(recommended to read Part 1 first)
Consider these 4 scenarios:
- I say ‘If I buy a house, it’s waqf for Allah’. But I mean ‘if I own a house (completely), it’s waqf’. So I buy half the house, sell it, then buy the other half. Will the second half that I now own be automatically considered waqf? (Technically, I have owned the house completely but not at a time i.e. I owned only one half at a time)
- Same scenario as above but instead of saying ‘buy’ I say: ‘own’ i.e. ‘If I own a house, it’s waqf for Allah’ But I mean ‘If I buy a house (even if half), it’s waqf). Same question: Will the second half that I now own be automatically considered waqf?
- I ‘free’ my wife but mean ‘divorce’, will she be divorced automatically?
- I ‘divorce’ my wife but mean to ‘free’ her. Will she be free automatically (if she were a slave)?
Welcome to the world of Majaz mursal aka the ‘real majaz’ or majaz in ma’na. (shared meaning)
It looks scary but it really boils down to 1-way or 2-way traffic. The first two scenarios work 2-way whereas the last two work one way only. So in the first two, you can:
- say the illah (buying) and mean the ma’lul (owning) OR
- say the ma’lul (owning) and mean the illah (buying).
you will be believed.
So in scenario 1, half the house in your current ownership is not waqf. Bcs you said ownership and ownership means ‘completest ownership at one time’ which wasn't found.
In scenario 2, half the house in your current ownership is now waqf. (you can not take it back, its gone). Why? bcs even though I used the word ‘own’ I meant ‘buying’ and ‘buying’ is established even if im buying a share of the house.
So far, we were discussing illah (cause on which ruling depends) and ma’lul (ruling which necessarily results whenever effective cause is found). So saying either -illah or ma’liul- and meaning the other establishes the ruling of the intended word. 2 way traffic.
The second sub-branch of majaz mursal, which works ONLY 1 way is sabab (cause) and musabbab (effect/ruling). You can say the sabab and mean the musabbab but NOT the other way round.
So ‘freeing’ one’s slave is the cause for ‘divorce’ i.e. if a slave girl is freed, her nikah is no longer binding and she has the right for divorce. (Story of Bareerah), but the other way round doesnt work i.e. ‘divorce’ is not a cause for ‘freedom’.
Hence,
Scenario 3: wife is divorced.
Scenario 4. wife is NOT free.
Refs:
Ifadat al-anwar p127–129
