MEEZAN - Preamble - Part 30 - Principles of Understanding Quran - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

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.