Metaphors: one-way, two-way(Part 1)
Majaz : Apparent صورة vs Real معنى
We use metaphors all the time and the ruling depends on the kind of majaz used. Since there are only two broad categories of majaz/metaphors, anything that we say is bound to fall under one of these two. Before we get into details, let’s play judge and decide how you’d rule in the following scenarios:
- I was looking to rent an apartment and the realtor demanded a guarantor. I approached my friend Maryam. Now, there are two ways to guarantee a debt in fiqh:
- Kafalah i.e. debt-sharing (the original debtor -myself here- is NOT released from the obligation. So I’ll remain the primary debtor but in case I default and am unable to pay, the creditor/realtor will have the right to demand payment from Maryam/kafil as well)
- Hawalah i.e debt-transfer ((the original debtor -myself here- IS released from the obligation. So the creditor/realtor can legally demand payment ONLY from Maryam/muhal alayh /the transferee , not me)
Maryam didn't know this critical difference btw kafalah and hawalah and says to the realtor: ‘I agree to do hawalah, but my friend will be the one paying the rent’. So she used the word halwalah but meant kafalah. Will we treat this contract as halwalah or kafalah? Imagine I turn mean, refuse to pay the rent and demand that since Maryam used the word ‘hawalah’ I should be off the hook. Ethics aside, is my claim technically valid?
2. I say to my poor friend: ‘I gift my car to you’. I used the word ‘gift’ to save her dignity but actually I intended this to be a charity. Later, I regret and want to take back my car. Can I take it back? If we consider it as gift, I can take it back bcs gifts are revocable. If we consider it as charity I can not. So, gift or charity?
3. I run a car dealership and an old friend of mine needs a car. I offer her a car and say ‘Take this car as charity from me.’ (I say ‘charity but mean gift bcs my friend isn't poor). Later, I want to take that car back but my friend turns mean and refuses. Can I legally take it back? Same dilemma as above. Will we consider my giving the car to her as charity (irrevocable) or gift (revocable)?
In all scenarios above, I used a word metaphorically. Do we take the literal, spoken word or the metaphorical/intended meaning? We take the latter as long as there is a common underlying meaning shared by both the literal and the metaphorical word and the spoken is not the musabbab /ruling of the intended meaning (explained in Part 2).
Get H. Afridi’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
For now, just understand that as long as there is no causal relationship between the haqiqah/literal and the majaz/metaphorical, you can say one and mean the other. So, since gift isn't the cause of charity, nor charity is the cause of gift, they’re interchangeable as long as there is a meaning shared by both. Similarly, there’s no causal relationship btw kafalah and hawalah but they’re both guarantees, so saying one and meanign the other will work. So:
- we attach kafalah with hawalah (and vice versa) bcs they’re both guaranteeing an obligation/debt. So in scenario 1, we treat the guarantee as kafalah not hawalah. Im not off the hook.
- we attach gift with charity (and vice versa) bcs they’re both ‘giving without compensation’. In scenario 2, since I mean charity it’ll be taken as charity and I can not take the car back. In scenario 3, I can take it back bcs here the majaz/metaphorical meaning will be valid and spoken, literal word of charity will not be taken as charity isnt given to the rich.
Note: in all scenarios, we are assuming a dispute bcs thats when fiqhi rulings come into play. if two people agree to take a guarantee as hawalah or kafalah, there’s no need to decide which is which. The need only arises in disputes. So, imagine in the second scenario, I lie and say that I never meant the charity and I was indeed just giving the car to my poor friend as a gift, it’ll still be taken as charity. Why? bcs, judge has no way to peek into the hearts or verify the past intentions. He can only decide whether it was charity or gift from circumstantial evidence, which in scenario 2 goes against me as my friend is poor. Hence, when we are discussing these rulings, remember the distinction btw qada’an and diyanatan. The take away is: even in 2-way metaphors we canot change lanes and there must be some sort fo clue i.e. qarinah to warrant our departure from literal to metaphor or vice versa. Otherwise, it’d mean that a transferee in a halwalah can always back off by simplying lying that he meant it to be kafalah and not hawalah. So, in Maryam’s example, the clue is her stipulating that I’ll be paying the rent. In the gifting car scenario, the economic status of the gifted person is enough clue to decide whether a judge should treat it as gift or charity, regardless of the speaker’s intentions.
Enough with the prep, lets get down to the two types of metaphors. Now, although jurists have come up with complex ways of classifying metaphors, some reaching up to 25 types, it really boils down to only two.
Type 1: apparent metaphor | Majaz صورة | no shared meaning necessary
The speaker says the illah/effective cause OR sabab/cause and means the effect /musabbab/ma’lul. Here the ruling is not as straightforward as the second type of majaz معنى. See Part 2 for explanation and applications of type 1.
Warning: Don't be thrown off by the word صورة here. So usually, surah means ‘physical appearance’ but when it’s juxtaposed with معنى, it means ‘ just in appearance, not in meaning’. This is to set this type apart from the type 2 of majaz — the ‘meaning’ metaphor. ‘Apparent majaz’ does NOT mean ‘similarity of appearance’ between the literal and the metaphorical.
Type 2: Real Metaphor | Majaz معنى :(shared meaning)
The speaker says one word but mean the other thing which shares the spoken word in some aspect. All scenarios mentioned above fall under this category.
Below is the break down of both types. Remember, only ONE SUB-type of metaphors is 1 way, the rest two are 2 way. Can you spot that 1-way teaser?
