Meezan - Tadabbur-e Quran (Understanding the Quran)
Topic: Intentionality of words, Muhkam and Mutashaabih. Lecture. 15 B. 26-04-2002
Scholar. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] Alhumdulillah All Praise is due to Allah,
Peace and Blessings be upon His Trustworthy Prophet Muhammad.
I seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Satan.
In the name of Allah, Most Beneficent and Ever Merciful.
Ladies and gentlemen,
in the debate about muhkam (clear) and mutashaabih (ambiguous),
where did the issue originate, is what we have just talked about.
Now you can see from which angle our researchers and scholars have studied it.
But to be able to understand their point of view,
it is crucial for you to first understand the difference between two things.
I have used two words here, 'maani' (meaning),
and 'misdaaq' (referent or evidence).
What is the difference between these two?
Let's go back to the past for sometime.
And see how there used to be ancient nomadic tribes,
and they have set up camp at a place.
There they cook food, they dance and play music,
and they also come together and gather in assemblies.
Whatever happens, is done as a collective.
Individual has not become manifest and autonomous in his own personality.
So they felt that since human beings have a stomach and hunger is natural,
food must be prepared to satisfy oneself.
So when they brought meat from hunting,
they would have to cook it in order to eat it.
And in order to cook it, they fashioned a pot.
Imagine all this for a while.
So now since it was a huge pot,
it made it possible to cook the meat for the whole tribe
and then everyone would sit and eat it together.
They called it 'deg'.
They named the huge cauldron or pot as 'deg'.
Human civilization continued its journey, tribal life came to an end.
Individuals became more autonomous from the collective.
Instead of huge cauldrons, smaller pots were now required.
Now that small pot was put on the stove.
Then they needed a name for it.
What human beings do at times like these is that
the name they had given to the similar entity,
they give a name to the new one which shows that influence
by clashing, opposing, contradicting, or drawing similarities between them.
Either they see it as distinct from the other entity,
or as separate from it, or he views it in accordance to that thing.
So when they saw the smaller pot, they thought why give it a new name?
This is simply a smaller 'deg'.
And that's how it was called 'degcha' (small pot).
So when we say the word 'degcha', what is its meaning?
It means a small deg (caludron).
We were teaching and learning, and when you were not familiar with Urdu,
and you read the word 'degcha', you were told it means a small cauldron.
Did you imagine a 'degcha' in your mind at all?
No, you didn't visualize it.
You think of 'deg', and you also imagine something smaller.
Now we take you home, and showed you a small pot on the stove.
This 'degcha' is actually a referent which carries the meaning of small cauldron, deg
but now it is lying right in front of us.
So there are numerous words in a language,
which do not make their referent clear with regards to their meaning.
Misdaaq is actually that utensil called degcha, which is put on your stove.
And for that, we did not have a word initially.
There was no separate word that existed a priori.
We only had the word 'deg'.
We picked another concept of smaller and bigger things from our mind,
and affixed the term for 'smaller' with 'deg'.
In Persian 'cha' implies smaller. So 'degcha' means a smaller 'deg'.
So we took that, affixed it with deg, and that created a meaning.
A smaller pot. But whichever way you may use this word degcha,
even now you can see, if someone asks you what is 'degcha'?
You will reply with 'a small deg'. So you will convey the meaning for sure.
But it does not determine that actual referent.
Referent will be when you are shown a degcha and you will know,
this is what it is.
Otherwise it is possible, you would have thought a smaller deg to be
something just marginally smaller than a deg!
You might not be able to imagine that degcha which you use on the stove.
So this is the difference between meaning and referent.
Imagine for a while that one of you went to the planet Mars.
And there he saw a living creature.
Such a creature he had never seen before, either among the birds or the animals,
and certainly not among human beings.
He wants to come back and tell you that he saw a living being on Mars.
What way would he adopt to convey that?
What that person will do is that whatever he saw there,
its referent he had seen with his own eyes.
But he has no word to convey what he witnessed.
Hence the question of a word and its meaning does not arise.
He is standing on Mars and he saw a creature.
But no word exists in our language for that creature.
The reason for that is that the words are created
when a thing comes into existence or an idea comes into our mind.
And after that human beings produce some specific sounds to refer to it,
after that a common consciousness of the thing is born among them.
And then after a few centuries, the word is born.
This is how it happens right? But this process didn't happen in that case.
He was simply picked up at night and then dropped on Mars,
where he saw a creature. When he saw that being,
it did not resemble any animal, nor a bird.
So there is nothing exactly like that creature.
He had seen birds here, he had seen animals, he had seen human beings.
But the creature was like none of them, it was entirely a different being he saw.
So the creature he saw there, there is no word that exists for it.
And since there is no word that exists, hence no meaning exists either.
But the evidence was certainly before his eyes.
So that entity is before his eyes.
He came back from Mars onto the Earth.
After coming back here, he wants to tell you what he saw.
So what would he do? He would actually find some entity
similar to the one he saw in order to convey its likeness.
This is what he would do right? And after that,
when he would find a similar referent for the entity,
then the objects which are found here on Earth,
there are words as well as meanings for them.
So that word and meaning which are available here for a similar entity,
he would use them with some changes, to refer to the creature he saw.
That this is what I had seen. He would say that right?
So now the entity referred to is clear.
Now you understand what is the meaning and what is the referent?
Misdaaq here are some creatures, such as birds, animals, and human beings.
For them, some words have been created.
For instance, 'humans', or 'lion'. These words have meanings.
And we are aware of those meanings.
On the other planet there is a referent, a creature,
for which neither word nor meaning exists.
So to a referent for what it is, and then to interpret it by closest likeness,
is something we have no option but to do. Please understand this.
What a meaning is, what a word is, and what the referent is.
If you have understood this, let us now see what issues this gentleman faced.
This is Imam Razi, he says 'wa ammal muhaqqiq al munsif
fainna hu yahmir ul amar fil ayaat ala aqsaam salaasa.'
That is, the person who is a scholar and a researcher as well,
and is not carrying any particular biases with him,
and is a person who stands with justice.
Imam Razi says that he divides the verses of the Quran into three categories.
So that scholar will divide the verses of the Quran into three categories.
'Ahduha maa yata'aqqadu zahiruha bil dala'il al aqliya'.
Now since according to him, verbal evidence is worth nothing,
therefore the first category of the verses of the Quran is that
whose apparent meaning, i.e. the obvious meaning which comes from the word,
that becomes confirmed even through a logical argument.
So a rational argument, and whatever meaning you understand from the word,
even though they had come through isolated report and conjectural.
But now even a rational argument is there in its support.
So that rational argument, along with that conjectural meaning,
what has been done to it? It has made it categorical and clear.
The word itself not going to do anything.
At most, it would have given testimony of its meaning by speculation.
So he says 'maa yata'aqqadu zahiruha bil dala'il al aqliya'.
So the apparent meaning that the words were conveying,
and the moment you read the words, you understood some meaning from it.
Along with that meaning, some rational arguments also stand now.
And what did the both of them do together?
They gave it a clear certainty.
Now this issue, 'fazaakahu al muhkamu haqqa'.
So this is then the 'real' muhkam.
That verse, whose apparent meaning conveyed by the words is understood
as 'wa awal wahla', that is, immediately upon reading it.
If you are familiar with the language, you read the verse,
and from that you understood the apparent subject matter.
You joined that subject matter with a rational argument,
so it is as if it were equivalent. That is, the rational deduction says the same thing
which is being conveyed by the words at first glance.
And the apparent meaning of the words is the same as conveyed by logical reasoning.
So when both of these things become mutually inclusive, what is this then?
'Fazaakahu al muhkumu haqqa'. So this becomes the real muhkam verse.
'Wasaani ha allazee kaamit at-dala'il ul qaate ala imtanaayi zawahir riha.'
Now another category is born. Which was that
you derived an apparent meaning from the words.
It is this same action which was done in the first category.
You understood an apparent meaning from the words.
There is no difference in this first step. What had happened in previous instance?
You had understood an apparent meaning from words.
Rational arguments ratified that deduction.
Here too, the same thing happened.
You understood an apparent meaning from the words.
But then rational arguments stood against your deduction here.
So the rational arguments negated the apparent meanings you were understanding.
'Allazee kamit at-dala'il ul qaate'ala imtanaayi zawahir riha.'
And these rational arguments are absolutely categorical.
So this is absolutely clear that these apparent meanings
cannot be the correct deduction from these words.
He says 'fazzakahu allathii yuhukumu fiihi bi anna muraadillah ta'ala
ghairu zahirahi'. This aspect which is there,
about this too we can say with complete certainty that
the apparent meanings which are drawn from these words here
is absolutely not what Allah intended to convey.
So this too has become clear.
The apparent meanings which one was deriving from the words,
since the rational arguments are standing against it,
therefore, this too has become muhkam.
Because the negation of its apparent meaning has become certain,
based on rational arguments.
'Wa saalisuha allazee laa yujid mislu haazid dala'il alaa tarfa
sabuutihi min tafa'ihi'.
And the third category is when no rational arguments exists
either to ratify the apparent meanings, or to refute them.
So neither do the logical arguments confirm those meaning, nor reject them.
'fayakoon min haqqahii tawaqqafi'. What would you do in this case?
Now he says that you just have to make peace with it,
because it is not possible to say anything with certainty about this.
There is no other option but to be patient about it.
'Wa yakoona zalika mutashaabihan.'
Now we would say that this has become mutashaabih.
Actually he has to make clear how do we determine something is mutashaabih.
So see what way he adopted to do that.
The way he chose was that if we read a verse,
an outward and apparent meaning of it was understood by us.
We went to seek rational evidence for it,
which absolutely confirmed the meaning we had understood.
This becomes muhkam then.
Then we read a verse, whose apparent meaning was understood by us.
Rational arguments completely rejected that inference,
making it clear that what we understood cannot be the meaning of the words.
In fact the meaning would be the opposite of what we inferred.
So our understanding was incorrect, and the correct was its opposite.
So this too is muhkam, for it has become clear.
Now if we read a verse, and understand a meaning that was apparent from the words.
But the rational arguments do not prove or determine it,
nor do they reject our inference. Neither of these things can be done.
So what would we do? We would give up and state that
no statement can be made with certainty about its meaning.
So he says 'yakoona zalika mutashaabihan.'
In what sense is this used?
'Bemaana annal amara ishtaba'a fii'.
The case here has become doubtful and ambiguous.
As I had said before, in what sense is he using this term?
So the case here has become doubtful.
'Walam yatamayii' zahdul janabain ilaakhir'.
Now there are actually two paths in this.
One is the apparent one, and the second is the one contrary to it.
In this, it became impossible to distinguish either of them.
So when it is no longer possible to make a distinction between the two paths,
that makes the words mutashaabih. This is the statement by Imam Razi.
Now naturally, since he is a rationalist scholar, thus he has conveyed it
on the basis of a logical deduction.
Saying that whichever verses of the Quran you will be reading,
you must remember that first point,
about which we have already discussed before this.
That the words of the Quran cannot convey their own meanings
with absolutely certainty.
Therefore we only understand the apparent meanings of its words.
If the rational evidence supports it, the meaning becomes muhkam.
If the rational arguments negate that meaning,
if it is pointing to something contrary to its outward meaning,
then again it is muhkam. [Student] But then what is muhkam here,
if the meaning has been negated? [Ghamidi] That which has been negated,
that meaning becomes muhkam or clear.
For instance, you say that lion is the king of the jungle.
Rational argument also says that yes, this refers to that very lion
which is found in the forest. Now this has become muhkam.
You say, 'who is the lion that approaches and makes the battleground shudder?'
Rational inference comes and says no, this is not the lion of the forest.
So the metaphor has become clear, hasn't it?
Since the literal meaning was rejected, it makes the other aspect certain.
This is a simple example I have used to explain this to you.
The example Imam Razi wants to give, that would be a little too complex for you.
There is an entire debate about takleef-e ma laa yutaq (unbearable trouble)
that he has done.
[Student] Has any reference been taken from the Quran?
[Ghamidi] For instance, he borrows a reference from the Quran,
now that you have brought it up,
he says that the Quran says 'ya yukkalifulla nafsan illa wus'aha.'
This is his own argumentation.
That Allah never burdens anyone more than he can bear.
Outwardly, this is what the meaning seems to be.
This is what the verse is saying.
But Imam Razi says that rational arguments are testifying to something contrary.
Rational evidence is refuting this apparent meaning.
The evidence of the Quran itself are pointing to something contrary.
Categorical arguments are also standing against this.
Allah does burden people more than they can bear (takleef-e ma laa yutaq).
Allah did say that Abu Lahab would not become a believer,
and yet commanded him to become one!
I am giving you an example.
So Allah does burden people.
Allah made people stand and stiffened their backs,
and then commanded them to bow!
This is mentioned about the Day of Judgment right?
So Allah does give people unbearable burderns.
When it is proven that he does do that, it means that the meaning of
'la yakullifa nafsan illa wus'aha',
which appears apparent and outwardly,
the intention is to convey the exact opposite meaning.
This is certain, so it becomes muhkam.
So this is his way. Then he says that where either of these situations has come,
that either the apparent meaning which the words are conveying,
rational arguments are also confirming it, then the case is closed, it is muhkam.
But if the rational evidence has negated the meaning inferred,
meaning that he is saying no doubt remains here,
and it is certain that Allah in fact does give takleef-e ma laa yutaq,
then the meaning conveyed outwardly by the words are incorrect,
the intention is actually to convey the exact opposite of it, we are certain of it
When we are sure of that, and Imam Razi of course was certain of it.
I don't know if you are convinced of it or not though.
But when one is convinced and sure, then the case has come to a close.
So this too is muhkam then. But if both of these cases in not certain,
and one is not able to clarify if the rational evidence is affirming
or rejecting it, then it falls under mutashaabih.
Because now the situation is doubtful and unclear, we don't know its meaning.
So the Quran is correct in saying that if a situation of this kind arises,
according to Imam Razi, then that word becomes doubtful,
whose meaning we cannot establish.
This attempt he has made to clarify this, is to be able to tell you
where to draw the line between muhkam and mutashaabih.
So this is how he has drawn a distinguishing line.
The line has been drawn.
[Ghamidi] No I am only telling you about his stance.
I am not passing a judgment on whether his position is right or not.
I am simply telling you that this is his opinion which he states about it.
These are the issues he is facing, and this is his opinion regarding it.
I am not saying whether his position is correct or not.
Nor is it our concern right now. Our purpose is only to understand
what he means by the category of 'mutashaabih'.
That is what I have tried to explain to you,
what exactly is meant by mutashaabih?
Now see that it is not as if this is where the situation ends with Imam Razi.
[Ghamidi] Yes?
[Ghamidi] With rational evidence.
He says that with rational evidence it is absolutely clear for us that
this is not what this means. But in fact it means the exact opposite.
So now we have to accept it. [Student] So it means the opposite.
[Ghamidi] Yes we have to take the opposite of the meaning it conveys.
Yes?
No that is not what rational evidence means.
Rational evidence means that he will deduce from a lot of other sources as well
and then they will also do a logical deduction in that matter,
that God is omnipotent, and Allah does not accept any constraints about Himself.
It is problematic to assume that.
Hence when He burdens people, and since He is capable of everything,
therefore He can give unbearable burdens to people too.
So you would not have the last word even in rational arguments.
[Student] So this is what one can be negated, his opinion can be refuted.
[Ghamidi] Yes of course. [Student] What is the criterion for this?
[Ghamidi] This is something you would have to debate with Imam Razi himself.
I have only told you about what he says about this matter.
If I delve into it further to talk about whether his opinion is correct or not,
then I would actually be deviating from our topic.
See the thing is, Zamakhshari for instance says exactly the same thing.
He says, 'muhkamaat uhkimat ibaaratuha bi an hufizat min al ehtimaal
wal ishtibaah'. That is, what are the muhkam verses?
Those are the verses whose interpretation has been safeguarded in a way
'bi an hufizat min al ehtimaal wal ishtibaah.'
That is, now neither any doubt nor ambiguity remains.
So the opposite of ambiguity.
The text is no longer ambiguous.
The subject matter is no longer doubtful, it has become muhkam.
Mutashaabihaat? Zamakhshari says these are ones which are ambiguous.
This is how he translates it, that it is doubtful, carrying multiple possibilities.
That in which there is uncertainty in determining the meaning,
and in which there is apprehension about the meaning.
So this is how he explains the term.
So this means that in both these scholars, and Zamakhshari was a Mutazilite,
and Imam Razi belonged to the Ash'ari school of thought.
He is an Imam of the Ash'aris.
And despite being an Ash'ari and Mutazilite,
there was no difference in their opinions in this matter.
Because both of them presented their arguments,
and there was no difference in their conclusions.
Now see, there is Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani,
and naturally among our esteemed scholars of the contemporary era,
especially those of the classical and traditionalist school of thought,
he is among the great scholars of that worldview.
He too has written a note on this.
He says that you must look at it this way,
that in the Holy Quran, and in fact in all the revealed Books,
there are two kinds of verses which are found.
One is the kind whose intention is known and established.
Whether it is because, with regards to the vocabulary and style,
there is no doubt and ambiguity in the words.
Nor does their interpretation imply multiple meanings.
So if we have a verse, its intention is known and established.
In which aspects? Well, with regards to its vocabulary and linguistic style,
there is no ambiguity in its words.
But since he does not agree with what Imam Razi says,
therefore he has accepted this approach.
That with regards to the vocabulary, style, and grammar,
we are absolutely clear in what its subject matter is.
There is no doubt or ambiguity in its words,
nor does their interpretation imply multiple meanings.
And it is also not the case that out of all the meanings known to us,
it might be said that this verse could also mean something else.
This is also not the case. It can only have one meaning.
Nor is it that that which was considered reasonable,
is actually against the universally accepted rules.
This is that same point.
So the intentionality of the verse, that which was understood from it,
is not against the commonly accepted rules.
Here he has not specifically mentioned reason, but that is his reference.
If the meaning is against the universal rules or reason,
if this is the case, then he says that it becomes muhkam.
Or else because, and this is the other category of muhkam,
or else because in the text and the terms used,
even though many other meanings could have been implied instead,
so with regards to its vocabulary, multiple meanings could have been implied.
But the detailed proofs given by the law giver (the Prophet).
It means the Prophet (pbuh) mentioned it somewhere in the Hadith,
and it gained fame and reputation.
This is a specific terminology, nusuus-e mustafiiza.
Or the consensus of the (infallible) Ummah.
Or the Ummah unanimously agreed on it, and the collective Ummah is infallible.
Or the common, universally accepted principles of religion
has categorically established that the intention of the speaker was not that,
but is this. So the apparent meaning which we understood, that is correct.
Such verses are called muhkamaat.
So he has presented that opinion in the contemporary style.
The second kind of verses are called mutashaabihaat,
that is, the intention and meaning of which is not determined
because of some doubts and ambiguities.
See the words have been repeated by him.
Doubtful and ambiguous. This is how he has explained ambiguous verse.
So this is the exact same explanation, except with the rational element.
That part he has conveyed in the end in another way.
But you can see that here too, the meaning has been established
either through the words, or the grammatical style.
And if that has not happened and there was some apprehension in meaning,
and the Quran itself could not establish it,
it was determined by the Prophet's clear proofs, confirming the meaning.
The consensus of the Ummah determined that this is the meaning.
Or it was derived from the generally accepted principles of the religion.
The Quran commanded that the man or woman who commits adultery,
should be punished with a hundred lashes.
Now naturally one understands from it that whoever commits adultery,
should be punished with a hundred lashes.
Then nusuus-e-mustafiiza came from the Prophet (pbuh)
and told us that it only refers to a bachelor.
The Ummah unanimously concurred with this.
So we got nusuus-e-mustafiiza, as well as the consensus of the common people.
Now the apparent meaning which was understood from the words,
would you accept that?
You should not accept it based on this principle.
Is the matter clear from this example?
The Quran said that whichever person commits adultery, man or woman,
should be punished with a hundred lashes.
For when you read this verse, the apparent meaning is of course that
whoever commits adultery should be given a hundred lashes.
There is no mention of an unwed or a married person here.
But what happened then? As soon as we derived this apparent meaning from it,
along with it came some nusuus-e mustafiiza,
that is, some famous narrations came from the Prophet.
They informed us that no, this verse is referring only to an unwed adulterer.
The consensus of the common people, i.e. the Ummah, agreed with it.
And other rules of jurisprudence also came up in its support.
After that, the apparent meaning which was derived from the words,
we did not accept that meaning. This is what he is saying.
Please do not think from this that I am advocating it as correct.
I am only giving you an example that this is how he will take it.
What was the difficulty he was faced with?
The difficulty was that the apparent meaning conveyed by the words of Quran,
naturally there are textual evidences contrary to it.
So this is the way he adopted to deal with it.
That this is how it will become muhkam.
This is the case with Shabbir Ahmad Usmani.
Now you can see, one of our scholars from the previous generation,
Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maududi. He is also saying the exact same thing.
Muhkam verses refer to those verses whose language is completely clear,
in which there is no ambiguity while determining their meaning,
whose words testify their intentionality and meaning clearly and categorically,
and are hardly possible for anyone to make them a practice board
for expansive interpretations.
Since he is a writer, he has presented the matter so simply.
Mutashaabihaat, that is, those verses in whose meaning there is a possibility
of ambiguity and doubt.
This is how he has defined muhkam and mutashaabihaat.
So one can see in this matter that 'muttafiq gar deed raay bu ali bayad
Everyone holds the same opinion.
There is no particular difference in how scholars approach this.
So you can say that in our tradition, this is the position of the classical scholars.
Now about this opinion, recall one thing again in your minds.
What is the issue? There are two words in the Quran,
'mutashaabih' and 'taveel'. These are the fundamental words in the verse.
The word 'mutashaabih' has been taken by him in the same sense
as we ascribe to the word 'mushtabeh' (ambiguous).
And he has explained that too. 'Mushtabeh'.
A word which carries the probability of many meanings.
How has this meaning been derived? I have already told that in the previous lecture.
So it is not as if that word does not have those other meanings, it does.
When that word is used, going by its conclusions,
it also has this meaning, and this meaning was derived among linguists,
and they started using this word to imply this particular meaning.
Its example is found in the Quran as well as in our colloquial use as well.
About the word 'taveel' I have already mentioned that
in the ancient vocabulary, it was used to return something to its misdaaq or reality
Now you know the meaning of misdaaq (actual referent).
But in the later eras, it began to be used to imply meaning and explanation.
We use this word quite commonly.
So this later (born-again) meaning of this word, and the meaning of mutashaabih,
both of these were taken together and a meaning was derived from the verse.
Now naturally when one understands the subject matter of the verse,
then whether you take the position of Imam Razi,
or you take the stance of Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani,
or whether you decide to go by the opinion of Zamakhshari,
or even if you see Maulana Maududi, all of them convey the same thing
that there are some verses in the Quran, in whose meanings
there is a possibility of ambiguity. This would be the conclusion from it right?
So the subject matter of those verses is ambiguous or vague for us.
We cannot categorically establish it.
I had said that whenever we have to understanding the meaning of something,
we must always go to its source.
So here the mistake which has occurred,
it happened first in determining the meaning of the word 'mutashabeh'.
And the second error was taking the word 'taveel' in its later meaning.
This was the second mistake.
In what sense has the word 'mutashaabeh' been used here actually?
It has been used in its literal sense only.
It means things are similar or indistinguishable.
Similar things means firstly in the sense as used in
'Kitaabam mutashabiham masaani'.
That the verses of the Quran are similar and of a related disposition.
That gives it a second meaning.
But one meaning is that some verses of the Quran are those which have words
which relate the unknown referents to things are well known to all.
Understand this sentence.
The unknown referent of things is related to known ones to explain them.
Why did Allah feel the need to do this?
This need arose because Allah is saying a lot about this world in the Quran
but the most significant things that He is proclaiming are basically only two.
One is that this Universe has a Creator, whose own world is concealed.
We cannot see it, nor can we conceptualize or observe its substance,
nor can we see the actions therein.
I have not used the word 'attributes',
because the evidence of those attributes is present in this world.
So we cannot see the substance of that Creator or His world,
nor do we see how He brings about any actions.
I will tell you later on that this is that very issue
from where the debates of ontology and epistemology arose in philosophy ...
But this is a topic for a later stage.
So there is no example of the substance of the unseen world before us,
there is nothing we can see. It is an essence of a concealed world.
What is it, of what nature, we don't know anything.
We cannot see it, cannot observe it.
And in a similar way are its actions, how does it bring them about?
A being produces some actions right?
Attributes are simply the properties of that being.
We can conceptualize and imagine those.
But when an act or deed is brought about,
then a need arises that it be observed, or be witnessed,
that others should understand what deed is being done.
So we can see neither of those things.
And yet the Quran has to introduce God.
Because to have faith resting solely on God, the entire religion rests on this.
But He cannot be shown, and nor can His actions be observed.
The second aspect which forms the basis in the Quran
is that one day all of us have to depart this world
and there is another world in which we have to open our eyes.
Which is a concealed world, and it proclaims that there will a Judgement Day.
That Judgment Day which will come, that too will bring forth a world
which we have not seen. We cannot observe it right now.
So this means that the invitation of the Quran
is based on two fundamental premises which it wants to convince us of,
i.e. the existence of God, and the Day of Judgment,
if some idea and conception has to be given to us about both of them,
for both of these conceptions are absolutely clear and established.
One should have faith in Allah who is the Creator of this Universe,
there is no debate about this. This is absolutely muhkam.
Similar is the case with the Day of Judgment.
But what is God like?
And what would Judgment Day be like, what kind of world would it be?
These are the things which belong to the concealed world.
In this unseen world, there would be some material things, right?
And there would be some ideas. This is how it would be right?
At least we cannot imagine or ascertain anything more than that.
And those things and ideas would be in some perceptible form.
There would be a tree. What would it be like? Well it would be like a tree.
There would be fruit. And it would be like a fruit!
There would be some living creatures, probably us only.
So there would be some things there, i.e. referents!
Now those entities which will be there, we have no words for them in our language.
Like I gave you the example of Mars.
Because they have never been seen before, nor has anyone imagined them here.
So how could we have words for them? We don't have any in our language.
If a conception or imagination of them has to be conveyed,
what way would be adopted to do that?
The way can only be that that entity of the concealed world
should be placed in relation to an entity closest to it in this world,
and the word which is being used to refer to the thing here,
should be used for the unseen thing too.
This is the only way one can adopt for it right? There is no other way for it.
So the verses in which Quran has used this approach,
are the mutashaabihaat ones.
It does not mean their meaning is ambiguous,
for their meanings are absolutely clear.
Only the objects they're referring to are not before our eyes.
But there is no doubt in their meanings.
It is absolutely clear. When the Quran says that there would be fruits there,
so this word used by the Quran, or when it is saying there would be streams there,
these words are Arabic words it uses, and their meaning is known to us.
There is no issue in the meanings of these words.
But what kind of a stream would it be?
So it just means that the conception of that stream is not in front of us.
So what has been done? An example has been taken of a stream in this world,
and in the afterlife too there is a stream that runs. What kind is it?
It is possible that it would be completely different from this one.
Like I gave you the example of a 'degcha' (small pot).
'Deg' (cauldron) could be seen lying before people's eyes.
But the 'cha' part had not come into existence back then!
So in light of that 'deg' lying before us, we created the name 'degcha'.
So this approach is adopted by Allah as well.
And apart from this, there is no other way.
There is no other way of presenting an unseen world.
Not just Allah, but we too do the same thing.
If we have to convey such a thing which has not yet come into existence,
what do we do? We use the tool of simile or comparison.
That is what we do right? In fact the things which have come into existence,
about them too we are at times unable to communicate our impressions
without using the simile or comparison.
We have not seen the lips that Mir praises in this poetry.
And he insists that nowhere else can one find such beautiful lips.
So he took us to a garden, and said that you have seen the petals of a flower.
So the exquisiteness of this petal, its loveliness, its beauty, its excellence,
its color, now that you have seen it, I can use it as a simile to tell you
that the lips I am talking about are like this petal.
'Of her delicate lips, what can one say, a blushing petal of a rose are they.'
So here what he has done is, since he could not show us those lips themselves,
he could certainly show us the flower and the petals.
And he could show us the petals in such a way
that it would make clear every aspect of it.
Have you understood this?
So actually the point it that this is a constraint that applies over us too.
At times, when we too cannot show something,
when we cannot produce the proof of something.
One way could have been that Mir had said, I am lifting the veil,
have a look at it yourself. So this veil would be lifted on Judgment Day,
and then you can see for yourself.
But till the veil is lifted, there is no other way except that
the things similar to it which are found in the world,
a comparison should be drawn with them to explain one's point.
So 'mutashaabih' has been used in its very literal meaning.
And its meaning is to describe a thing by reference to its closest example.
This is what it means. The Quran says that there are two kinds of verses in it.
One kind of verses are the ones where the Quran has clearly conveyed the content
and they are muhkam verses. The Quran is saying what it wants to through them.
And in this respect, all the verses of the Quran are actually muhkam verses.
But where a verse has to convey a quality or attribute of Allah,
or give a conception of His actions or deeds,
or the world which Allah has created, that unseen world,
and it includes the past too.
For instance the Quran wants to tell us how Adam was created
and the Spirit was blown into him. That too was an unseen world for us.
One concealed world is the one that is going to come in the afterlife.
So how will this be conveyed?
There is no other way to convey it except to do it through similitude.
Not the way of ambiguity, but the style of similitude.
So what are called the ambiguous verses of the Quran
are not actually ambiguous, but are rather 'mutashaabih' verses.
That is, the way of similitude and resemblance has been adopted in them
and one thing has been drawn parallel with another
to create a conception of it in our minds.
If there was any other way of conveying the truth of unseen things,
then Imam Razi and Zamakhshari would certainly have told us.
But there is no other way. This is the one and only way.
No other approach is found to do it at all.
We are bound to adopt this approach only.
Is this clear? Now see, these verses which are there,
are known to me too, and you know it as well.
Zamakhshari and Imam Razi were also aware of the meaning.
Their meaning is known to all of us.
But their visual evidence is not seen by any of us.
This is the case, isn't it?
So the Quran did not say that their meaning is not known to anyone but Allah.
Quran says that their referent is not known to anyone except Allah.
That is, no one knows other than Allah what paradise really is like.
Allah knows of course, He is looking at His paradise.
He can see the past as well as the future.
But Zamakhshari and Razi don't know what it is like.
Me and you are not aware of it either. We don't know.
So the paradise that Allah has created, or for that matter the Hell He has made,
or whichever unseen world He has created,
or when He talks of His own qualities and attributes,
or when He talks of His deeds. 'Nafakhtu fihi min ruhi.'
I infused from My own Spirit into him.
Allah is narrating an event. Now naturally we have not seen God,
nor do we know what His Spirit means.
Nor do we know what blowing it means.
But whatever occurred, was related somewhat to the blowing of the Spirit.
So those were the words taken from our language,
and Allah has communicated that event to us.
So all such verses are mutashaabih.
And these are not at all ambiguous in their subject matter and content.
They are absolutely clear. We can present their meaning and content.
We can debate about it, and we can determine it.
If this is clear, then there should be no problem understanding what I have written.
Is this clear, where the mistake originated?
The mistake arose in two places. The word 'mutashaabih' has one meaning
according to its conclusion in the Arabic language, which is still in use.
That meaning was taken. This is the first error.
The Muvallad meaning of 'taveel' became dominant in people's minds.
Muvallad latemeaning means that in the ancient times, that word did not have that meaning
but in the later eras the word developed a new meaning.
And it began to be used in that sense.
So like I had told you in the previous debate,
that there too, the mistake which has been made is
that the journey of the word, its reality and the reality of its meaning,
the reality of its style and its subject matter,
has been conflated with an event.
Whereas an event occurs in the past and then comes to an end.
Only its historical narration remains.
A word is born after centuries, and its journey continues.
And this journey, unless the word becomes obsolete, never ends.
A word's journey is always going on.
So a word is actually a continuous practice that is perpetually going on.
It is that which the vocabulary is conveying, which grammar is presenting.
Which rhetoric is explaining.
So the experts of these disciplines are not actually historians.
But rather, whatever exists, they are presenting it and thereby deducing from it
and are telling us what the word actually is.
So there too as I told you, the source of the mistake is that
the journey of the word along with its meaning is conflated as a historical event
But a word is not an event from the past.
Absolutely not. [Student] The word 'taveel'
has been used by people in this sense as well.
Even if it was not spoken in this sense in the time of the Prophet (pbuh).
[Ghamidi] I had said that this word in that era,
the dominant meaning of this word was that of its misdaaq.
In the Quran too, it has been used in that sense.
Its meaning as interpretation and translation came into use a lot later.
So now let us read this.
The answer to the third question is that it is not correct that
we cannot with certainty distinguish the muhkam verses of the Quran
from the mutashabih or that we are unable to determine the meaning of mutashabihaat.
So both of these assumptions are false.
We can determine which verses are mutashaabih.
Those verses are mutashaabih in which there is reference to an unseen world,
whether it is related to our past or our future.
Whether it is related to Allah's first creation, as per human history,
or whether it is related to whatever is going to happen on Judgement Day.
Whether it is related to Allah's own world where there are angels,
and we don't know what else resides there.
So it might be related to any of it.
The verses which talk of those world are mutashaabih.
All verses of the Quran on which its guidance is based are muhkam,
and mutashabih are only those verses which mention certain blessings and torments
one may encounter in the Hereafter, which are stated through parables or similes.
Or the attributes and actions of God, or the mention of something
which is beyond the grasp of our knowledge and observation
has been stated about one of His worlds in an allegorical manner.
So now it has been absolutely established and is known of certain
which verses are mutashaabih.
Either they are the blessings and torments of the Hereafter,
which Allah has to convey to us, about what blessings will be given there.
Or what punishments will be inflicted in Hell.
What would be its nature? Would it be with fire, a tree of Thuhar (Sehund),
there would be pus to drink, Allah says all this about Hereafter, right?
Same is the case with paradise.
Or the mention of the attributes and actions of God.
Naturally we have not seen Allah, and we are unfamiliar
with the nature of his attributes. Although we have some idea of them.
His actions are something we cannot see at all, we cannot observe them.
Allah has to convey them too, like I had given you the example,
when Allah says that I blew My Spirit into Adam.
This is His action. But I cannot show it to you, cannot make you observe it.
Or the mention of something which is beyond our knowledge and observation,
about one of His worlds.
So there is a world of Allah which is beyond our knowledge or observation.
and some element of it has been described in an allegorical way.
For instance, God blowing His spirit into Adam,
the birth of Jesus (AS) without a father,
or the various places and circumstances one may encounter in Paradise and Hell.
These are the things about which only this manner can be used to describe.
All things for which words have not yet been invented,
can only be stated through parables and similes.
This is the point which I have already explained to you.
Two hundred years ago, if a person had foreknowledge of electricity bulbs
when they had not been invented yet, he would perhaps have said,
lanterns which would neither require oil nor fire will one day light up the world.
This is how it would have been described right?
An unseen world which has now become observable.
Now we can see it and words have been created to describe it.
Now there is no difficulty faced in interpreting it.
But if two or three hundred years ago if one had to describe the electricity bulbs
which is an extraordinary thing. It's such a thing human beings have conquered
which has created a drastically new world.
If someone had wanted to convey this two centuries ago, how would he describe it?
He would have done it in these words right?
The nature of mutashaabih verses is no different.
Neither are they unascertainable nor is there any ambiguity in their meaning.
So they are ascertainable, we can tell which verses are mutashaabih
based on this principle which is there.
And nor is there any ambiguity in their meaning.
Their intention is absolutely clear, and there is no issue in understanding them.
Their words are that of an eloquent Arabic,
and we are able to understand their meaning without any difficulty.
So there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning.
The only thing is that we are not able to understand what they imply in this life.
This is the fact of the matter. That we are not meant to know what they imply.
However, since this lack of understanding has nothing to do
with understanding the Quran,
so a believer should not pursue the determination of what they imply.
So when we have understood that Allah's blessings will be given
in the form of Paradise, and this statement is absolutely muhkam,
and in that blessing is a great peace of mind and sight for us.
And all of our instinctive and natural desires will be fulfilled there.
And they will be fulfilled to the utmost extent, we have understood this.
But if a person decides to pursue that the Thuhar tree that will be there in Hell,
what would it really be like? Then Nadeem would become Hyder.
He would be right?
He was laughing so I referred to him.
So to pursue the question of something indeterminate ... what does it entail?
Streams might flow in the Paradise,
but to attempt to conceptualize an image of that stream.
And to argue and fight about it.
What is this? When it is clear that Allah's blessings will be given to us.
While explaining this, Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi writes,
'The reality to which the mutashaabihaat point is itself very clear and obvious.'
So the fundamental reality these revelations relate to
are rewards and punishments. About getting Allah's rewards or punishments
on the Judgment Day. So this is absolutely clear and obvious in the verses.
'The intellect can understand that part of it which is essential for it to understand
However, since it belongs to an unseen world,
the Quran mentions it through parables and similes
so that students of the Quran can understand it as per their capabilities
and consider that only God knows what their real form and shape is.'
So the correct attitude is that people should be grateful
for whatever knowledge Allah has given us about these things.
And instead of quibbling over the reality of those things,
we should leave it up to Allah. Whenever Allah will want to, He will lift the veil,
we will know the truth in the Hereafter.
'These relate to attributes and works of God
or to the reward and punishment of the Hereafter.
We are able to understand them to the extent we need to understand them,
and this increases our knowledge and certainty,
but if we go beyond this and start to seek their real form and shape,
then this will only lead us astray.'
If you open the doors to this kind of debate,
that the tree which will be there in Hell and the fire that would be burning,
then what would that tree be like which would not catch fire?
This creates an issue then, right? This example has been given in the Quran.
That the unbelievers brought up this debate that
look how irrational statements the believers are making.
They say that there would be fire in Hell and a Thuhar tree as well!
But if there would be fire there cannot be a tree surviving in it,
and if the tree is there, then there can't be a fire.
This is actually making a comparison of it with this world.
'But if we try to go beyond our limit and start to seek their real form and shape.'
See he doesn't say meaning or sense, he is talking of the real form and shape.
If we try to capture that, then that leads us astray and causes strife.
'The result of this is that while wanting to remove one thorn of doubt from the mind
a person ends up getting pricked by many more.
So much so, that in this quest to know more he loses what he had gained.'
So the situation becomes such that when one had gone to discover something unknown
when he came back he had lost even himself.
In the words of Ghalib, he even lost himself in the fruitless search.
This is what happens.
'And refutes very clear facts just because he is not able to ascertain
their form and shape.' So something was very clear,
but he negated it only because he could not understand
what the Thuhar tree would be like.
Or what would the stream of Paradise look like?
Or how would honey flow in the rivers?
[Student] But reading these Surahs seems as if
it is necessary for one to have faith first.
So if one wants to understand mutashaabih verses, one would have to have faith first
only then can one reach a conclusion in this debate.
[Ghamidi] No, one can easily understand them.
If it is clear to a person based on rational arguments,
that the Hereafter should exist. Now Allah has presented a picture for us
of the Hereafter. No rational person would have difficulty in understanding this.
There is no need for one to have faith in it first.
It is comprehensible for all, that there would be streams there,
and so and so blessings would be there.
This can be understood. As for faith, that has to be accepted about Paradise.
One would need to have faith about rewards and punishments.
The subject of faith and belief is not that stream which would be flowing there.
The concern for a believer is simply that there would be a reward and punishment.
This is a very rational point, and it can be understood by every person in the world
that this is how it should be. But when you have accepted it,
based on your intellect and reason that there would be a Judgment Day,
then what would be the debate about the particular details of it?
There is no difficulty in even understanding the particulars,
but only its referent is not before us. That is the only thing.
[Ghamidi] So it means that this meaning which we have just used,
what is that entity for which they stand true?
'Degcha' for instance, what is that thing for which its meaning stands?
That pot which is lying in the kitchen in your house.
[Student] So can we convey it in some other words then?
[Ghamidi] Yes you absolutely can convey it in some other words,
to communicate what the reality of that thing is.
Is the time up? [Student] We have two minutes left.
[Ghamidi] So we cannot read the next paragraph right now in two minutes.
[Student] Are the angels and Iblees (Satan) also mutashaabih?
[Ghamidi] Naturally we have not seen Iblees ourselves.
If someone has met him then I cannot speak for that person.
No that is a separate debate, what he is or is not.
We have not seen Iblees, we do not know who Iblees is, or what Djinns are.
Allah has only informed us about them
and has explained it to us in the only possible way.
Anything more than this is simply not possible for us to have observed.
When we have not seen something ourselves,
although if in case it happens that a Djinn appears before us,
then alright, we can see them.
Even right now what is the case?
There was a concept of Djinns created within the minds of human beings.
And they interpreted that concept with a word of their language, 'djinn',
which basically means concealed or hidden.
You see there is no referent conveyed even within the word itself.
A concept has been given a word, but if you go into the meaning of that word,
then even there you will find no testimony of the thing itself.
It simply means concealed.
It means such a creature which is hidden.
Because human beings have never seen a Djinn,
therefore they can only ascribe the word for 'concealed' to that concept.
Otherwise they would have at least used a word in which
there would be a reference or comparison to some thing or another.
For instance, if he had to use a word for it,
he might have used human beings as a reference, or maybe an animal,
and then would have created a word similar to it.
But he had to create a word for a concept, so he said 'djinn',
that which cannot be seen.
What happened here?
We know the meaning of Djinn, but we do not know its evidence.
[Student] You mentioned that the meaning of 'mutashaabih' is
those verses whose meaning is known but evidence is not known.
So the Huruf-e Muqattaat (disjoined letters) which we see in Quran,
how would we know their meanings?
[Ghamidi] Huruf-e Muqattaat is a topic of the Quran,
InshaAllah when I teach you about it, I will explain it all,
its meaning is also absolutely clear and determined.
Alright, so we are now left with a bit more of this topic.
After this we will begin with the next debate on Friday InshaAllah.