Then he said: "The term of companionship has been used in the Book and the Sunnah in various places: it implies in each place matters that it does not imply in another place.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"It is said: So either its indication differs according to the places, or it indicates a common degree among all its occurrences, even if each place is distinguished by a specific characteristic" This means that Shaykh al-Islam is saying that either its indication differs according to the places, in which case it falls under the category of the shared term (mushtarak), meaning that if a word indicates two or more meanings with no preference for one over the other, it is called a shared term. They gave the word "eye" as an example. The word "eye" is used in the real sense for the seeing eye, for the spring of water which is called an eye, and for currency which is called an eye. From this is the saying of the poet: "..." What do we call this? We call it a shared term. From this is the word "qur'" (period), which is a shared term between what? Menstruation and purity. This is why the scholars differed regarding the saying of Allah the Exalted: Is the intended meaning three periods of purity or three periods of menstruation? The important point is that the shared term is that which indicates two meanings equally, meaning it is said truly of this and that. This is called a shared term. Its opposite is the synonymous term (mutaradif). Synonymous terms are multiple words with one meaning, such as "insan" (human) and "bashar" (mankind), or "quwmah" (wheat) and "bar" (wheat). And there are examples of this. So Shaykh al-Islam is asking: Do we make companionship such that its indication differs according to the places, meaning it is from the category of the shared term? Or do we say that it indicates a common degree among all its occurrences, even if each place is distinguished by a specific characteristic? This is called "mushakkak" (ambiguous) because, although it agrees in one original meaning, it differs in the distinctiveness of each one from the other. If we look at this distinctiveness, we say it is from the differing words. If we look at the common degree, we say it is from the shared words. For this reason, the scholars call it "mushakkak" because it causes the listener or speaker to be in doubt about whether it is from the shared or from the differing. Is this clear? Is it not clear?
The student: It is not clear.
The Shaykh : First, what is the shared term? It is the word that indicates two independent meanings equally. Its example is the word "eye." The word "eye" is applied to the seeing eye, the spring of water, and the currency. It is applied to all of these with the shared meaning. And what specifies one of the meanings is the context. So you say, for example, "I bought... yes, I sold for cash," meaning a seeing eye? Yes, not a spring of water. It is possible, but which is closer, a spring of water or currency? The second one.
If the word indicates two differing meanings and the word is multiple like the meaning, what do we call this? If the word is multiple and the meaning is multiple, we call it differing, like "human" and "stone," "camel" and "horse." These are differing. We come to companionship and its like among words. If we look at the original shared meaning, which is accompaniment, companionship in every place indicates accompaniment, but it is distinguished according to the occurrences. If I say "water with milk," this is accompaniment. If I say "the woman with her husband," this is accompaniment, is it not? They share in the original accompaniment, but the accompaniment of water with milk differs from the accompaniment of a man with his wife. Do we say that with this difference it became from the differing words? Wait, or do we say we return to the original meaning, which is accompaniment, so it is from the words that are what? Shared. They gave it a name fitting for it, which is "mushakkakah" (ambiguous), meaning that a person doubts whether it is from the shared category or from the differing category. We come to companionship, for example. If we say "water with milk," this has a clear meaning of mixing. If we say "the commander came with his soldiers," this has another meaning that differs from the first. Do you make it differing, making companionship a word that indicates differing things? Or do you say it is originally shared in what? In accompaniment, but each one is distinguished by its accompaniment from the other. The reality is that the second is closer. This is the closer one. But with that, since the matter differs between the original and the attribute, they called it "mushakkakah." And there is no dispute in terminology.
Now, companionship, say it is a word and its meaning differs according to what it is added to or according to the context. Fine. He says: "On both assumptions, its implication is not that the Essence of the Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is mixed with creation, such that it is said: it has been diverted from its apparent meaning" Who are those who said that you diverted it from its apparent meaning? This is from the examples, my brothers, of the people of denial (ta'til). They said, "You who claim that you take the apparent meaning, you have diverted the meaning of companionship, because the meaning of companionship for them, which they want to impose on us, is mixing." It is said, "This is not necessary. Companhip, even if it implies mixing in some contexts, this is not necessary to the extent that you impose it on us."
Three quru'
ثلاثة قروءThe student: It is not clear.
The Shaykh : First, what is the shared term? It is the word that indicates two independent meanings equally. Its example is the word "eye." The word "eye" is applied to the seeing eye, the spring of water, and the currency. It is applied to all of these with the shared meaning. And what specifies one of the meanings is the context. So you say, for example, "I bought... yes, I sold for cash," meaning a seeing eye? Yes, not a spring of water. It is possible, but which is closer, a spring of water or currency? The second one.
If the word indicates two differing meanings and the word is multiple like the meaning, what do we call this? If the word is multiple and the meaning is multiple, we call it differing, like "human" and "stone," "camel" and "horse." These are differing. We come to companionship and its like among words. If we look at the original shared meaning, which is accompaniment, companionship in every place indicates accompaniment, but it is distinguished according to the occurrences. If I say "water with milk," this is accompaniment. If I say "the woman with her husband," this is accompaniment, is it not? They share in the original accompaniment, but the accompaniment of water with milk differs from the accompaniment of a man with his wife. Do we say that with this difference it became from the differing words? Wait, or do we say we return to the original meaning, which is accompaniment, so it is from the words that are what? Shared. They gave it a name fitting for it, which is "mushakkakah" (ambiguous), meaning that a person doubts whether it is from the shared category or from the differing category. We come to companionship, for example. If we say "water with milk," this has a clear meaning of mixing. If we say "the commander came with his soldiers," this has another meaning that differs from the first. Do you make it differing, making companionship a word that indicates differing things? Or do you say it is originally shared in what? In accompaniment, but each one is distinguished by its accompaniment from the other. The reality is that the second is closer. This is the closer one. But with that, since the matter differs between the original and the attribute, they called it "mushakkakah." And there is no dispute in terminology.
Now, companionship, say it is a word and its meaning differs according to what it is added to or according to the context. Fine. He says: "On both assumptions, its implication is not that the Essence of the Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is mixed with creation, such that it is said: it has been diverted from its apparent meaning" Who are those who said that you diverted it from its apparent meaning? This is from the examples, my brothers, of the people of denial (ta'til). They said, "You who claim that you take the apparent meaning, you have diverted the meaning of companionship, because the meaning of companionship for them, which they want to impose on us, is mixing." It is said, "This is not necessary. Companhip, even if it implies mixing in some contexts, this is not necessary to the extent that you impose it on us."