Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/182)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and the legal, linguistic, and customary denotations of “egg” are likewise the same. “Land” also has a single denotation, and there are many similar examples. Thus, there are words regarding which the Sacred Law, customary usage, and language do not differ; in such cases the matter is clear. When one swears an oath, the word is understood according to its denotation, which is not subject to difference. But when they do differ, do we give precedence to the legal denotation, the customary denotation, or the linguistic denotation? This will come in the author’s discussion.

“The legal [denotation] is that which has an established meaning in the Sacred Law and an established meaning in the language, …”

His statement, “The legal [denotation] is that which has an established meaning in the Sacred Law and an established meaning in the language,” means: that which has a denotation in the Sacred Law and a denotation in the language. It is as though the author is saying: the legal [denotation] concerns that in which the linguistic and legal meanings differ, such as sale, purification, prayer, zakah, pilgrimage, fasting, endowment, and many other matters. In these, the Sacred Law and the language differ. Hence, we say: purification means such-and-such linguistically and such-and-such legally; prayer means such-and-such linguistically and such-and-such legally; zakah means such-and-such linguistically and such-and-such legally; pilgrimage means such-and-such linguistically and such-and-such legally; and sale means such-and-such linguistically and such-and-such legally.

As for these matters in which the Sacred Law and language differ, since we are believers, our speech is understood according to the legal meaning when stated without qualification—that is, if there is no contextual indication and no intention, it is understood according to the legal meaning. Thus, if someone says, “By Allah, I will certainly pray before the call to the night prayer,” then raises his hands to the sky and supplicates until the call to the night prayer is made, and we say to him, “Man, why did you not pray?” He replies, “I did pray.” In this case, if he had no intention and no contextual indication, then he has broken his oath, because his words are understood according to the legal meaning. It is true that prayer linguistically means supplication, but as Muslims, our speech is understood according to the legal sense.

والبيضة مدلولها الشرعي، واللغوي، والعرفي واحد، والأرض لها مدلول واحد، وأمثال هذا كثير، فهناك كلمات لا يختلف فيها الشرع، والعرف، واللغة، وهذه الأمر فيها واضح، فإذا حلف تحمل الكلمة على مدلولها وهو لا يختلف، ولكن إذا اختلف، فهل نقدم الشرعي، أو العرفي، أو اللغوي؟ سيأتي في كلام المؤلف. فالشَّرْعِيُّ مَا لَهُ مَوْضُوعٌ فِي الشَّرْعِ، وَمَوْضُوعٌ فِي اللُّغَةِ، .............. قوله: «فالشرعي ما له موضوعٌ في الشرع وموضوع في اللغة» أي: ما له مدلول في الشرع، ومدلول في اللغة، فكأن المؤلف يقول: الشرعي ما اختلفت فيه اللغة والشرع، مثل البيع، والطهارة، والصلاة، والزكاة، والحج، والصيام، والوقف، وأشياء كثيرة، هذه يختلف فيها الشرع واللغة، ولهذا نقول: الطهارة لغة كذا، وشرعاً كذا، الصلاة لغة كذا، وشرعاً كذا، الزكاة لغة كذا، وشرعاً كذا، الحج لغة كذا، وشرعاً كذا، البيع لغة كذا، وشرعاً كذا، فهذه الأشياء التي اختلف فيها الشرع واللغة، ما دمنا مؤمنين فإن كلامنا يحمل على المعنى الشرعي عند إطلاقه، أي إن كان لا يوجد سبب ولا نية فهو يحمل على المعنى الشرعي، فإذا قال قائل: والله لأصلينَّ قبل أذان العشاء، ثم مدّ يديه إلى السماء وجعل يدعو حتى أذن العشاء، فقلنا له: يا رجل، لماذا لم تصلِّ؟ قال: أنا صليت، فهنا إن كان ليس له نية ولا سبب، فإنه يحنث؛ لأن كلامه يحمل على المعنى الشرعي، صحيح أن الصلاة في اللغة الدعاء، لكن نحن المسلمين يحمل كلامنا على الأمر الشرعي.