As for Raazi, what happened to his efforts and with stammering of the
tongue and hesitation and excessive deliberation has expressed the doubts,
sometimes he swallows them, and sometimes he ruminates, and expresses doubts
and is in apprehension that he should pose them as huge; he after quoting the
meaning of Awla, and most deserving, says regarding a group:
Allah, the Mighty and the High says:
مَأْوَبِكُمُ النَّارُ فِي مَوْلَكُمْ ، وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ
“Your abode is the fire; it is your friend and evil is the resort.”1
There are a number of opinions regarding the meaning of Maula:
1. Ibne Abbas says: “Your Maula means your place of return and refuge and
its interpretation is that Maula is the position of the Master (Wali) and it is in the
meaning of proximity. Thus, the meaning is that fire is the place with which he
will be near and where he will reach.”
2. Kalbi says: “That is: it is most suitable for you. The viewpoint of Zajjaj,
Farrah and Abu Ubaidah is same. You should also know that what they have said
is not the interpretation of the word, it is its meaning; because if the term of
‘Maula’ with ‘Awla’ (most deserving) in dictionary has been in one meaning,
using each of them in place of one another had been correct and we could instead
of saying: ‘He is more deserving than so and so’ we could have said: ‘This one is
more Awla than so and so. Since this replacement is not right, we understand that
what they said is the meaning and not the interpretation.
From this aspect, I make you aware of this point that Sharif Murtada, when
he was proving the Imamate of Ali (a.s.) from the statement of the Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.):
“Of whomsoever I am the master, Ali is (also) his master.”
He (Sharif Murtada) says: “One of the meaning of Maula is Awla (most
deserving).”
Regarding this, he has reasoned through the statement of Imams, which they
mentioned in interpretation of this verse that Maula is in the meaning of Awla
and more deserving. When it is proved that in the word of Maula there is
possibility of the meaning of Awla (and the intention of this meaning from this
term is correct) applying this term to this meaning (in the tradition of Ghadeer)
will become obligatory; because the other meaning or its proof is clear (and does
not need explanation) like the meaning of cousin2 or helper or its ceasing to exist
is clear, like Mautiq (freed slave) and Muataq (the freed one) and applying the
statement of the Prophet on the first group is meaningless and on the second
group, it is a lie.
But we proved through reasoning that their statement on this juncture hints
at the meaning of the term and not its interpretation, therefore reasoning through
their statements is incorrect.3
And the gist of his statement in Nihayatul Uqul is as follows:
If the term of Maula had come in the meaning of Awla [most deserving and
eligible] it was definitely correct that whatever is common between the two will
be same; but it is not so; that is why ‘Maula’ cannot be in the meaning of
‘Awla’… and evidence of this claim is that it cannot be said: “He is my Maula of
so and so” but it can be said: He is the Maula, and the two of them are two
Maulas, and also, without the word of ‘min’ it cannot be said: He is ‘Awla’ and
they two are ‘Awliyan’.
If you want, you can be amazed (and listen to the astonishing statement) so
be amazed that Fakhre Raazi was unaware that the conditions of derivatives in
different conjugations is different from the aspects of intransitive and transitive
verbs; because singularity of meaning among contradictory terms occurs in the
essence of the meaning and not in their broadness, which are kinds of special
constructions and seen in conjugation of terms and their grammatical forms.
So, contradiction between the terms of Maula and Awla after the fact that
the term of Awla should come with ‘ba’ but Maula comes without ‘ba’ – (from
the aspect that the root is not W-L-Y, except) in the aspect that it has occurred in
conjugation of ‘Afal’. As it is a specialty of this conjugation that it is accompanied by ‘man’; on the basis of this, the implication of ‘so and so is Awla
to so and so’ and ‘so and so is Maula of so and so’ is one of the meaning of so
and so with relation to so and so is having precedence and worthier than the other.
Khalid bin Abdullah Azhari says in the chapter of elatives in his book of
Tasrih:
“Using synonym in the place of a word is only correct if there is no
obstruction between them.”
However, a hurdle exists over here and that is the use; because elative noun
is not used, except with the word of ‘min’ (from), and sometimes the letter ‘min’
is omitted along with its preposition due to the presence of the context; like the
verse:
وَالْآخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ وَأَبْقَى
“While the hereafter is better and more lasting.”4
Moreover, the objections that Raazi has relied upon, in another meaning of
the term of Maula, is applicable to what others have mentioned as well, like the
meaning of ‘Nasir’, as Raazi has taken this meaning in the tradition of Ghadeer;
because instead of ‘He is the helper of the religion of Allah’ it can never be said:
‘He is the Maula of the religion of Allah’; and Prophet Isa (a.s.), instead of ‘Who
would help me in the religion of Allah?’ did not say ‘Who would be my Maula in
the religion of Allah?’ And the Hawaris also instead of saying: ‘we are helper of
Allah’ never said: ‘we are Maulas of Allah’.
You know well that these contradictions are effective in a large part of
similar words, which Rummani (d. 384 A.H.) has compiled on page 45 of his
separate book (printed in 1321 A.H.) printed in Egypt. And no grAmmaarian has
ever denied difference of meaning only on the basis of various types of use of
habits along with the word, just as on the pretext of all contradictions present in
the construction, they have not denied similarity.
As for example the sentence ‘I have a dirham, which is not new’ is correct,
but the statement: ‘I have a dirham, which is but not new’ is incorrect (or that the
term or ‘or’ and ‘except’ is used in the same sense. And the statement: ‘indeed
you are learned’ is correct, but the statement: ‘indeed you learned’ is incorrect.
Same is the case of all such kind of Arabic sentences