The Second Rule: If a word is capable of two meanings that do not contradict each other, it is to be understood as applying to both, unless there is a factor that gives preference to one of them.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: If a word is capable of two meanings, it is to be understood as applying to both, unless one of them is supported by evidence.
The Shaykh : And the word was capable of all of them. Good. Well done.
If a word is capable of both meanings and they do not contradict each other, it is to be understood as applying to both, except when evidence gives preference to one of the two possibilities, in which case that evidence is followed.
Who will give an example? Good. Please go ahead.
The student: Seclusion from women.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: Tightening the waist sash.
The Shaykh : Tightening the waist sash. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when he entered the last ten nights, would tighten his waist sash.
What are the two meanings?
The student: Secluding oneself from women, or exerting oneself in obedience.
The Shaykh : Good, secluding oneself from women, or?
The student: Exerting oneself in obedience.
The Shaykh : We said: Is it possible for the word to be understood as applying to both meanings? Who will answer?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would exert himself in the last ten nights in a way he did not in other times, and because he would seclude himself from women because he was in i'tikaf, and one in i'tikaf is prohibited from having intercourse with women. Good. Rest now.
Is there an example for when one of the two possibilities is given preference by another piece of evidence? If one of the two possibilities is given preference by another piece of evidence, where is the example? Did we not mention it yesterday?
Good, we can give as an example his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) in the hadith of 'Amr ibn Huzaym:, for the word "pure" is capable of being a euphemism for the believer, and it is also possible that it means pure from ritual impurity. So which of the two possibilities is given preference by evidence?
We say: Pure from ritual impurity is the stronger position, because the custom in the language of the Lawgiver is not to refer to the believer as "pure"; rather, he refers to the believer by faith, by taqwa, meaning that he is a believer, that he is one who has taqwa, that he is a Muslim, and the like.
And "pure" came in the Qur'an intended to mean purity from ritual impurity, as Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Ma'idah 5:6].
Good, there is also a third rule that we mentioned.
The Shaykh : And the word was capable of all of them. Good. Well done.
If a word is capable of both meanings and they do not contradict each other, it is to be understood as applying to both, except when evidence gives preference to one of the two possibilities, in which case that evidence is followed.
Who will give an example? Good. Please go ahead.
The student: Seclusion from women.
The Shaykh : No.
The student: Tightening the waist sash.
The Shaykh : Tightening the waist sash. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when he entered the last ten nights, would tighten his waist sash.
What are the two meanings?
The student: Secluding oneself from women, or exerting oneself in obedience.
The Shaykh : Good, secluding oneself from women, or?
The student: Exerting oneself in obedience.
The Shaykh : We said: Is it possible for the word to be understood as applying to both meanings? Who will answer?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would exert himself in the last ten nights in a way he did not in other times, and because he would seclude himself from women because he was in i'tikaf, and one in i'tikaf is prohibited from having intercourse with women. Good. Rest now.
Is there an example for when one of the two possibilities is given preference by another piece of evidence? If one of the two possibilities is given preference by another piece of evidence, where is the example? Did we not mention it yesterday?
Good, we can give as an example his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) in the hadith of 'Amr ibn Huzaym:
No one may touch the Qur'an except one who is in a state of ritual purity.
ألا يمس القرآن إلا طاهرWe say: Pure from ritual impurity is the stronger position, because the custom in the language of the Lawgiver is not to refer to the believer as "pure"; rather, he refers to the believer by faith, by taqwa, meaning that he is a believer, that he is one who has taqwa, that he is a Muslim, and the like.
And "pure" came in the Qur'an intended to mean purity from ritual impurity, as Allah the Exalted said:
O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.
يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا قمتم إلى الصلاة فاغسلوا وجوهكم - إلى قوله- ولكن يريد ليطهركم وليتم نعمته عليكم لعلكم تشكرونGood, there is also a third rule that we mentioned.