The answer to the second question is that the whole argument on the intentionality of the text is dubious. In all living languages, the meanings denoted by words and expressions are all based on perpetuation (mutawatirat), and are certain in all respects. Morphology and linguistics and other similar disciplines speak of this tawatur. The veracity or mendacity of the narrators and their number has no significance. Words and expressions which are called gharib and shadh (little known) are called so not because their meaning is little known but because they are used sparingly and because they are little known to those who hear or write them. A word is never isolated from its meaning. As long as a word remains in usage, it does so with its meaning. We can be unaware of the meaning of a word and also err in ascertaining it, but this cannot be imagined that it is used without being absolutely certain of the meaning it conveys in all or some periods of time. The understanding when a word is used metaphorically and figuratively or when the same word stands for two different entities or when it is used as a veiled reference or when there exists a general connotation and when a specific one – all are mutawatir. This is a common heritage of man in every language of the world. A person may falter in determining whether the word lion has been used literally or figuratively in the sentences “Lion is the king of the forest” and “He is a lion”, however, the collective comprehension of mankind can never err in this regard and in the light of its understanding we can correct a person who makes a mistake in this regard. It is because of this reality of a language that whatever we read and write, we do so with the confidence that people will understand the very meaning that we intended to convey. If for a single instant one comes to know that in documents which are written every day, judgements which are pronounced, rulings that are enacted, announcements and notices delivered and knowledge and disciplines which are communicated, the intentionality of a text is ambiguous, then everything will become meaningless. Thus this view is nothing less than scepticism which has no place in the world of knowledge. Shah Ismail Shahid while commenting upon it in his Abaqat writes:

لا يخفى على من له أدنى ممارسة بأساليب الكلام أن هذا القول ناش عن جهل متراكم اذ وضع الإلفاظ لمعانيها من المتواترات فلا مدخل لعصمة الناقلين فيه

A person who has even the slightest skill of appreciating linguistic styles clearly knows that this view point is based on gross and multiple ignorance because the meaning for which a word stands for is based on perpetuation. Thus the question does not even arise for any discussion on the issue of the infallibility of the narrators. [12]

Ibn Qayyim (d. 1350 AH) writes:

من ادعی انه لا طریق لنا الی الیقین بمراد المتکلم، لان العلم بمراده موقوف علی العلم بانتفاء عشرة اشیاء فهو ملبوس علیه ملبس علی الناس؛ فان هذا لوصح لم یحصل لاحد العلم بکلام المتکلم قط، وبطلت فائدة التخاطب، وانتفت خاصیة الانسان، وصار الناس کالبهائم، بل اسوأ حالاً، ولما علم غرض هذا المصنف من تصنیفه، وهٰذا باطل بضرورة الحس والعقل، وبطلانه من اکثر من ثلاثین وجهًا مذکورة فی غیر هذا الموضع.

Those who claim that we have no means to acquire the message of a speaker with full certainty – arguing for this on the basis that the knowledge of what he intends to say is only possible if we first deny ten facts – are not only muddled themselves but want to muddle others too. If what they claim were true, then the information within the speech of a speaker could never be acquired; talking would have been meaningless; man would have lost his distinctive asset that makes him a human being, and people would have become worse than animals. Even what this writer intends to achieve from this writing could not be identified. Therefore, intellect and sense both suggest that this claim is utterly wrong. There are more than thirty reasons why it is wrong, which I have listed elsewhere. [13]

(Meezan: Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)

(Translated by Dr. Shehzad Saleem)

__________________________________

[12]. Shah Ismail Shahid, Abaqat (Handwritten Manuscript), Lahore: Punjab University Library, 5.

[13]. Ibn Qayyim, Ilam al-muwaqqiin, vol. 3, 109. This excerpt and its footnote are translated by Junaid Hassan. (Translator)