a single verb. He says:

“Indeed, Allah and His angels bestow blessings upon the Prophet.” [33:56]

These blessings cannot mean mercy. Rather, they are His praise—glorified is He—and His angels’ praise of the Prophet.

It cannot be argued that “blessings” is a homonymous term that may be used in both its meanings simultaneously, for this entails several difficulties.

First, homonymy is contrary to the default rule. Indeed, it is not known to have arisen in language through a single person assigning different meanings to the same word, as linguistic authorities, including al-Mubarrad and others, have expressly stated. Rather, it arises incidentally and coincidentally because different people assign meanings to words. Their usages then intermingle, giving rise to homonymy.

Second, most scholars do not permit a homonymous word to be used in both its meanings simultaneously, whether literally or figuratively. The reported attribution to al-Shāfi‘ī of permitting this is incorrect. It was merely inferred from his statement: “If someone makes a bequest to his mawālī, and has both former masters and freed slaves, it encompasses them all.” Some assumed that the word mawlā had two distinct meanings and that, when used without qualification, it was understood to encompass both. This is incorrect, for mawlā is a univocal term: its instances share a common meaning. Thus, al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad—the latter according to the apparent position of his school—hold that both categories of mawālī fall within this word. In al-Shāfi‘ī’s view, it is a general, univocal term, not a homonymous one.

As for the report that, during a discussion concerning Allah’s words,

“Or you have touched women” [5:6],

al-Shāfi‘ī was told, “Touching may also mean intercourse,” and replied, “It is understood to mean touching with the hand literally, and sexual intercourse figuratively”—this is not authentically reported from al-Shāfi‘ī, nor does it resemble his customary manner of expression. Rather, these are the words of some later jurists. We have presented more than ten arguments refuting the simultaneous use of a homonymous word in both its meanings in the discussion of the term qur’ in al-Ta‘līq ‘alā al-Ahkām (Commentary on Legal Rulings).