Usool At-tafseer by Shu‘bah ibn al-Hajjaaj, Sufyaan ibn ‘Uyaynah and it was translated by Dr. M. Abdul Haq Ansari

This pair of concepts is similar to the paired concepts, ‘aamm and khaass. A major difference is that the word which is ‘aamm encompasses every member of the category it names, whereas the mutlaq word usually applies to any one of a multitude, but not to all.93 For instance, if I say to a servant, “Give ten dollars to every high school graduate who comes to the house,” this expression is ‘aamm.

The servant would not be in compliance with my command unless he gives ten dollars to every individual who meets those qualifications. On the other hand, if I told him, “Give ten dollars to a (miskeen) poor person,” 94 this expression is mutlaq. He would be in compliance if he gave it to a single individual who is poor.

The mutlaq may be defined as a word or phrase which expresses a nonfigurative idea without placing any limitations on it. It refers to one type of thing without being specific and usually occurs in the form of an indefinite noun (annakirah) in an affirmative statement. Terms like “a slave,” “a chair,” or “a dog” would be mutlaq, whereas “a believing slave,” “a metal chair,” or “a Filipino man” would all be muqayyad, because each indefinite noun has been qualified and restricted by an adjective (sifah).

Allaah states in the Qur’aan that the expiation for breaking oaths in God’s name is either,

There are no limitations as to what type of slave may be freed. However, the type of slave has been restricted in the following verse:

One of the issues discussed by the scholars of usool al-fiqh is the permissibly of applying a muqayyad expression from one text of the Qur’aan or Sunnah to a mutlaq expression in another text. There are certain circumstances in which there is consensus of the permissibility of this deductive tool, and there are other circumstances where scholars agree it is not allowed to do so, and there are circumstances in which there is some difference of opinion. In order to clarify the issue, the mutlaq and muqayyad verses have been placed in four main categories in relation to the underlying reason (sabab) for their revelation and the agreement or disagreement of the rules (hukm) which they contain.

An example is the fourth option in atoning (kaffaarah) for breaking an oath taken in Allaah’s name, i.e., to fast three days. This principle is mutlaq in the Qur’aan as follows:

However, in the recitation of Ibn Mas‘ood, it was muqayyad:

Thus, some scholars ruled that since the sabab (breaking an oath taken in Allaah’s name) was the same in both recitations, and the hukm (fasting) was the same, the mutlaq rule should be understood according to the muqayyad recitation. There is general agreement about the validity of applying the muqayyad text to the mutlaq text in this category, as long as both texts are authentic.

A similar case where most scholars agree on the validity of applying the muqayyad to the mutlaq is the prohibition of eating blood. In several verses of the Qur’aan, blood is prohibited with a mutlaq expression:

However, in verse 145 of Soorah al-An‘aam, Allaah says,

Since the mutlaq and the muqayyad both deal with prohibited foods, it is valid to say that the only type of prohibited blood is that which is poured forth. Therefore, the blood that seeps from meat while it is being cooked is not prohibited.99

An example of this category is the case of cleaning the hands100 during the performance of wudoo’ and tayammum.101 In the verse on purification,

the word “hands” in making wudoo’ is muqayyad; whereas in the same verse concerning tayammum, it is left mutlaq:103

In these examples, the sabab (loss of one’s state of purity) is the same in both cases; however, the hukm is different in that water is used in the case of wudoo’ and more body parts are cleaned; whereas dust is used only on the face and hands in the case of tayammum. Hence, the mutlaq should not be interpreted according to the muqayyad. In fact, authentic hadeeths describing tayammum specify the wrists as the limit. The sahaabee ‘Ammaar ibn Yaasir reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) told him to strike both of his hands on the ground once, blow on them, and then wipe his face and hands, left hand on right, up to the wrists.105

The atonement (kaffaarah) of freeing a slave is a good example of this category. In the case of accidental murder, the word slave is muqayyad:

But in the case of thihaar 107 the word is mutlaq:

There is obviously no basis here for interpreting the mutlaq according to the muqayyad. A believer’s life was taken, hence the requirement is that the freed slave be a believer; whereas in the case of breaking of oaths made by thihaar or otherwise, the freeing of any slave is sufficient.

An example of this category is in the case of the hand in wudoo’ and theft. In the verse on purification previously mentioned, the hand is made muqayyad by the phrase, “up to the elbows,” but in the case of theft, it is left mutlaq. Consider the following:

Here again, the mutlaq cannot be specified by the muqayyad, especially since it was reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) limited the amputation of hands to the wrist and so did the Righteous Caliphs.110