Islam is not a true religion but only an ideology. Furthermore, you can’t even find a word in classical Arabic that expresses the meaning of “ideology”; no equivalent word can be found in Ibn Manzur’s authoritative dictionary of classical Arabic, Lisan al-Arab, and it is certainly nowhere to be found in the Qur’an or hadith. Neither the Salaf nor any of the scholars for that past 1300 years of Islam used that term. In fact, it only becomes widespread after ideologues in the Islamic world, infected with Marxist thought, began to re-form Islam as a colonial and post-colonial resistance movement

Since the Arabs don’t even have a word for this phenomenon in their classical language, they had to make one up to express the idea; when we look up “ideology” in any modern English-Arabic dictionary, we find, “idiolojiyyiah.” However, if we use classical Arabic to attempt to translate this word, “mandhur fikri” is a closer rendering. “Fikr” is not an attribute of God. “Mufakkir” is not one of God’s 99 Names, and unlike “tafakkur,” which carries a positive meaning in the Qur’an, “fikr” has a negative connotation, as in “Innahu fakkara wa qaddara, fa qutila kayfa qaddara” (74:18-19), which is translated, “For he thought and calculated. And how he calculated, to his doom.”

Islam is not an idea, even though some modern writers have used the term fikr Islami (Islamic thought). One of my teachers in Mauritania, a master of Arabic and Islam, once said to me, “What does fikr Islami mean? I have never seen that in an old book on Islam.” When I explained its meaning, he said, “That is very different from how the Salaf would have understood Islam.”[23]

The Problem of Terminology

When choosing technical terms especially those borrowed from foreign cultures and systems such as ‘ideology’, we need to be careful not to cause confusion in understanding the Islamic culture. This is not an exact science and inevitably people will have different views, but as a principle we should use the language of Islam when describing our laws, institutions and systems. There has been a tendency in modern times to use western terms which causes confusion as to what political Islam actually is, and also distances us from our history.

Aisha Bewley says, “When we discuss things like authority and command, or even ‘state’ or ‘leader’, in Islam, we run into problems because these are not terms intrinsic to Islam – they have been adopted from the West and employ Western concepts. Various words are employed for them and there has been a whole evolution of the terminology.”[24]

There are neutral terms such as state (دَوْلَة dawla), tax (ضَرِيبَة dariba), ministry (وِزارَة wizara) and law (قانُون qanun) which are fine to be used. Republic, Federal, Democratic, Secular and Human Rights need to be handled with care. It’s clear that even if someone used ‘Islamic Democracy’, it in no way is comparable to Western Democracy since the sharia red-lines can never be crossed as Tahir-ul-Qadri says “in an Islamic state, any law which is passed against the Shari‘ah will be challenged and nullified, and will have no legal effect.”[25]

Muhammad Asad (d.1992) comments on this approach of using foreign terminology. “One of the main reasons for the confusion regarding the idea of the Islamic state is the indiscriminate application-both by the upholders and the critics of this idea-of Western political terms and definitions to the entirely different concept of Islamic polity. Not infrequently we find in the writings of modern Muslims the assertion that “Islamic is democratic” or even that it aims at the establishment of a “socialist” society; whereas many Western writers refer to an alleged “totalitarianism” in Islam which must necessarily result in dictatorship. Such superficial attempts at political definition are not only mutually contradictory, and therefore of no practical value for the purposes of a serious discussion, but also carry with them the danger of looking at the problems of Muslim society from the angle of Western historical experiences alone and, thus, of envisaging developments which may be justifiable or objectionable-depending on the viewpoint of the observer-but may be wholly out of place within the world-view of Islam. One should always remember that when the European or American speaks of “democracy,” “liberalism,” “socialism,” “theocracy,” “parliamentary government,” and so forth, he uses these terms within the context of Western historical experience.”[26]

Sharia Meaning (Al-Haqiqa Ash-Shar’iya)

If the meaning of a word transfers (naql) from its linguistic meaning to a new meaning defined by the sharia i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah then it is called a sharia meaning.

The most well-known example in this regard is the word salah (صَلاَة) which linguistically means supplication (du’a), but the sharia gave it a new meaning which is the five times a day prayer and its bowing, prostration and other pillars.

In terms of outweighing (tarjeeh) between the different meanings, the sharia meaning will take precedence over the other meanings if it is well-known. Therefore, when Allah (Most High) says,

وَأَقِيمُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ

“Establish prayer”[27]

Then this is an order to pray in the well-known form five times a day. It is not an order to raise one’s hands in du’a.

Another example is the word bid’ah (بِدْعَة) which linguistically means innovation, but the sharia came and gave it an additional meaning related to innovations in the religion. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

وَشَرُّ الْأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلُّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلُّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ وَكُلُّ ضَلَالَةٍ فِي النَّارِ

“The evilest of matters are those that are newly invented, and every newly invented matter is an innovation (bid’ah), and every innovation (bid’ah) is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire.”[28]

Al-Harawi (d.1215) said, “Bid’ah is an opinion that does not have any basis in the Qur’an or Sunnah, whether via an apparent connection, or a concealed derivation.”[29]

The linguistic meaning of bid’ah can still be used depending on the context and this is the reason the scholars discussed the concept of bid’ah hasana (good innovation) based on the statement of Umar ibn Al-Khattab when he organised the Muslims praying tarawih in the masjid in Ramadan under one Imam and one congregation.

Abdur Rahmaan Bin ‘Abdin Al-Qaarri related: “I went out in the company of Umar bin Al−Khattaab one night in Ramadan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. A man praying alone or a man praying with a little group behind him. So, Umar said, ‘In my opinion it would be better to gather these (people) under the leadership of one Qaari (Reciter) (i.e. let them pray in congregation).’ So, he made up his mind to congregate them behind Ubayy bin Ka’b.

Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their reciter. On that, Umar remarked, ‘What an excellent innovation (bid’ah hasana) this is; but the prayer which they do not perform, but what they miss due to sleep is better than the one they are offering.’ He meant the prayer in the last part of the night. (In those days) people used to pray in the early part of the night” as related by Al-Bukhari and Malik.”[30]

Abu Iyas Uwaydah comments on this. “The word bid’ah used by Umar here must be understood linguistically meaning wonderful and good and should not be understood from the meaning given in the Hadeeth of the Nabi ﷺ: ‘every newly invented matter is an innovation (bid’ah), and every innovation (bid’ah) is misguidance’[31]

This is because this action from Umar (ra) was not a newly invented thing, and was not from the prohibited acts of bid’ah because we reported a short while ago that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had prayed the Taraweeh prayers in Jama’ah on a number of nights in the Masjid: “So when it was the third (night from the end i.e. 27th) he gathered his family and wives and people and prayed with them” as reported by Abu Dawud and other than him from Abu Dharr (ra).

So ‘Umar (ra) did not invent a new matter by gathering the people behind Ubayy Bin Ka’b and therefore this action cannot be considered as following under the meaning of the Hadith: ‘every newly invented matter is an innovation (bid’ah), and every innovation (bid’ah) is misguidance.’”[32]

Al-Khadimi says, “If you follow up on everything that has been said on praiseworthy bid’ah, whether in theology, fiqh, statements, or character, within the category of acts of worship (as whatever is in human habits is not from bid’ah in the first place, as discussed previously), then you will find it to be permissible in the Shariah, whether by Allah, His Messenger, by scholarly consensus, or analogy – but by means of an implied or indicated meaning of a text, not the text itself in explicit terms.”[33]

Metaphorical Meaning (Al-Majaz)

If the meaning of a word transfers (naql) from its linguistic meaning to another meaning which doesn’t fall within the categories discussed previously, and has a link and indication (qareenah) to the original word, then it can be termed a metaphor. Metaphors exist within all languages and they exist in many places in the Qur’an as the mufasireen have discussed.

Interpreting a word as having a metaphorical meaning within the Islamic texts, especially those with sharia implications has many rules and these are discussed by the scholars of the Arabic language in balaghah (eloquence) and elucidated by the scholars of Qur’an – the mufasireen.

An example within the Arabic language is the expression:

زيد أسد Zaid is a lion.

Here the word lion (أَسَد) has transferred from its linguistic meaning to a metaphor meaning bravery with an assumed ‘like’ due to the relationship of simile (tashbih). This is a natural part of all languages to enrich and enhance speech through similes and metaphors.

In terms of a sharia text then the most famous example in this regard is the word touch (لَمْس lams) found in the two Qur’anic verses on wudu’ in relation to ‘touching’ a woman and whether it breaks wudu’ or not.

Allah (Most High) says,

أو لامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فلم تجِدُوا ماءً فتيَمَّمُوا

“Or you have had contact with women”[34]

The Hanafis and others interpret the expression لامَسْتُمُ (touched) in a metaphorical sense to mean sexual intercourse, since the word lams has this meaning in other verses of the Qur’an.

Allah (Most High) says: ثم طلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ “Then you divorce them before you have touched them”[35] meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: وإنْ طلَّقْتُموهنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أِنْ تَمَسُّوهُن “And if you divorce them before you have touched them”[36] meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: ولم يَمْسَسْني بَشرٌ “And no man has touched me”[37] meaning he has not had sexual intercourse with me.

Saeed ibn Jubayr said, “We discussed touching, and some of the Mawali said: It is not intercourse, and some of the Arabs said: It is intercourse. I mentioned that to Ibn Abbas, and he said: ‘Which of them were you with?’ I said: ‘With the Mawali.’ He said: ‘The Mawali were defeated. Touching and intimate contact are intercourse, but Allah, the Almighty, uses euphemisms (kiniya) for whomever He wishes.’”[38]

The Shafi’is while acknowledging the metaphorical meaning, use the original linguistic meaning of lams to mean physical touch.

Touching a woman does not invalidate wuḍūʼ

Conclusion

In the age of social media and keyboard warriors who are quick to jump from sensation to action without thinking, whenever they come across an article or video they dislike, we need to remind ourselves of the sayings of our Messenger ﷺ.

إِنَّ الْعَبْدَ لَيَتَكَلَّمُ بِالْكَلِمَةِ مِنْ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ لاَ يُلْقِي لَهَا بَالاً، يَرْفَعُ اللَّهُ بِهَا دَرَجَاتٍ، وَإِنَّ الْعَبْدَ لَيَتَكَلَّمُ بِالْكَلِمَةِ مِنْ سَخَطِ اللَّهِ لاَ يُلْقِي لَهَا بَالاً يَهْوِي بِهَا فِي جَهَنَّمَ

“Verily, a servant may speak a word pleasing to Allah, thinking nothing of it, yet by it Allah raises his status by a degree. Verily, a servant may speak a word displeasing to Allah, thinking nothing of it, yet by it he plummets into Hell.”[39]

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏”‏ أَتَدْرُونَ مَا الْمُفْلِسُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالُوا الْمُفْلِسُ فِينَا مَنْ لاَ دِرْهَمَ لَهُ وَلاَ مَتَاعَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ إِنَّ الْمُفْلِسَ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يَأْتِي يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِصَلاَةٍ وَصِيَامٍ وَزَكَاةٍ وَيَأْتِي قَدْ شَتَمَ هَذَا وَقَذَفَ هَذَا وَأَكَلَ مَالَ هَذَا وَسَفَكَ دَمَ هَذَا وَضَرَبَ هَذَا فَيُعْطَى هَذَا مِنْ حَسَنَاتِهِ وَهَذَا مِنْ حَسَنَاتِهِ فَإِنْ فَنِيَتْ حَسَنَاتُهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُقْضَى مَا عَلَيْهِ أُخِذَ مِنْ خَطَايَاهُمْ فَطُرِحَتْ عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ طُرِحَ فِي النَّارِ ‏

“Do you know who are bankrupt?” They said, “The one without money or goods is bankrupt.” The Prophet said, “Verily, the bankrupt of my ummah are those who come on the Day of Resurrection with prayers, fasting, and charity, but also with insults, slander, consuming wealth, shedding blood, and beating others. The oppressed will each be given from his good deeds. If his good deeds run out before justice is fulfilled, then their sins will be cast upon him and he will be thrown into the Hellfire.”[40]

If someone takes the time to contemplate on what a person is actually saying in terms of the meanings of their expressions as opposed to the technical terms, then many of the disputes which occur online will disappear overnight. Even if someone still holds to their opinion, this is fine as long as they acknowledge the legitimate viewpoint of the other party and keep in mind the sharia maxim:

لا مُشَاحَّة في الاصطلاح بعد الاتفاق على المعنى

There is no dispute over terminology after agreement on the meaning.[41]

Notes

[1] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.418

[2] Abu Tariq Hilal/Abu Ismael al-Beirawi, ‘Understanding Usul Al-Fiqh,’ Revival Publications, 2007, p.9

[3] al-Shatibi, Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shar’ia (The Reconciliation of the Fundamentals of Islamic Law), Volume II, Garnet Publishing, 2014, p.62

[4] Ibn al-Qayyim, Madarij Al-Salikeen”, https://shamela.ws/book/8370/1262

[5] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.555

[6] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.554

[7] Ata Bin Khalil Abu Rashta, تيسير الوصول إلى الأصول Taysir al-Wusul min al-Usul

[8] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Nisa’, ayah 43, Surah Al-Ma’ida, ayah 6

[9] Holy Qur’an, Surah Yusuf, ayah 10

[10] Holy Qur’an, Surah Ad-Dukhan, ayah 54

[11] Ata Bin Khalil Abu Rashta, تيسير الوصول إلى الأصول Taysir al-Wusul min al-Usul

[12] The grammarians differed on the original roots of every derived Arabic word. Some said they are derived from the masdar (verbal noun) as is mentioned here. Others said they are derived from the verb (three-letter roots).

[13] Muhammad Hassan Hassan Jabal, ‘The etymological dictionary of the words of the Holy Qur’an,’ https://furqan.co/ishtiqaqi/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85

[14] Imam Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, https://tafsir.app/qurtubi/2/32

[15] Holy Quran, Surah Saad, ayah 26

[16] Imam Al-Razi, Tafsir Al-Kabir, https://tafsir.app/alrazi/38/26

[17] Sayed Khatab, ‘The Power of Sovereignty: The political and ideological philosophy of Sayyid Qutb,’ Routledge, 2009, p.17

[18] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.300

[19] Sunan an-Nasa’i 4204, https://sunnah.com/nasai:4204

[20] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, https://shamela.ws/book/1686/595

[21] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Op.cit., p.555

[22] https://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/25041/%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD/#_ftnref22

[23] https://allahcentric.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/shaykh-hamza-yusuf-islam-is-not-an-ideology-sandala-productions/

[24] Aisha Bewley, ‘Democratic Tyranny and the Islamic Paradigm,’ Diwan Press, 1st edition, 2018, Kindle Edition, p.83