for the majority of Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, and Ḥanbalī jurists—as well as many theologians—permit that reading. Alternatively, the wording may be univocal (mutawāṭiʾ) and is therefore taken in its full general sense unless there is some indicator restricting it. Whenever both interpretations are equally sound, the matter belongs to the second type.

Explanation

The author—may Allah have mercy on him—says that one area of disagreement among scholars concerns passages whose wording can plausibly convey two different meanings. He explains that this can occur in one of two ways:

1. The term is homonymous, such as ʿayn, which may mean “eye,” “spring,” “coin,” and so forth.

2. The term is in essence univocal but is intended for only one of two classes or one of two particular things. A univocal term is one whose wording fully matches its meaning, like “human being,” “stone,” “sun,” or “moon.” We call such a term mutawāṭiʾ because the word coincides with the meaning—they correspond. The author notes that, on occasion, a univocal term with two subclasses may be meant for only one of them. In reality this is very rare, though it does occur, and determining which subclass is intended depends on the context.

Consider, for example, the preposition maʿa (“with”) in Arabic. It is univocal in that it always denotes accompanying or association, yet the nature of that association changes according to what follows it. If one says “water with milk,” the meaning is that the two are intermixed. If one says “the wife with her husband,” it indicates that the marriage bond between them remains in effect. If one says “the officer with the soldiers,” it means he oversees them; he need not accompany them physically but rather supervises and attends to them. Thus, the word maʿa retains a single core meaning—companionship—while the specific type of companionship varies according to the term to which it is attached.