Explanation of the author's statement: " . . . . And the truth is that it is a type of mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), because the one who established the language assigned this term to the shared measure
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : For this reason, the author, the Shaykh al-Islam, said: "And the truth is that it is a type of mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning)", meaning this type of terms. The Shaykh al-Islam said that the truth is that it is a type of mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning). He said that, may Allah have mercy on him, for a great benefit. Because if we classified it as mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings), we would need evidence to specify one of the meanings, and then a person would fall into difficulty. But if we say it is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), we have not departed from the original meaning; we have not departed from the original meaning. For this reason, he says: "The truth is that it is a type of mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), because the one who established the language assigned this term to the shared measure". Correct. The word, in its original linguistic assignment, was assigned to the shared meaning that encompasses everything this root implies. So when the one who established the language said "ma'a" (with), he intended companionship and comparison, but he knows that it differs according to the additions. So the original assignment is that it is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning). But with this, he says: "Since it is a specific type of mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), there is no harm in specifying it with a term". And what is the term by which it was specified? Mushakkik (a term of ambiguity). The Shaykh al-Islam says there is no obstacle to saying, instead of saying that terms are only mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning) and mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings), that this is mushakkik (a term of ambiguity), because it is a specific type of mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning). And there is no doubt that what the Shaykh al-Islam held is the truth, because for mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings) terms, you do not find a unifying meaning between their meanings. The seeing eye, the eye of the spring, the eye of the coin— is there a unifying root that gathers them? Absolutely not. There is nothing in them but the word. But there is no connection between the eye that sees, the eye that springs forth, and the eye that is coined. But with "ma'a" (with), no matter how you look at its meanings, you find a unifying root, which is comparison and companionship, even if this comparison and companionship differ according to the meaning or according to the circumstances and context. And based on this, we say that the correct view is that the term "mu'ayyah" (companionship), regardless of whether it is the companionship of Allah, is of the terms: what? Mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning). But since it is a specific type of mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), there is no harm in calling it mushakkik (a term of ambiguity), considering that the listener or the one reflecting on its meaning is perplexed as to whether it is from the mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings) terms or from the mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning) terms. Did you understand now? Good, hmm?
The questioner : I have a question, O Shaykh. I want an example of ...
The Shaykh : It is the same as this word "mu'ayyah" (companionship), which is the subject of this research. This is the example. Now, when we say "water with milk" and we say "so-and-so or the prince with his soldiers," is there a difference between them or not? The prince with his soldiers is known not to have mixed with them; rather, he is distinct from them, and he may not even be in their place. But "water with milk" implies why? Mixing. Do you now say that "ma'a" (with) is from the mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings) because it indicated a meaning that differs from the other meaning? Good. Do you say it is from the mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning)? When is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning)? The word "insan" (human), the word "insan" (human)— this is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning). The word "insan" (human) is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning) because it includes every human with the other on an equal footing, or not? Good. If that is the case, then we say: do you classify "mu'ayyah" (companionship) as mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings)? Do you classify it as mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning)? You do not classify it as mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), because the reality of the matter is that its meanings did not agree. But the Shaykh al-Islam says: "The correct view is that it is from the mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning) because it shared in the original meaning, which is comparison and companionship", but it differed according to the additions. This difference according to the additions does not mean a difference in the original meaning. Pay attention. But the Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Since its meanings, since its meanings differ according to the contexts and circumstances of situations, there is no obstacle to creating a new name for it, which is mushakkik (a term of ambiguity)". So what is the evidence for that from the Qur'an, O Salem?
The questioner : I have a question, O Shaykh. I want an example of ...
The Shaykh : It is the same as this word "mu'ayyah" (companionship), which is the subject of this research. This is the example. Now, when we say "water with milk" and we say "so-and-so or the prince with his soldiers," is there a difference between them or not? The prince with his soldiers is known not to have mixed with them; rather, he is distinct from them, and he may not even be in their place. But "water with milk" implies why? Mixing. Do you now say that "ma'a" (with) is from the mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings) because it indicated a meaning that differs from the other meaning? Good. Do you say it is from the mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning)? When is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning)? The word "insan" (human), the word "insan" (human)— this is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning). The word "insan" (human) is mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning) because it includes every human with the other on an equal footing, or not? Good. If that is the case, then we say: do you classify "mu'ayyah" (companionship) as mushtarak (a term with multiple distinct meanings)? Do you classify it as mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning)? You do not classify it as mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning), because the reality of the matter is that its meanings did not agree. But the Shaykh al-Islam says: "The correct view is that it is from the mutawati' (a term with a common core meaning) because it shared in the original meaning, which is comparison and companionship", but it differed according to the additions. This difference according to the additions does not mean a difference in the original meaning. Pay attention. But the Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Since its meanings, since its meanings differ according to the contexts and circumstances of situations, there is no obstacle to creating a new name for it, which is mushakkik (a term of ambiguity)". So what is the evidence for that from the Qur'an, O Salem?