This useless objection of Raazi did not remain concealed from scholars of
literature and experts of linguistics, and they rejected it after analysis. Their
disregarding it, is proof that the meaning of Maula is proved to be Awla.
They include Taftazani in Sharh Maqasid,1 Qushji in Sharh Tajreed2 and Ibne Hajar in Sawaiq3 and he, with all malice and strictness, has refuted the tradition of Ghadeer, in such condition that he has accepted the clear meaning of Maula as Awla (most deserving), but questioned whether it was in that matter or all the affairs?
And he has selected the second one, and derived this meaning from the
statement of Abu Bakr and Umar, when they said: “Today you became the master
of us and all the believer men and women.”
Shaykh Shahabuddin Ahmad bin Abdul Qaazir Shafei has also adopted the
same stance in Zakhiratul Maal
Another statement of Raazi
Raazi issued another statement, in which he adopted a tough stance. In
Nihayatul Uqul, he expressed the opinion that none of the imams of syntax and
language has not said: “The conjugation of ‘maf-al’ infinitive, which is
constructed for the conjugation of place and time, has come in the meaning of ‘Ifal’ which is made for subservience.
But you will conclude the weakness of Raazi and his followers’ statement by
identifying the previous clear statements that the special meaning of ‘Maula’ is
‘Awla bi Shayyin’ [most deserving for a thing].
You will also note that the root of this objection was Raazi himself without
any kind of base and he has not attributed it to anyone else and others also seeing
that this viewpoint was opposed to the conclusion of the Shia from the tradition,
followed him blindly and accepted it in confidence.
Are the scholarly personages, who clearly said that the term of ‘Maula’ is
sometimes used in the meaning of ‘Awla’ not more deserving than him, who
issues statements without estimation and without any evidence; are they not more
informed about lexicology?!
How they should not be most informed, while there exist persons among
them, who are points of reference for grAmmaar, leaders of literature and experts
of Arabic literature and exegesis?
Whether in this clear statement there is no proof for them while the fact is
that sometimes ‘Maf-al’ is used in the meaning of ‘Af-al’, then with what proof
do they deny it completely? Yes, [for an important task the master has cut off his
nose].4
Also, the statement of Abu Walid bin Shahna Hanafi Halabi in Rauzul Manazir,5 in the section on the events of the year 606 A.H. is sufficient when he says:
“Raazi has profound knowledge of all sciences, other than the literature of Arabs.”
Abu Hayyan in Tafseer6 himself says after quoting the statement of Raazi:
“His Tafseer is outside the style and light discourse of Arabs. His discourse
is mostly of those, who call themselves wise.”
In addition to this is the evidence of conjugation of ‘Maf-al’ on time and
place, like the evidence of conjugation of ‘Af-al’ on superlative and like special
characteristics of every derivative, from the aspects of form and construction and
not article.
This was the dominant issue and is on the basis of analogy and is not an
absolute principle, on the contrary, it is most probably such that till the time that
against the Arabs it would be acted upon according to this criterion only. Also,
since the matter is opposed to conjecture, in this case, his statement precedes the
principle and analogy.
And if for Raazi the particular connotation of Maula in the meaning of
infinitive or verb was completed in a particular time or a particular place and it
were clear and definite, he should also reject the term of ‘Awla’ when it comes in
the meaning of active and passive participle, and adjective, whereas he clearly
says: It has come in the meaning of helper, assistant and ally.
All experts of Arabic have agreed to this meaning, and all of them have
consensus that the clear meaning of Maula is Master (Wali), and many have said
that ‘Maula’ has also come in this meaning of partner, confidant, devotee, freed
one, ally, master and owner.7
Raazi’s reply to the above statements
Raazi has replied to all the above statements, which exposes his indecency,
hatefulness and inner defects.
He says in Nihayatul Uqul:
“What scholars of language have stated is that ‘Maula’ is in the meaning of
superior and one having precedence, it cannot be evidence for them, because such
narrations cannot be used for reasoning. On the basis of this, we should say: If in
the exegesis of the verse:
ما وَبِكُمُ النَّارُ فِي مَوْلَكُمْ
“Your abode is the fire; it is your Maula.”8
It is said that: It means: It is superior to you. [It means that the fire is worthy
on you], and Akhfash, Zajjaj and Ali bin Isa have also mentioned it, and in order
to prove it, they have reasoned through the couplet of Labid. But they have been negligent and it is not from the aspect of research, because scholars of language,
like Khalil have taken this meaning, except in the exegesis of this verse and
another verse and that too chainless traditional report; and they have not
mentioned it in the actual book of grAmmaar.”
Alas, if I only knew who informed Raazi that these people without research
and from the aspect of negligence have issued this statement? Is this in all
dictionary meanings as his statement is negligent? And his reasoning through the
Arabic couplet is invalid. Or he has opened another account for the term of
Maula? Can the dictionary not be used for whom the meaning is proved to as
reasoning? And they have done this [and to prove the meaning of Maula, they
have reasoned through the couplet of Labid].
How he, after narrating this meaning from scholars of language, is without a
little mention and like him, has blamed them for negligence? Whereas, it is not
necessary that it should be mentioned in all books of language.
Does Raazi himself only suffices with “Al-Ain” and books like it? Who can
in quoting the term he has laid the condition of connection (Ittisal) of chains of
narrators?
Can Raazi get a person better than them for concluding this meaning?
What happened to him if one of the people mentions a meaning of an Arabic
term for him? He will not mention this statement to him. We should say: At this
point, he is in pursuit of a particular aim, which is not present in other instances.
Has he mentioned the conditions of dictionary meaning? Is the statement of
only one person from experts of language sufficient? Suyuti has quoted this
statement in his Al-Mazhar.9