Likewise, if “that Book” is explained as “this Quran,” this is only an approximation. Although the referent is the same, pointing to something as present differs from pointing to it as distant and absent. The word “Book” conveys its being written and gathered together, whereas “Quran” conveys its being recited, made manifest, and brought into the open. Such distinctions are found in the Quran.

Thus, when one of the early scholars explains “to be given over” as “to be confined,” while another says “to be held in pledge,” or gives a similar explanation, this is not a contradictory disagreement. Someone confined may or may not be held in pledge, but these explanations merely approximate the meaning, as discussed above. Collecting the explanations of the early generations in such cases is extremely beneficial: taken together, their expressions convey the intended meaning more fully than one or two expressions alone. Nevertheless, genuine disagreement does occur among them, just as it does concerning legal rulings.

We know that most of what people at large need to know concerning disputed matters is well established—indeed, transmitted so widely as to yield certainty among laypeople or scholars. Examples include the number of prayers, the number of bowings in them, their times, the obligatory zakat dues and their thresholds, the identification of the month of Ramadan, circumambulation, standing at Arafat, stoning the pillars, the prescribed times and places, and other such matters.

The Companions’ disagreement concerning inheritance involving a grandfather and siblings, the case known as al-musharraka, and similar questions does not cast doubt on the great majority of inheritance rulings. Rather, what people generally need concerns the direct line of descent—parents and children—collateral relatives, namely brothers and sisters, and their womenfolk, such as wives. For Allah revealed three detailed verses concerning inheritance.