Khafiy — bu shunday lafz (so'z ifodasi) bo'lib, uning ma'noga dalolati (ko'rsatishi) zohir (aniq) bo'ladi.

The Khafiy is the Lafzh (wording) which its Dalaalah (implication/indication) upon its meaning is Zhaahir (apparent)

bu hukmning ma'nolarini ayrim afrod (ushbu ma'noga kiradigan alohida masalalar)ga tatbiq etishda noaniqlik va aniq emaslik bor. Shuning uchun ushbu noaniqlik va aniqsizlikni bartaraf etish uchun bu masalalarni o'rganish va mulohaza yuritish talab etiladi.

except that there is obscurity and lack of clarity in respect to the application of its meanings to some of its Afraad (individual matters falling within it). These then require some examination and deliberation in order to remove the obscurity and lack of clarity.

Noaniqlik yoki aniq emaslikni bartaraf etish, matn qo'llanishi kerak bo'lgan voqelikni tahlil qilish orqali ijtihod yordamida amalga oshiriladi.

The removal of the obscurity or lack of clarity would be undertaken by Ijtihaad in analysing the reality that the text is intended to be applied upon.

Bu ijtihod tahqiq al-manot (nassning qo‘llanishi kerak bo‘lgan haqiqatni aniqlash) ni talab qiladi, ya’ni nass qaratilgan voqelikni aniq o‘rganib, u nassga kiradimi yoki yo‘qmi, shuni bilishdir.

This Ijtihaad requires the Tahqeeq Al-Manaat (ascertaining of the reality) i.e. studying the reality that the Nass (text) is intended to be applied upon in a precise manner, in order to know whether it is encompassed within the text or not.

Misol:

Example:

Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

Allah (swt) said:

Lafz "as-Saariq" (o‘g‘ri) ma’nosi ravshan. Shar’iy jihatdan "as-Saraqah" (o‘g‘rilik) esa quyidagicha: "Boshqaga tegishli, ma’lum qiymatga ega bo‘lgan ko‘chma mulkni odatdagi saqlash joyidan (hirz) yashirincha olish".

In respect to the Lafzh ‘As-Saariq’ (thief), its meaning is clear whilst As-Saraqah (theft) in accordance to the Shar’a is: ‘The taking of a movable property of a (certain) value owned by someone else covertly from a normal place of safekeeping (Hirz)’.

Va hirz – bu mol-mulk odatda qo‘yiladigan va xavfsiz saqlanadigan joy.

And the Hirz is the place that property is normally put and kept safe in.

Biroq fuqahо bu ma’noning turli xil o‘g‘irlik shakllariga qo‘llanishida ixtilof qilganlar. Ular turli nomlar bilan atalgan o‘g‘irliklarga, masalan, an-nashl (cho‘ntakdan o‘g‘irlash) ga nisbatan ham ixtilof qilganlar. Bu xil o‘g‘irlik odamlarning cho‘ntaklaridan mol-mulkni tez va juda yashirincha olishdir.

However, the Fuqahaa’ differed in respect to the application of this meaning upon different forms of theft which have been given different (specific) names like An-Nashl (pickpocketing) for instance which is the taking of property quickly and in a highly covert manner from the people’s pockets.

Nash’shaal (cho‘ntakkesar) – o‘g‘rimi? Shuning uchun cho‘ntakkesarlikka o‘g‘rilik (saraqa) hukmi taalluq qiladimi yoki yo‘qmi, bilish uchun ijtihod zarur. Agar taalluq qilsa, o‘g‘rilik hukmi joriy bo‘ladi va saraqaning arkoni (rukunlari) mavjud bo‘lsa, cho‘ntakkesarning qo‘li kesiladi. Shu sababli ba’zi fuqahalar cho‘ntakkesarni o‘g‘ri deb hisoblab, qo‘lini kesish lozim deganlar, boshqalari esa uni o‘g‘ri deb hisoblamay, unga qozi yoki hokim belgilagan ta’zir (ixtiyoriy) jazo qo‘llanilishi kerak deganlar. Ular qabr o‘g‘risi (nabbosh) haqida ham ixtilof qilganlar – ya’ni o‘likning kafanini yoki o‘lik ustidagi narsalarni olish uchun qabrni qazuvchi kishi o‘g‘rimi yoki yo‘qmi? Shunday ekan, “sориq” (o‘g‘ri) so‘zi lafzan barcha o‘g‘rilarning qo‘lini kesish vojibligiga nisbatan zohir (aniq) bo‘lsa-da, cho‘ntakkesar va qabr o‘g‘risi uchun esa xafiy (noaniq) bo‘lib qoladi, chunki xalq urfida ular o‘g‘ri nomidan boshqa nom bilan atalgan. Cho‘ntakkesarni boshqa nom bilan atash o‘g‘rilikka qo‘shimcha ma’no berish uchun qilingan, chunki u hushyor kishidan, yashirinlik yo‘lidan emas, o‘g‘irlaydi. Qabr o‘g‘risining nomi esa o‘g‘rilik ma’nosining pasayishi sababli berilgan, chunki u mol-mulkini saqlash yoki asrashni niyat qilmagan o‘likdan o‘g‘irlaydi. Demak, bularning barchasi “sориq” lafzi yuzasidan xafiydir. Shu sababli cho‘ntakkesar va qabr o‘g‘risiga o‘g‘ri hukmini qo‘llash uchun ijtihod zarurdir.

So is the Nash’shaal (pickpocket) a Saariq (thief)? Ijtihaad is therefore required to know whether the Saraqah (theft) applies to An-Nashl (pickpocketing). If it does apply, then the Hukm of Saraqah (thievery) would apply and the hand of the pickpocket would be cut if the Arkaan (pillars) of the crime of theft are met. Consequently, some of the Fuqahaa considered the pickpocket to be a Saariq (thief) and deserving of the cutting whilst others did not consider him to be so and as such a Ta’zeer (discretionary) punishment would be applied upon him as determined by the Qaadiy (judge) or the Imaam (ruler) would. They also differed in respect to the Nabbaash (grave robber) who is the one who robs the graves to take the shrouds or what is upon the dead. Is such a person a Saariq (thief) or not? Consequently, the Lafzh (wording) ‘Saariq’ is Zhaahir (apparent) in relation to the obligation of amputating the hand in regards to every Saariq. This is whilst it is, at the same time, Khafiy (unclear) in regards to the pickpocket and the grave robber because they have been specified with a name that is different to the thief within the ‘Urf (custom/tradition) of the people of the language. That is because specifying the pickpocket with another name has been done for the purpose of providing additional meaning to the Saraqah (theft). That is because he is stealing from the one who is alert and not upon the angle of hiddenness (Wajh Al-Khafiyah). In addition, the specifying of the name of the ‘Nabbaash’ (grave robber) is due to a decrease in respect to the meaning of the theft (Saraqah) because he is stealing from the dead who is not intending to safeguard or preserve his property. Consequently, all of this is Khafiy (unclear) in regards to the Lafzh (worded expression) of the ‘Saariq’ (thief). For that reason, Ijtihaad is required in order to apply the Hukm of the Saariq (thief) upon both the pickpocket and the grave robber.

1 – Nass (matn) umumiy ma'nosi (al-madlul al-'aamm) doirasiga kirishi shubhali bo'lgan alohida masalalar (afrod)ga tatbiq etilmaydi.

1 – The Nass (text) does not apply to the Afraad (individual matters) in which there is doubt in respect to them entering within its general indicated meaning (Al-Madlool Al-‘Aamm).

2 – U hukm Afrod ustiga qo'llaniladi, ular orasida lafzning ma'nosi mavjudligini ijtihod ko'rsatgan bo'lsa, shu holda hukm ularning ustiga qo'llaniladi.

2 – It is applied upon the Afraad which the Ijtihaad has shown the realisation of the meaning of the Lafzh (wording) within them and in that case the Hukm is applied upon them.

3 – Faqihlar ijtihodlarining natijalari yuzasidan kelishishlari ham, ixtilof qilishlari ham mumkin edi. Shuning uchun ulardan ba'zilari matnni alohida afrodga (shaxslarga) tatbiq etdilar, boshqalari esa o'sha afrodga tatbiq etmadilar, xuddi cho'ntakkesar va qabr o'g'risi masalasida yuz bergani kabi. Buning sababi shuki, ba'zi faqihlar o'g'rilik (saraqa) hukmini ikkalasiga ham tatbiq etdilar, boshqalari ikkalasini ham matn ma'nosidan tashqariga chiqardilar, yana boshqalari esa hukmni cho'ntakkesarga tatbiq etib, qabr o'g'risiga tatbiq etmadilar.

3 – The Fuqahaa could agree and they could disagree in respect to the result of their Ijtihaadaat and so some of them apply the text to the Afraad (individual elements) whilst others do not apply it upon the same Afraad, just as what happened in regards to the subject of the pickpocket and the grave robber. That is because some of the Fuqahaa applied the Hukm of Saraqah (theft) to both, others took them both outside of the meaning of the text whilst others still applied it upon the pickpocket but not the grave robber.