his companion. The pronoun “of them” (minhum) in the author’s wording goes back to the Companions—and, more broadly, to the early generations as a whole, thus including both the Companions and the Followers. Each scholar may phrase the intended meaning in language different from that of his colleague; his wording highlights a facet of the referent other than the facet stressed by the other expression, while the referent itself is one and the same. They therefore agree on the point at issue, though each states it in wording unlike the first; in reality, then, they are in complete accord. It is like someone defining a sword who says, “It is the muhandad (a well-tempered blade),” the second who says, “A sword is the sārim (keen cutter),” and a third who says, “A sword is that with which necks are severed,” and the like. In truth, this is not a disagreement at all.

Likewise, if someone were to say, “al-ghadanfar means lion,” another, “al-ghadanfar means qaswara,” and a third, “al-ghadanfar means layth,” and so forth, this would be neither disagreement nor even a legitimate variety; each word conveys a nuance absent from the others, while the referent is one.

This is what the author intends by the statement: “each of them expresses the intended meaning in wording different from his companion’s—wording that points to a meaning within the referent other than the meaning indicated by the other wording, while the referent remains the same.”

The author then adds that such instances are like “equivalent names” that lie between pure synonyms and wholly divergent terms. The phrase “equivalent” here is problematic unless the author—may Allah have mercy on him—had another intention. For synonymous names are those that denote a single meaning, whereas divergent names denote two separate meanings. Thus these names, inasmuch as they all point to the same referent, are synonymous; yet, inasmuch as each conveys a distinct nuance peculiar to that particular word, they are divergent.