As for the operative meanings that reach the legally accountable through these verbal avenues, they are, in sum, three: a command to do something, a prohibition of it, or a choice concerning it.
When a command is understood to be binding and punishment is attached to neglecting it, it is called obligatory (wājib). If reward is understood for performing it while no punishment is incurred for leaving it, it is called recommended (mandūb). Likewise, when a prohibition is understood to be decisive and punishment is linked to committing the act, it is termed forbidden (muḥarram) or unlawful (maḥẓūr); but if it merely urges avoidance without attaching punishment, it is termed disliked (makrūh).
Accordingly, the legal rulings derived from these avenues fall into five categories: obligatory, recommended, forbidden, disliked, and optional—namely, permissible (mubāḥ).
The generic causes of disagreement are six:
-
The fluctuation of wording among four modes: a term may be general though a specific meaning is intended, specific though a general meaning is intended, general with a general meaning intended, or specific with a specific meaning intended; and whether or not it carries an a contrario implication (dalīl al-khiṭāb).
-
Homonymy in expressions. This may occur in a single word—such as quruʾ, which can denote either periods of purity or menstruation—or in the words “command” (does it indicate obligation or recommendation?) and “prohibition” (does it indicate forbiddance or mere disapproval?). It may also arise in a compound phrase, as in His saying, “except those who repent” (Q 2:160), which may be taken to refer only to the immoral person (fāsiq) or to both the immoral person and the witness, in which case repentance removes moral turpitude and renders the slanderer’s testimony acceptable.
-
Differences in grammatical inflection (iʿrāb).
-
Oscillation between construing a term literally or figuratively, the latter including ellipsis, addition, inversion by advancing or delaying elements, or the shift between literal meaning and metaphor.
-
A term being unqualified in one context and restricted in another, as when “a slave” (raqabah) is mentioned unqualified in the rulings on emancipation at times and qualified by “believing” at others.
-
Conflicts between two pieces of evidence—whether textual, actionable, or based on tacit approval—or between analogical arguments themselves, as well as conflicts arising from any combination of these, such as a statement opposing an action, a tacit approval, or an analogy; an action opposing a tacit approval or an analogy; or a tacit approval opposing an analogy.
The Qāḍī—may Allah be pleased with him—said: Having offered this overview, let us proceed to our intended task, seeking the help of Allah, and begin, in the customary manner, with the Book of Purification.