Marife Turkish Journal of Religious Studies

Abstract

Islamic Law is a legal system based on the Qur'an and Sunnah as its primary sources. In order to interpret these sources, it is essential to determine the meanings attributed to the words that constitute these texts. Therefore, Islamic legal methodology includes special sections on the analysis of words. Specifically, in the Hanafī procedural tradition, issues related to wording are addressed under broad headings and more systematically than in other schools. When examining these classifications made by the Hanafis regarding the words, it is evident that they reflect the process from the assignment of meaning to the word to the derivation of the ruling from a nominal point of view. In this context, the first division concerns the allocation of meaning to the word (wāḍʿ). The second division addresses whether the meaning attributed to the word is clear or ambiguous (wuzūh-hafā). The third division examines whether the word is used with the meaning assigned to it (istiʿmāl), and the fourth concerns the conclusion of the meaning attributed to the word with the ruling (dalālah). However, al-Sadr al-Sharī'a argued that the division of words in terms of istiʿmāl should be presented before the words in terms of wuzūh-hafā, and this issue is evaluated in the article. The classifications made from the nominal point of view regarding the words are divided into four parts. The article discusses the nature of the perspective determined in each classification and evaluates the compatibility of the subcategories with the relevant perspective. In this respect, the division of words into four categories as hās, ʿām, mushtarak, and muawwal from the early periods continued until the 8th century AH. During this period, al-Sadr al-Sharī'a explicitly stated that the inclusion of muawwal in the classification in terms of wadʿ is not in accordance with the nominal point of view and replaced it with jam‘ al-munakkar. As a justification for this objection, he mentioned that the division of words based on wāḍʿ is the allocation of the word to meaning, that is, the wāḍiʿ's association of meaning with the word. In the case of the type of wording called muawwal, he stated that it is not the wāḍiʿī but the mujtahid’s interpretation. The responses given to these objections by the methodologists who adopted the relevant division are discussed, and the issue of whether or not muawwal is included in the wording in terms of wadʿ has been concluded. Additionally, the approaches to jamʿ munakkar are evaluated in this context. Another area where there is a different approach among jurists regarding the division of words is the types of words in terms of their usage (istiʿmāl). In Hanafī jurisprudence, these types of words are generally divided into four categories: literal, metaphorical, sariḥ, and kināyah. When classifying the words in terms of istiʿmāl, the use of the first meaning of the word by the speaker expresses haqiqah, while the transfer of the word to another meaning by establishing a relationship with the first meaning expresses majaz. In other words, if the use of the word in its first meaning or in a figurative sense is understood by the addressee at the first moment, this is expressed by the concept of sariḥ, while if the understanding of the speaker's intention requires explanation or presumptions, this is called kināyah. Although these types of words are considered to be related to each other, as mentioned, it is stated that there should be certain differences between the types that are related. Therefore, the definitions of sariḥ and kināyah indicate that these two concepts are types of literal and figurative speech. Consequently, the objections and arguments regarding the division of words in terms of istiʿmāl constitute another problematic aspect of the article. Within the framework of these issues, the study first presents the general approaches to wording in the Hanafī procedural tradition and then analyzes the types of wording in terms of wadʿ, including mushtarak-muawwal and sariḥ-kināyah, and the types of wording in terms of istiʿmāl, which constitute the problematic aspect, in line with general acceptance. As a result, different approaches to the types of muawwal, jam‘ munakkar, sariḥ, and kināyah are evaluated, and suggestions are presented on how these types of words should be categorized within the relevant divisions.