Language is a Mental Convention

A hungry man was once asked, “What is two plus two?” He replied, “Four loaves of bread.” He added a word to his answer that neither appeared in the original question nor was intended by the questioner. In contrast, if you were in a restaurant and someone asked, “How many breads would you like?” and you replied, “Two,” then “breads” would be correctly understood as implied in your answer.

Language is a Sign
According to linguists, language is a sign. The best and most detailed discussion on this topic was presented by Imām Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh have mercy on him, in several of his works. His ideas are remarkably close to modern linguistic theories.

The meaning of a sign depends entirely on knowing what it refers to (the mushār ilayh). The sign itself does not contain meaning. I remember once visiting Shaykh al-Thānī of Dār al-ʿUlūm Deoband, Mawlānā ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Aʿẓamī, in his room. Two students were also present. He pointed to a side of the shelf and told one of the students, “Take out that book.” The student picked out the wrong book. The Shaykh insisted again, but the student again picked the wrong one. Each time he failed to retrieve the correct book, the Shaykh’s frustration grew. The student’s error stemmed from his failure to identify the mushār ilayh in the Shaykh’s gesture.

Where is the Mushār Ilayh?
If language is a sign, where then is the mushār ilayh? It cannot reside within the words themselves, for the sign and the signified are distinct. Many people believe that meanings live within language. So after reading or hearing a sentence, they try to find the meaning within that very sentence—and are misled. Meanings exist elsewhere, much like the object referred to in a gesture does not lie within the gesture itself. Misinterpretation often results from trying to determine someone’s intent merely from their words.

Meanings Reside in the Mind
The mushār ilayh of words is their meaning, but meanings do not exist externally. What exists outside are realities. Meanings live in the mind—but whose mind? The speaker’s or the listener’s?

It often happens that listeners interpret a speaker’s words using the meanings in their own minds. In the earlier example, the hungry man imposed his mental frame onto “two plus two.” I’ve often heard people claim I said something I never said. Upon investigation, it becomes clear that they misunderstood a sentence of mine based on their own preconceived meaning.

Once, someone became angry with me, and I tried to understand why. He eventually told me I had called him gharīb (poor). I explained there must be a misunderstanding—I had no reason to call him that. On further review, I discovered I had said, “You are ʿajīb wa gharīb” (strange and peculiar) in jest. He had taken gharīb in the sense of destitute.

The Mushār Ilayh is in the Speaker’s Mind
In reality, the true mushār ilayh of language resides in the speaker’s mind—not the listener’s. This is termed maʿhūd dhihnī (presumed intent of the mind). This is why intention matters in both speech and action.

For example, a mother might affectionately call her son a “fool” or “naughty” or even “crazy,” and he is pleased because he knows her intention is love, not insult. Similarly, the Prophet Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم once said, “Raġima anf Abī Dharr” (May the nose of Abū Dharr be rubbed in dust), and yet Abū Dharr (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu) used to repeat the statement joyfully—because he understood the Prophet’s intention.

How to Discern the Maʿhūd Dhihnī
Some meanings are clearly understood and easily grasped. But we must remember that “clear” and “unclear” are relative terms. One must not rush to conclusions. Especially when serious accusations (like heresy or disbelief) are involved, one must proceed with caution.

I have witnessed cases where a speaker was declared a kāfir or fāsiq based on a misunderstood statement. In one instance, a 50-year-old imam began dyeing his hair before marrying a younger woman. A muftī declared this action ḥarām, warned people against praying behind him, and eventually issued a fatwa of disbelief against him—all without ever consulting the imam about his intention.

So how can a listener avoid misunderstanding the speaker’s mental intent? How can one “read” the speaker’s mind?

1. The Speaker’s Own Explanation
If the speaker is available, ask what they meant. If they’re not, investigate whether they clarified their meaning elsewhere. Once the speaker provides an explanation, that becomes the correct interpretation. In technical terms, this is tafsīr.

For instance, the verse: “So the angels prostrated, all of them together—except Iblīs” may lead one to believe that Iblīs was an angel. Many have fallen into this error. But another verse in Sūrat al-Kahf clearly states that Iblīs was from the jinn—this is tafsīr.

Some malicious individuals reject the speaker’s own clarification and insist their interpretation is correct. They may even cite the speaker’s own words against him—forgetting that words are merely signs. The real meaning is what the speaker intended. At most, one could say the speaker erred in expression.

In court, rulings depend on external evidence because testimony may be biased. But in everyday life, applying legal-style judgement is oppressive. Unfortunately, some people act as though they are divine enforcers, humiliating and harming others. Such behaviour is far more evil than the alleged offence.

2. The Speaker’s Habits
Another way to grasp intent is to study the speaker’s usual style. For example, when hadith scholars say “fīhi naẓar” (there is some concern), it’s considered a mild critique. But when Imām Bukhārī says it, it signifies strong disapproval.

Likewise, when a Nadwī says “Sayyid Sāḥib,” they usually mean ʿAllāmah Sayyid Sulaymān Nadwī. In later generations, “Ḥāfiẓ” typically refers to Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī. Familiarity with scholarly language and conventions helps avoid error.

Many false interpretations of the Qurʾān stem from ignoring the speech patterns of the Qurʾānic speaker (i.e., Allāh).

3. Internal Context
Sometimes the speaker’s own words point to their intent. For example, in the verse “So Pharaoh disobeyed the Messenger,” the word Messenger could refer to various prophets in the Qurʾān, including Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and ʿĪsā ʿalayhi al-salām. But since Pharaoh is mentioned, it clearly refers to Mūsā ʿalayhi al-salām. This is known as internal context.

4. External Context
The speaker’s environment can also clarify their intent. For instance, when Mawlānā Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān of Sultanpur used to tell students in Nadwah to “get a rickshaw,” he meant a particular type of rickshaw with specific standards—not just any cheap ride.

Many verses in the Qurʾān can only be properly understood with knowledge of the Prophet’s biography, the lives of the Companions, and the norms of Arab culture at the time.

5. Opposite Meaning (Mafhūm Mukhālafah)
If someone says, “I will reward hardworking students,” can we assume they will not reward the others? Most scholars discourage this line of reasoning. Even those who permit it do so under stringent conditions.

Misunderstandings often arise from assuming the opposite meaning. If I say to someone, “I respect you,” others may assume I don’t respect them. Once, someone in a WhatsApp group said a member thought I disliked him. I was puzzled—I respected him deeply. The reason? He had written an article recently, and I didn’t comment on it.

I’ve faced this many times: praising one person causes others to feel neglected. Sadly, even scholars are increasingly prone to this kind of false inference—despite the clear teachings of Islam to maintain ḥusn al-ẓann (good opinion of others), a foundational moral principle.

Disclaimer: This article was translated by AI. Original post: https://t.me/DrAkramNadwi/6204