The following is a translation from Arabic.
Question:
Is there a difference between the divine fact (al-haqeeqah) and the divine meaning?
We have confusion in the matter, as one of the members said in a monthly circle:
The divine fact transfers the linguistic meaning to a new meaning different from the origin, such as the word of prayer (salah).
As for the divine meaning: it uses the same linguistic meaning, and adds to it a regulator or a constraint, such as the word of (qiblah). Is this true?
If there is a difference, I request your elaboration due to the following:
a - It was mentioned in the Economic System, page 205, under the subject of extravagance (israaf) and waste (tabdheer) "Its meaning is spending the money in the prohibited matters," where a member said this is a divine meaning rather than a divine fact.
b - It came in the book of Tayseer on the situations of interpretation (tafseer) page 190 at the interpretation of "What turned them away from their qiblah", the verse. It said regarding the interpretation of "their qiblah" that the qiblah is on the form of 'fi'lah' that comes from 'muqaabalah', ie (meeting face to face), like the word "wijhah" that comes from "muaajahah", ie (coming face to face). This word 'qiblah" became to have a divine meaning, which is the direction to which the Muslim turns during the prayer (salah). It called it a divine meaning rather than a divine fact.
c - We referred to the subject of the divine fact in Shakhsiyyah, vol III, but we did not find a difference in the subject.
Please advise us if there is a differentiation between the divine fact and the divine meaning, may Allah bless you.
The divine fact is a term...
The divine meaning is a meaning...
So, the two issues do not conflict with each other!
It came in vol III of Shakhsiyyah:
- Page 149, the four lines from the end: "The divine fact is a term which al-Shar' has used in a meaning different to the meaning coined to it; and Arabs used it after the use of Shar' in the meaning used by al-Shar'. So, it was transferred through the use of al-Shar' and then through the use of Arabs to another meaning, while the first meaning was abandoned ..."
- Page 143, lines 9 and10: "The divine fact is the term which is used in what is coined to it in the convention of al-Shar'..."
- Page 144, lines 4 and 5: "The divine fact is the term which al-Shar' coined for a meaning, such that it denotes it without collaboration (qareenah) ..."
Thus, the divine fact is a term which Arabs used in a divine meaning other than its linguistic meaning, and the linguistic meaning was abandoned while the divine meaning dominated. This is like salaat (prayer), whose linguistic meaning is du'aa (suplication), and al-Shar' gave it a divine meaning; ie al-Shar' transferred it from the linguistic meaning to the divine meaning which dominated. Thus, this term of "salah" in the divine meaning, ie the "specific movements" became a divine fact.
Accordingly, if you want to know what the type of the word is, we examine:
1 - If that word was used in its linguistic meaning then it is a linguistic fact.
2 - If it was transferred from its linguistic meaning to the conventional ('urfi) meaning, and it dominated in it, and the linguistic meaning was abandoned, then it is a conventional fact.
3 - If it was transferred from the linguistic meaning to a divine meaning and it dominated in it and the linguistic meaning was abandoned, then it is a divine fact.
Therefore, the word is examined; if it was used in a divine meaning, then it is a divine fact:
You can say: Prayer (salah) has a divine meaning, which is used in that meaning and dominated in it, so prayer is a divine fact.
And you say: Qiblah has a divine meaning, which is used in it and dominated in it, so qiblah is a divine fact.
However, you can say the word of prayer (sala) has a such and such divine meaning, without necessarily completing the description, so we say it is a divine fact.
And it is not also necessary to say the word of qiblah has such and such divine meaning.... (And it is not necessary to complete this by saying so it is a divine fact.)
Thus, the divine fact is a word that has a divine meaning in which it dominated.
I hope the difference between the divine fact and the divine meaning became clear to you; so they are not synonymous, but they are rather consistent with each other like this: the divine fact is a word used in a divine meaning which it dominated in it, and its linguistic meaning was abandoned. As information: what is meant by saying the linguistic meaning was "abandoned" is that once you hear the word, the mind does not turn to the linguistic meaning except with a collaboration (qareenah).
15 Rabee' II 1432
20/3/2011
Source
Question:
Is there a difference between the divine fact (al-haqeeqah) and the divine meaning?
We have confusion in the matter, as one of the members said in a monthly circle:
The divine fact transfers the linguistic meaning to a new meaning different from the origin, such as the word of prayer (salah).
As for the divine meaning: it uses the same linguistic meaning, and adds to it a regulator or a constraint, such as the word of (qiblah). Is this true?
If there is a difference, I request your elaboration due to the following:
a - It was mentioned in the Economic System, page 205, under the subject of extravagance (israaf) and waste (tabdheer) "Its meaning is spending the money in the prohibited matters," where a member said this is a divine meaning rather than a divine fact.
b - It came in the book of Tayseer on the situations of interpretation (tafseer) page 190 at the interpretation of "What turned them away from their qiblah", the verse. It said regarding the interpretation of "their qiblah" that the qiblah is on the form of 'fi'lah' that comes from 'muqaabalah', ie (meeting face to face), like the word "wijhah" that comes from "muaajahah", ie (coming face to face). This word 'qiblah" became to have a divine meaning, which is the direction to which the Muslim turns during the prayer (salah). It called it a divine meaning rather than a divine fact.
c - We referred to the subject of the divine fact in Shakhsiyyah, vol III, but we did not find a difference in the subject.
Please advise us if there is a differentiation between the divine fact and the divine meaning, may Allah bless you.
Answer:
The divine fact is a term...
The divine meaning is a meaning...
So, the two issues do not conflict with each other!
It came in vol III of Shakhsiyyah:
- Page 149, the four lines from the end: "The divine fact is a term which al-Shar' has used in a meaning different to the meaning coined to it; and Arabs used it after the use of Shar' in the meaning used by al-Shar'. So, it was transferred through the use of al-Shar' and then through the use of Arabs to another meaning, while the first meaning was abandoned ..."
- Page 143, lines 9 and10: "The divine fact is the term which is used in what is coined to it in the convention of al-Shar'..."
- Page 144, lines 4 and 5: "The divine fact is the term which al-Shar' coined for a meaning, such that it denotes it without collaboration (qareenah) ..."
Thus, the divine fact is a term which Arabs used in a divine meaning other than its linguistic meaning, and the linguistic meaning was abandoned while the divine meaning dominated. This is like salaat (prayer), whose linguistic meaning is du'aa (suplication), and al-Shar' gave it a divine meaning; ie al-Shar' transferred it from the linguistic meaning to the divine meaning which dominated. Thus, this term of "salah" in the divine meaning, ie the "specific movements" became a divine fact.
Accordingly, if you want to know what the type of the word is, we examine:
1 - If that word was used in its linguistic meaning then it is a linguistic fact.
2 - If it was transferred from its linguistic meaning to the conventional ('urfi) meaning, and it dominated in it, and the linguistic meaning was abandoned, then it is a conventional fact.
3 - If it was transferred from the linguistic meaning to a divine meaning and it dominated in it and the linguistic meaning was abandoned, then it is a divine fact.
Therefore, the word is examined; if it was used in a divine meaning, then it is a divine fact:
You can say: Prayer (salah) has a divine meaning, which is used in that meaning and dominated in it, so prayer is a divine fact.
And you say: Qiblah has a divine meaning, which is used in it and dominated in it, so qiblah is a divine fact.
However, you can say the word of prayer (sala) has a such and such divine meaning, without necessarily completing the description, so we say it is a divine fact.
And it is not also necessary to say the word of qiblah has such and such divine meaning.... (And it is not necessary to complete this by saying so it is a divine fact.)
Thus, the divine fact is a word that has a divine meaning in which it dominated.
I hope the difference between the divine fact and the divine meaning became clear to you; so they are not synonymous, but they are rather consistent with each other like this: the divine fact is a word used in a divine meaning which it dominated in it, and its linguistic meaning was abandoned. As information: what is meant by saying the linguistic meaning was "abandoned" is that once you hear the word, the mind does not turn to the linguistic meaning except with a collaboration (qareenah).
15 Rabee' II 1432
20/3/2011
Source
Comments
Jazakallah khair it become clear that when salah is used we should take the shari' meaning of the word.
I am confused in understanding the following. When Allah s.w.t says "Establish Salah" we take the shari' meaning of the word salah (ie the action which are linked to our prayer taught by Messenger s.a.w)but when Allah s.w.t inform us about Luqman in Surah Luqman where Luqman says to his son "Establish Salah" what is the word salah mean in this place. Does it carry same meaning or different meaning.
Coz salah was a gift to Messenger s.a.w from Allah s.w.t on Maraj. so when Allah says about previous Messengers a.s that "And Establish Salah" what does it mean...
Jazakallah kahir
This is very clear in Arabic, but is confusing in English. If we understand that the word fact is here the translation of al-haqeeqah, then the article becomes clearer, so it would be better to put (al-haqeeqah) in brackets at the top of the article when fact is first mentioned. This is due to it being a translation of terminology (istalahaat) which inevitably loose their meaning in translation.
JZK
Yahya