The Qur’ān is univocal, with each word or phrase having only one possible meaning (qaṭ’i ad dalālah). Therefore, when its addressees refuse to accept any of its claims, it asserts with absolute authority, “This alone is the truth (al ḥaq) from your Lord; therefore, you should not be in any doubt” [1]. If they persist in denial, it challenges them to a mubāhala (invocation of God’s curse) by declaring that it is “the knowledge (al ’ilm)” [2] that has come from your Lord. In comparison to it, everything else is merely falsehood, fabrication, conjecture, or speculation. When measured against the truth (ḥaq), conjecture (ẓan) holds no value: “conjecture can
The Qur’ān maintains its revered status even today because both the words and their meanings have been passed down to us through the continuous transmission of tawātur. The point of contention among scholars of the Qur’ān is not the meanings of the words themselves; rather, it lies in the selection of a particular meaning from a range of possible meanings within a given context. These meanings have been meticulously recorded in various texts. Scholars, jurists, literary experts, and exegetes (mufassirūn) have expounded upon them extensively. They have been studied, taught, and comprehended within Muslim schools, religious centers, and literary circles. This tradition has been preserved without interruption since the time of prophethood, and the perpetual transmission (tawātur) ensures its unbroken continuity. The same holds true for the grammar and expressions used in the Qur’ān; these too have been transmitted, taught, and learned through this unbroken chain of tradition. Although exceedingly rare exceptions might exist, this perpetuation
Nonetheless, there is one objection deserving of careful consideration. Some scholars argue that there exists a significant variance in people’s interpretations of the majority of verses in the Qur’ān, thereby rendering it equivocal (a word or phrase with the potential for multiple meanings or connotations simultaneously). According to this viewpoint, a text can only be deemed univocal in its significance when there is a unanimous consensus on its interpretations.
Consequently, even today, we can assert with the utmost confidence that by following the guidance of the Qur’ān’s words, one will be reliably led to their intended meaning in the given context.
Certain challenges arise in grasping the reporting and transmission of language, as well as the intricate relationship between words and their meanings. In our book (Mīzān) (English translation: Islam – A Comprehensive Introduction), we have addressed some of these issues in the preamble, while others hardly warrant any commentary. When we place these challenges alongside the realities of life and the universe, it becomes evident that the ideas of the Sophists are now relegated to history. Similarly, this contemporary neo-sophism will soon become a thing of the past, and there is little merit in investing time in refuting or rejecting it.
Likewise, it is not worthwhile to entertain the claims of certain inexperienced writers who assert that general (ām) terms cannot possess univocal significance. They argue that since many verses in the Qur’ān rely on such general terms, the Qur’ān itself cannot be univocal in its meaning. Experts can readily discern the naivety and impracticality of this argument, as those who put it forward seem oblivious to the distinction between the lexical definition of words and their contextual usage.
It is indeed true that an equivocal text cannot possess a univocal significance. However, is every text with differing interpretations inherently equivocal as well? Our firm answer is no. Being equivocal is an inherent quality of a piece of speech; it is not imposed upon it externally. To classify a text as equivocal, one would need to demonstrate that the disagreements in its interpretation have persisted throughout history and will continue to do so. Knowledge and reasoning cannot definitively distinguish between the existence of a word and its interpretations.
Consider a scenario where a person reads or listens to a text and misunderstands the meaning of a word, idiom, or its composition. Another individual attempts to explain a sentence while disregarding the word order or contextual settings. Yet another treats each sentence as an isolated entity, explaining the text’s meaning without considering the broader context and coherence. Are all these varied interpretations evidence of the text’s equivocal nature? The differences in the interpretation of the Qur’ān share a similar nature. Consequently, not a single verse in the Qur’ān can be inherently declared as equivocal, as scholars from the outset to the
The mistake many people make is their failure to distinguish between differences in interpretations and the potential connotations of a speech. These are two distinct concepts. Differences in interpretations can arise due to a lack of knowledge and a lack of thoughtful consideration. The absence of careful consideration can stem from various factors, including one’s cognitive development, personal desires, biases, a preference for haste, minor distractions, and more. In the absence of these influences, the apprehension of making an error when favoring one interpretation of a sacred text like the Qur’ān over others is often sufficient to dissuade people from engaging in debates and criticisms on such matters. In contrast, the potential connotations of a speech have existed within it since its inception. Once a reader or listener identifies these potential connotations, it becomes challenging to separate them from the speech itself.
present day have consistently maintained that it is necessary to acknowledge multiple interpretations of a verse.
In contrast, among the interpretations proposed for a given verse, certain ones are chosen while others are set aside. Those left out are often favored by other scholars, and selections and rejections are accompanied by reasoned justifications. Sometimes, it’s noted that a particular interpretation does not align with the dictionary’s validation, at other times a misconception in comprehending the composition is rectified. There are instances of ignoring word sequence and contextual settings, as well as arguments grounded in the text’s overall context and coherence. The realms of jurisprudence (fiqh), theology (kalām), and exegesis (tafsīr) are replete with such discussions. Ibn Jarīr, for instance, is known for generously documenting various interpretations, but those familiar with his (tafsīr) will also recognize his criticisms of multiple interpretations in numerous instances. (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr), a condensed version of his work, also adheres to the principle of preference in its interpretations.
The commentaries of scholars such as (Zamakhsharī, Qurtabī, Ālūsī, Ṭabāṭabā`ī), and (Abūl ā’lā Maudūdī) serve as testimony to this fact. The Qur’ān has been translated into numerous languages around the world. A perusal of any of these translations reveals that none of the translators has ever rendered a single verse of the Qur’ān as equivocal. Instead, each translator employs their preference in all instances to convey the translation based on their understanding.
The commentaries of Imām Farāhī and Ustāz Imām Amīn Ahsan Islāhī’s “Tadabbur e Qur’ān” epitomize this approach, where only one interpretation is favored not only for translation but also for exegesis (tafsīr). While disagreements may arise concerning this preference, the very existence of such disagreement underscores that the individuals in question do not consider the text to be equivocal. Instead, they maintain that the meanings derived from the text are incorrect for specific reasons.
The Glorious Qur’ān is devoid of any such defects. Nothing of that nature can be demonstrated about it. It is “the knowledge (al ‘ilm)” [2], it is “the truth (al ḥaq)” [1], it is “the scale (mīzān) [4] that distinguishes good from evil and the separator (furqān) [5] between good and evil.” It has been revealed in eloquent Arabic, and it serves as “the warning for the world (nazīr al lil ‘ālamīn).” Thus, it stands as the conclusive divine evidence for the entire world. The Qur’ān affirms that there are no contradictions or multiple possible connotations in God’s book; it consistently maintains univocality in its significance: “Had it been from someone other than God, they would have found in it many contradictions” [6].
Consequently, when discussions about these connotations arise, individuals are compelled to acknowledge that this represents a permanent characteristic of the speech, with no viable means to eliminate it.
[1] Surah Āl i Imrān 3:60 [2] Surah Āl i Imrān 3:61 [3] Surah An Najm 53:28 [4] Surah Ash Shūrā 42:17 [5] Surah Al Furqān 25:1