Section

The third approach: The word “near” in the verse is an instance of omitting the head noun of a genitive construction and putting its complement in its place, while still taking the omitted noun into account. It is as though He said, “Indeed, the place of mercy is near those who do good,” then omitted “place” and assigned its grammatical case and masculine gender to “mercy.” An example is Hassān’s verse:

They give those who come to them at al-Barīs
Baradā water mingled with smooth, pure wine.

He used yusaffaq (“is mingled”), with the masculine prefix yā’, although Baradā is feminine, because he meant “the water of Baradā.” Another example is the Prophet’s statement—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—when he held gold and silk in his hands and said:

“These two are forbidden for the males of my community.”

He used harām (“forbidden”) in the singular, although the subject is dual, as though he had said, “Using these two is forbidden.”

This approach is very weak, because one cannot claim without restriction that a head noun has been omitted and its complement put in its place. Otherwise, speech would become ambiguous, mutual understanding would break down, and textual proofs would lose their force. For any expression conveying a command, prohibition, or statement about something commanded, prohibited, or reported could, on this basis, be supplied with an implied head noun that removes that thing from the scope of the command, prohibition, or statement. Thus, a heretic could say that His words, “Pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to Allah by people,” mean knowledge of pilgrimage to the House; and that “Fasting has been prescribed for you” means knowledge of fasting. If this door were opened, communication would be corrupted and textual proofs rendered ineffective.

An omitted head noun is understood only where it is necessarily indicated and the wording cannot make sense without supplying it. For example, when someone says, “I ate the sheep,” what is understood is, “I ate its meat,” so omitting the head noun causes no ambiguity. Likewise, if you say, “So-and-so ate the toil of so-and-so,” meaning that he consumed his wealth, what is understood is that he consumed the fruit of his toil. Omitting the head noun here causes no ambiguity. There are many similar examples.

“Ask the village” is not an instance of this, although most scholars of legal theory cite it as an example. The word qarya (“village”) denotes inhabitants living together in a settlement; it thus applies to the two together. Similarly, ka’s denotes a cup containing drink, dhanūb a bucket full of water, and khiwān a table with food upon it, and there are other comparable examples.