In no human language is it the case that every word has only one meaning or that every expression is formulated for a singular intent. Typically, words carry multiple connotations, and expressions may denote various meanings. Determining which meaning is intended in a particular utterance is always based on context: sentence structure, customary usage by the speaker, the coherence of the discourse, its broader context, and other relevant indicators. The process involves the mind considering all possible interpretations and arriving—sometimes after deep reflection, sometimes after minimal contemplation—at a conclusive understanding.
It is precisely this linguistic characteristic which led Imam Shafi‘i to assert in his seminal work Al Risalah that language is inherently polysemous (muhtamal al-maani). He maintained that even when terms appear as general (aām) or specific (khās) in speech, it does not necessarily follow that they are being used in their original or literal sense. The Qur’an, he explained, is revealed in such a manner that sometimes a general word is used while a specific meaning is intended, and sometimes a specific word is used to denote a general meaning. Thus, neither can the specific always be assumed to point unequivocally to its literal referent, nor can the general always be assumed to encompass every instance falling under it.
Some scholars of usul al-fiqh have expressed disagreement with this stance. However, the truth is that Imam al- Shafiʿi’s position remains the most sound, for the decisive factor is not the word in isolation but the context in which it is employed—this context leads the listener or reader to a definitive understanding of its intended meaning.
In the introduction titled Usul wa Mabadi of the book Meezan, we have written:
“…The Qur’an frequently adopts the stylistic method of using words that appear general, but whose context and surrounding indicators make it absolutely clear that a general meaning is not intended. The Qur’an uses the word al-nās (‘people’), but not only does it not refer to the entire world, often it does not even encompass all the Arabs. It uses the phrase ʿala al-din kullihi (‘over all religion’) but does not mean all religions of the world. It employs al-mushrikūn (‘the polytheists’), but not in reference to every individual who commits shirk. It says in min ahl al-kitab (‘from the People of the Book’), but this does not always include all the People of the Book across the world. It uses al-insān (‘the human being’) to express a point, yet the reference is not to the entirety of humanity. This is the general rhetorical style of the Qur’an. If this feature is not taken into account, then the exegete entirely misses the speaker’s intent and the interpretation becomes misguided. Therefore, it is imperative that the customary language and contextual cues of the Qur’an always govern the understanding of its words.” (Meezan, 23)
This inherent nature of language is why scholars and researchers of the Qur’an insist that one must not base interpretation solely on the apparent wording. Rather, one must delve into the implied meanings. The Prophet (PBUH) rendered precisely this service in relation to the divine text. Through his teachings, he unveiled the embedded implications and connotations that might have remained inaccessible to those unfamiliar with the subtleties of language and meaning.
Imam Shafi‘i rightly emphasized that one cannot ignore the Prophet’s interpretations and clarifications simply because the Qur’an’s words might appear outwardly sufficient. The Prophet’s explanation is itself part of the Qur’an’s message. Nothing in it contradicts the Qur’an. The Messenger of God is a follower of the divine book— he clarifies its meaning but never alters it. Imam Shafi‘i provides examples in his writings and repeatedly cautions that the Prophet’s statements regarding Qur’anic rulings are bayan (clarifications), and nothing beyond that. To reject these is not to follow the Qur’an but to diverge from its command, for the intention of the Speaker (i.e., God) is exactly what the Prophet has made clear, not something different.
Nothing could be truer than Imam Shafiʿi’s assertion. However, his reasoning occasionally falls short in demonstrating exactly how the relationship between a word and its interpreted meaning—what he labels bayan— is established. As a result, he sometimes accepted reports of the Prophet’s words and deeds as bayan even when they fail to meet that standard. The real question in such cases should be whether the narrators accurately understood and conveyed the Prophet’s intention.
This issue forms the core difficulty for those who disagree with Imam Shafiʿi’s perspective. In Meezan, we have endeavored to strengthen and clarify Imam Shafiʿi’s position because, in principle, it is entirely valid. Those interested may consult the Meezan introduction under the section Meezan aur Furqan. From this, it becomes clear that the Prophetic narrations relating to Qur’anic injunctions serve to uncover the latent meanings inherent in the text—meanings that the Prophet (PBUH) brought to light through his interpretive explanation. Students of the Qur’an must train themselves to reach into the depths of a word’s meaning to understand it properly. These Prophetic explanations should not be rejected nor used to infer abrogation (naskh) of the Qur’anic text.